What income level is considered rich and poor for a 2 person family in 2005-2006?
489374
Depends on where you live.
255296
Rule of thumb, 2.5 times income
874068
Steve F's answer is dead on for 2006.  For 2005, the $5,000 standard deduction is added to one exemption $3,200 or two exemptions $6,400 to get the total deduction.\n\nThe total deduction for one exemption is $8,200 ($5,000+$3,200)and for two it is $11,400.\n\nTotal taxable income is $1,800 ($10,000-$8,200) for one and $0 for two.\n\nTotal tax is $180 (10% of $1,800) for one and $0 for two.\n\nSo, in 2005, your tax savings for claiming a dependent is $180.  For 2006, your tax savings for claiming a dependent is $155.  Something, but not much.  If the dependent is your qualifying child, you may get to claim the Earned Income Credit and/or Child Tax Credit to increase your refund, but that is a totally different topic.
18138
Sorry, I couldn't find any stats for 2005, but as of 2004 the number of Americans under the poverty line was around 37 million.
706623
The tough thing here is we have a lot of definitions of "middle class", much less wealthy. \n\nPoor or low income=Under $20,000\nMiddle is somewhere between $20,000 and $75,000 but \nUpper Income is generally defined as over $200,000\nWealthy are those that make over $1,000,000 a year\n\nFormerly in the financial wealth management(financial planning) biz, I can tell you everyone uses different standards. But, in general, wealth is determined by a mix of net worth and annual income. (Someone making $100,000 yet has $1,000,000 in assets or someone who makes $800,000 yet has only $200,000 in assets would both be potential clients-as yes, they both exist.\n\nI've also noted that the more money one makes, the more tax deductions and credits they can take advantage of-there are few deductions for most middle class excepting mortgage interest or child credits yet at $200,000 and up, believe me, there are many!\nI've seen a $500,000 income reduced to $38,000 "taxable". If you have a nice income, pay for a good tax attorney!  \n\nAs to the Democrats, the estate tax only benefits the "rich"-those with over $2,000,000 in assets and will increase to 3.5 million so I believe that will be back on the table. I believe they will concentrate first on the obvious-the upper rates of $200,000 and above. We somehow have to pay for this debt we've accumulated from the lowering of taxes(revenue) and the cost of the war. It really matters not whether Republican or Democrat-when a business(or the government) loses a source of income and costs go up, you must find a way to pay! The US Govt has a lot better credit than most but sooner or later....so I'd personally be willing to give my tax break back-it wasn't much at my $40,000 a year income-and I hate to pass on the debt to my son.\n\nAnd a piece of advice-the 401k is one of the best savings vehicles ever-contribute all you can up to the limit but especially whatever your employer matches.A great deal for any income bracket!
20983
For 2005: $14K\nFor 2006: $15K
925742
Income yes except for those that make poverty wages; wealth no, that would be like taxing someones income twice.
716145
Depends on "how" you mean by rich.  If you mean financially, just look at their clothes, car, accessories, home.\n\nBut there are other ways to be "rich."  I am rich in the fact that I have two beautiful wonderful happy healthy children, I have a wonderful loving family support system, my parents live next-door as does my brother and his family.   I have a wonderful extended family that is here, we all keep in touch, all across the States.  And we have pets that we consider part of our families.\n\nYou can tell, just by the smiles on their faces.  By the fact they have people around them.
338171
"This chart provides a time series perspective on median household income.  As already noted, the 2004 median money income for all households was unchanged from the year before, at $44,400"
454063
Unfortunately, there is not data for that age range in particular. In 2005, 18-21 year olds made an average of £9,410, 22-29 year olds made £19,104, and 30-39 year olds made £25,712 per year. Coming up with an amount of how much it costs to live is somewhat more difficult. See the site below for the Consumer Price Index.
247362
6.2% of your income with the income cutoff at 94,200
143923
Collectively, for 2005, the federal government collected\nthe following:\n\nIndividual Income Taxes: 927.222 (billion)\nCorporate Income Taxes: 278.282 (billion)\nSocial Security: 794.125 (billion)\nExcise Taxes: 73.094 (billion)\nOther: 81.136 (billion)\n\nSee page 31 of reference #1\n\nIndividually, federal income taxes are based on\nthe following tables:\n\nFiling single\n-------------\n\nUp to $7300: 10%\nUp to $29700: $730 + 15% of anything over $7300\nUp to $71950: $4090 + 25% of anything over $29700\nUp to $150150: $14652 + 28% of anything over $71950\nUp to $326450: $36548 + 33% of anything over $150150\nAbove $326450: $94727 + 35% of anything over $326450\n\nFiling joint:\n-------------\n\nUp to $14600: 10%\nUp to $59400: $1460 + 15% of anything over $14600\nUp to $119950: $8180 + 25% of anything over $59400\nUp to $182800: $23317 + 28% of anything over $119950\nUp to $326450: $40915 + 33% of anything over $182800\nAbove $326450: $88320 + 35% of anything over $326450\n\n\nSo, for example, if you are single and make $40000,\nyou would fit into the "Up to $71950" category and\nyour calculation would be:\n\n$4090 + 25% of (40000-29700)\n$4090 + 0.25 * (10300)\n$4090 + $2575\n$6665\n\nFor more information, see reference #2.
407271
It is alarming how misinformed most people are about the Federal income tax and all other state and local taxes.  The "Rich" pay in excess of 80% of federal individual income taxes.  The "Rich" pay close to 40 cents of every dollar they earn in Federal and State income taxes.  If you want to talk "fair," how fair is it for someone to work hard in school and then life and then fork over almost half of what they make to someone else.  The "Rich" also pay more than the majority of all local property taxes.  The "Poor" are eligible for the EITC which gives them back more money than they pay in federal income taxes.  Most "poor" people really resent the "wealthy" not the "rich."  If a "Rich" person stops working, she will no longer be "Rich" and will be eligible for the same EITC that "Poor" people receive.  The "Wealthy" never have to work another day in their lives and if smart, never pay the taxes that the "Rich" do.  I blame the misinformation mostly on CPAs like myself who don't do a very good job at telling our complaining clients to shut up and try working a little smarter.
605042
If you could find "middle class" average people who agree. I do not think we could agree on who is middle class Harvard says single income of $41,000 & 2 income family of $72,000. I think anything below $150,000 is middle class. \nMy friends & I are middle class people, we do not live in mansions or have chaueffers, we are just regular people & we do not vote alike very often.\n\nIt is someone's dream that would would be democrats - and our nightmare. Middle Income - Kennedys, Clintons, Kerrys, rockafellares, Fords, Gates, Clooney, Oprah - I want their middle class income.
1161764
It depends on how much she earns.  The taxable income will go up and the tax.  The amount should be proportional to the current tax bracket.\n\nFor 2006, the married tax brackets are at\nup to 15k, 10%\nup to 61k, 15%\nup to 123k, 25%\nup to 188k, 28%\nup to 336k, 33%\nmore than 336k, 35%
872462
Your local Division of Family Services has a WHOLE list of them.\n\nOne of which is Section 8 housing and i$ based on a sliding scale according to your income...or at least that's the way it is here in Missouri.
10427
Based on data I could find on World Bank assessments of per capita income by country and US poverty definitions, I would estimate that of the 180+ countries in the world, only the 46 nations defined as  "high income" or "upper middle income" are above the US official poverty level.  Keep in mind that poverty level is defined in part by cost of living, which tends to be lower in less-developed nations.