Replies

The original statement said nothing about “imputed”.
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

That is true and that is why I said that it is a misleading statistic. A person’s TRUE income is his cash income plus his imputed income, for some people the cash income is all of it but for others the imputed income is far greater than the cash income. I have a fireplace and I have plenty of hardwood trees, if I turn off the central heat and cut wood to heat my house am I heating for nothing? Not in my book. I am simply working cutting wood for IMPUTED income rather than selling the firewood for cash. That is why I quarrel with reports that report a miniscule income and say that people are “living” on that income. That is why I don’t believe that all these people are “living” on two dollars a day or less. There was one news report that showed pictures of a man who claims to be Barack Obama’s half brother and he is reported to be “living” on less than a dollar a month! Tell me that isn’t absurd. Without consideration of imputed income a person who survives without any cash income is “living on nothing” as the title of your thread implies. Show me someone who actually lives on “nothing” and I will show you a dead body.

Actually imputed income is much to be preferred because at this time the vampires in DC haven’t figured out a way to tax it. They are working on it though, schemes have been proposed but not passed into law...YET.

As an aside to this, have you seen the reports of people who have a net worth of over a million dollars but are listed by the government as living below poverty level? It actually is possible in this country, a family can own a farm or ranch worth a million or more, grow their own food, drive old vehicles and tractors that they maintain for themselves and live on a cash income that is a dollar less than the official “poverty” line and be listed as living in poverty.