Comments on "Psychotherapy, classism, and the poor: Conspicuous by their absence" by Laura Smith (see record 2005-11834-002). Smith is to be commended for identifying a critical missing area in applied psychology: the inclusion of people who are poor into training, education, research, and practice. But in advocating for psychology to be inclusive, Smith used conceptualizations of social class and classism that do not address the complexity of social class and classism in psychology. First, the language Smith used to discuss social class was atheoretical. She used the terms social class, class, social status, the poor, and poverty to address social class as a construct, and she did not operationalize her terms. The second limitation in Smith's article was her aggregating and labeling of people who are poor. By categorizing people in this situation as "poor people" rather than as "people who are poor," Smith made "poor people" a dispositional attribute. Finally, Smith's conceptualization of classism does not consider the networks of power (Liu & Pope-Davis, 2003b) that are integral in maintaining and perpetuating inequality and marginalization. Because power is complex, conceptualizations of oppression and marginalization should be as well. Psychologists hoping to decrease inequality in society need to combat disparities with a clear idea of how social class and classism function.