New Hampshire family to defy school tax

[RightinNYC]

No, that is subjective, a person feels they need more, when they actually don't. I say if you can't afford to eat, you are poor. Period. Now how much it actually costs you to eat is going to vary by where you live.

Well, yes, I would agree that if a person doesn't have a home and food in their kitchen, they're poor. But that certainly does not describe 16% of the population. Thus, there must be other factors raising the bar of poverty to include more people. If the only criteria for not being poor were having those two things, there would be very few people listed as "poor" in the US...

 

[Kelzie]

Well, yes, I would agree that if a person doesn't have a home and food in their kitchen, they're poor. But that certainly does not describe 16% of the population. Thus, there must be other factors raising the bar of poverty to include more people. If the only criteria for not being poor were having those two things, there would be very few people listed as "poor" in the US...

So you do agree that there are some criteria for poverty that is not subjective than? Then the line just need to be found. You can't say it doesn't exist, it's just not easy to define. If a person can afford the basic, they are not poor. If they can buy a TV, they shouldn't be considered poor.

 

[ludahai]

So you do agree that there are some criteria for poverty that is not subjective than? Then the line just need to be found. You can't say it doesn't exist, it's just not easy to define. If a person can afford the basic, they are not poor. If they can buy a TV, they shouldn't be considered poor.

If that is your standard, than virtually NO ONE in the U.S. would be considered poor as even people living in the projects typically have a TV. You cited numbers from poverty statistics in the 1960s. I think it is becoming increasingly clear, even from your own statements, that you cited statistic was subjective, as people with TVs and AC are certainly included in that statistic. HEck, there are many people on food stamps classified as living in poverty, but are eating lobster in the summer. I wouldn't have believed it if I hadn't seen it with my own eyes repeatedly growing up in NH.

 

[Kelzie]

If that is your standard, than virtually NO ONE in the U.S. would be considered poor as even people living in the projects typically have a TV. You cited numbers from poverty statistics in the 1960s. I think it is becoming increasingly clear, even from your own statements, that you cited statistic was subjective, as people with TVs and AC are certainly included in that statistic. HEck, there are many people on food stamps classified as living in poverty, but are eating lobster in the summer. I wouldn't have believed it if I hadn't seen it with my own eyes repeatedly growing up in NH.

That certainly isn't my standard. I am just saying that if there are parts of poverty that we can agree are objective like the ability to afford food and housing, than the line can be drawn at the boundry of subjective and objective. Therefore, since the line can be drawn to represent the subjective part of poverty, one can not say that the poverty line, in and of itself is subjective.

 

[Hume]

That's a DEMOCRACY. Sounds like you are the one who likes a dictatorship.

Who's forcing you to pay? Who's holding a gun to your head? If you don't like it, leave. I promise you, if you are being robbed, you don't have the same choice.

That's a pretty pathetic argement. "You don't like it? Leave." Give up instead of fighting for what you think is right. That logic'll really advance society.

 

[ludahai]

That certainly isn't my standard. I am just saying that if there are parts of poverty that we can agree are objective like the ability to afford food and housing, than the line can be drawn at the boundry of subjective and objective. Therefore, since the line can be drawn to represent the subjective part of poverty, one can not say that the poverty line, in and of itself is subjective.

But if you rememeber, you were citing statistics relating to the decline of poverty in the 1960s during the Great Society as a measure of its effectiveness. That measure of poverty was every bit subjective. It is measured based on what someone values people SHOULD be able to have, not what they NEED. In this case, they are two entirely different things. Most people on welfare benefits and living in theoretical poverty can afford TVs, VCRs, lobster in the summer (at least in NH), etc. THAT isn't poverty. The stat you were citing is not a realistic measure of true poverty, something that you are yourself admitting to now.

 

[Kelzie]

But if you rememeber, you were citing statistics relating to the decline of poverty in the 1960s during the Great Society as a measure of its effectiveness. That measure of poverty was every bit subjective. It is measured based on what someone values people SHOULD be able to have, not what they NEED. In this case, they are two entirely different things. Most people on welfare benefits and living in theoretical poverty can afford TVs, VCRs, lobster in the summer (at least in NH), etc. THAT isn't poverty. The stat you were citing is not a realistic measure of true poverty, something that you are yourself admitting to now.

:shock: I would never admit to something like that. Me? Admit defeat?!? Never!! If the amount of people living in subjective poverty went down, than obviously, they amount of people living in objective poverty went down too. And I am not at all sure the poverty line in the US is subjective. Twelve grand for a family of four does not sound like it's going to buy all that much IMO. I should say that health care should also be an objective criteria for poverty. If you can't afford to take your kids to the doctors, you are poor.