If you have a negative net worth then I consider you poor no matter how much money you make

But yes obviously there are levels to it however regardless if you are buying overpriced fast food when you could be cooking at home for much cheaper that's not good for anybody especially if you don't make a lot of money... So what's your point other than trying to argue over the definition of poor?

If you don't have an emergency fund and your car breaks down and then you have to get into debt to fix it and then you have to spend more paying interest on that debt and you get stuck in a cycle... Compare that to reducing your expenses by not buying fast food and building up an emergency fund and not getting stuck in that situation to begin with

I guess that distinction in poor matters some to me, because when I read your original comment (budgeting to avoid staying poor) the first thing that came to mind was someone I know who often says things like poor people should just work harder and variations of that. And then I'm thinking like food deserts or people dealing with more pressing issues where there's probably a general inability to do any long term planning. And in that context it comes across as out of touch or like a naive solution to a complex problem, but then I guess you also have broke college students and others who could certainly heed this advice, not just necessarily low income people.

> So what's your point other than trying to argue over the definition of poor?

Because people make political decisions about programs that support the "poor" and the definition matters.

In particular, if a program supports the "poor" and winds up handing money to someone who is making $100K, there are a lot of people who will scream about that and attempt to cut off all support for all poor people.

This was the whole the point behind the racist "welfare queens" dog whistles, for example.