I mean no offense, but I don’t think this is true.
I don’t think anyone who makes $200,000 a year is considered poor under legal definitions or under the casual common use of the term.
You could make $200k and be in debt. You could make $200k and be in a precarious situation. But I don’t think you can make $200k and qualify as in poverty, either legally or in the court of public opinion.
I saw it, and it said that a household of eight living on an income of $200k would be “low income”.
First, “low income” is not poor, either legally or in the informal definition of the word. Even according to the chart you’re referencing, $200k is far above the poverty line. It’s more than twice the cutoff for “extremely low income”.
Second, this is also based on an absurd qualifier: It’s only “low” if you’re trying to support seven dependents.
By this logic, $300k a year is poor too (if you’re supporting a household of 12), and a million a year is also poor (if you’re supporting a household of 40 in San Francisco).
This is silly. If your monthly income is $16k you aren’t poor.
You can still be broke. You can be in debt. But no: you are not poor.
OP didn’t really ask for your definition of the word. OP asked broadly and in quotes. And, yes with a large enough amount of mouths to feed and house, 300k could not be enough to support that and you could be poor. Granted, its unlikely.
All of that aside, I think you’re just biased because you don’t live in an area like SF. To you 200k seems like a lot of money, so you can’t fathom being poor with that income. Poverty line in parts of the bay area is $150k.
What you don’t seem to understand is the cost of housing. A 3 bedroom apartment or house (normal boring house) will cost between $5000-$20000/month. That is barely affordable on $200,000 after taxes.
Licensed childcare runs between $2500 and $4000 per month per child here in the Bay Area; $200k salary is about $150k after tax. Doesn’t take a terribly big family to totally exhaust that amount if both parents need to work to bring it in.
In some parts of america with a larger family, yes.
I mean no offense, but I don’t think this is true.
I don’t think anyone who makes $200,000 a year is considered poor under legal definitions or under the casual common use of the term.
You could make $200k and be in debt. You could make $200k and be in a precarious situation. But I don’t think you can make $200k and qualify as in poverty, either legally or in the court of public opinion.
You can find elsewhere in the thread where the guy shared the chart about San Francisco. So, what I said is true.
I saw it, and it said that a household of eight living on an income of $200k would be “low income”.
First, “low income” is not poor, either legally or in the informal definition of the word. Even according to the chart you’re referencing, $200k is far above the poverty line. It’s more than twice the cutoff for “extremely low income”.
Second, this is also based on an absurd qualifier: It’s only “low” if you’re trying to support seven dependents.
By this logic, $300k a year is poor too (if you’re supporting a household of 12), and a million a year is also poor (if you’re supporting a household of 40 in San Francisco).
This is silly. If your monthly income is $16k you aren’t poor.
You can still be broke. You can be in debt. But no: you are not poor.
OP didn’t really ask for your definition of the word. OP asked broadly and in quotes. And, yes with a large enough amount of mouths to feed and house, 300k could not be enough to support that and you could be poor. Granted, its unlikely.
All of that aside, I think you’re just biased because you don’t live in an area like SF. To you 200k seems like a lot of money, so you can’t fathom being poor with that income. Poverty line in parts of the bay area is $150k.
What you don’t seem to understand is the cost of housing. A 3 bedroom apartment or house (normal boring house) will cost between $5000-$20000/month. That is barely affordable on $200,000 after taxes.
Looking at you, San Francisco. .
$200k is not poor in San Francisco.
It’s still significantly above average, even in San Francisco.
Licensed childcare runs between $2500 and $4000 per month per child here in the Bay Area; $200k salary is about $150k after tax. Doesn’t take a terribly big family to totally exhaust that amount if both parents need to work to bring it in.
I’m not saying that you can’t run out of money if you make $200k. I’m saying that it’s not poor.
If earning well above average in an area with a high concentration of high earners can be poor, the word means nothing.