Bogus? Sorry, Bobert, that number came from the chart that JtS posted a link to. And it is in the ballpark with the link that Bruce posted. As to your source, I went to the Charlotte Observer on line(which you could have done, and should have done) and dug out and read all the articles about income and poverty that I could find back to Sept 2011, and I could find nothing like what you claimed was there. Not only that, in the articles I read, they tended to cite the $50k number. So...

Anyway, I am sorry Eliza got chased off, because she tried to focus on the larger issue--which has to do with the fact that most of the world's resources go to benefit the "First Worlders" half of whom Bobert seems to think are dangerously impoverished.

Anyway, JtS, I don't know how the census bureau differentiates between "household" and "family" , and I can't look into it today. I've looked at more detailed breakout of the census low income numbers though, and I noticed the curious fact that many of those low income households have no wage earner and average less than one member. It makes me think that the numbers are based on income tax records. That may mean that many of the "poor" households are poor because they don't have much taxable income-keep in mind that annuities and pensions may be only partially taxed, so the part that shows up on income tax records is only part of a larger income.