Is the problem with Democrats label of "Rich" and "Poor" misguided by set dollar

[T-Bone]

amounts and not locations? Democrats place labels on "Rich" and "Poor" based on set dollar amounts not taking into account the standards of living in different locations in the United States. Is this wrong? what say you?

[Believe What You Want]

What democrat did that?

[justagirl]

Both Democrats and Republicans are guilty. Thankfully, most people who answered my question brought up location (including Democrats).

[popeyethesadist]

If you have to engineer in "location" to the equation. You are not truly rich. A "rich" person does not work, they are capitalists.

[grumpyoldman]

The problem is that you think only the Democrats do it. That is what say I.

[Yahoo Answer Angel]

I think their failure to account for the reasons that some are rich and some are poor is where they are misguided.

If a citizen is rich due to their own hard work and planning, why punish them by taxation.

If a citizen is poor because they are idle, have a substance abuse problem, or make terrible decisions, why reward them?

Let people keep what they earn. If they earn little or nothing, then that's what they get. Nothing else needs to be done by the government, the private citizen can decide if they need to work more to get more.

[itsyourworld_changeit]

The problem is in defining WHO's "rich" and who's "poor".

The truth is that those with incomes over $200,000 are only “middle-class” if you believe that people who are among the richest 3 percent of Americans are in the “middle.”

We estimate that in 2008, only 3.2 percent of taxpayers will have adjusted gross income (AGI) greater than $200,000 and only 2.1 percent will have AGI over $250,000.
By state, the percentage of taxpayers with AGI above $200,000 ranges from a high of 6 percent in Connecticut and Washington, D.C. down to only 1.3 percent in West
Virginia.

Would It Be Better for Politicians to Talk About the “Richest One Percent” or “Richest Two Percent” Rather than Income Levels?
It’s tempting to believe that lawmakers and political candidates might communicate their intentions better if they talked about those who would be affected by their tax
plans in terms of percentages. Perhaps a tax plan would repeal the Bush tax cuts for the “richest 1 percent” or the “richest 2 percent” or something like that. Surely, almost
everyone knows they’re not in the richest one or two percent, right?
Wrong. This tactic has actually caused even more confusion. You might think that everyone knows what percentage of Americans are in the top one percent of the income scale. Alas, big-city journalists, network television personalities and lots of ordinary people often get the answer ridiculously wrong.
A Time Magazine poll in 2000 found that 19 percent of those surveyed believed themselves to be among the richest 1 percent of Americans. Another 20 percent said they expected to one day be among the richest 1 percent. This goes way beyond the Lake Wobegon effect, where everyone is above average. It has been speculated by pundits like David Brooks of the New York Times that this is why Al Gore’s accurate charge that George W. Bush’s tax plan would primarily help the richest one percent of Americans didn’t have the devastating effect that many people thought it should have.

This year, the best-off one percent will have an estimated average income of $1.5 million each. Just to get into this elite group requires an income greater than $466,000.
If all of that comes from wages, then for single people it takes an average wage of $224 an hour to make it into the top one percent, and $722 an hour to become an average
member.
For two-earner couples with both spouses working full time, it takes an average wage for each spouse of $112 an hour to get into the top one percent and $361 an hour each
to be an average member of the top one percent. How many people do you think make that much?
The share of each state’s residents who are in the top one percent nationally varies from a high of about 2 percent in Washington, D.C. and Connecticut down to a low of only 0.4 percent in West Virginia. But even in DC and Connecticut, only one out of fifty residents is in the top 1 percent nationally.
Where do the members of the top one percent live? A third of them can be found in just three states, California, New York and Florida. Half reside in nine coastal or mountain states, each of which has a higher than one-percent share of its residents in the top one percent nationally. These nine states include: California and Washington state on the west coast, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York and New Jersey in the
northeast, Florida on two coasts, and Colorado and Nevada in the western mountains. Not surprisingly, wealthy people tend to concentrate in wealthy areas near an ocean or
scenic tall mountains (or in one case, casinos).
In contrast, in 12 other states, only about half a percent of taxpayers make it into the national top one percent. These states include: West Virginia, Arkansas, Ohio, North
Dakota, Kentucky, Mississippi, Iowa, Louisiana, Maine, Indiana, South Dakota and Michigan.

[prekinpdx]

I think the government does this...it is currently run by the GOP. The feds set 'poverty levels' without considering where you live. This isn't a liberal conspiracy. It's done by both parties. Are you saying then, that a person who makes 100,000 a year should be considered poor if surrounded by millionaires? Or a person who makes 10000 a year is rich if surrounded by abject poverty? That's lunacy. A big mac costs the same no matter where you live, buddy. A gallon of milk is the same no matter where you live, etc. So, no, I think our government should set poverty levels that are relevant to the whole country. Again, this ain't no liberal conspiracy. What in the world makes you think this is a 'liberal' idea? Spin spin spin, eh?