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.
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.