The Poor Rich

[nissangirl74]

Todd Henderson is a law professor at the University of Chicago Law School and his wife is a doctor at the University of Chicago Hospital. Together, they make over $250K a year. On September 15, Todd posts a blog about how hard it will be on him and his wife to make it if income taxes increase at the end of this year. He whines about how expensive it is to live in Chicago, the $15K he pays in property tax, his mortgage, the $250K in student loans his wife racked up, his own student loans (undisclosed $ amount), and the cost to send his three children to private schools. Among the usual suspects of expenses that everyone has, utilities, car payments, insurance, cell phones, cable, etc., he also employs a landscaper, a maid, and a baby sitter. He complains he only has a few hundred dollars over each month for discretionary spending. Forgive me for being unmoved by your horrible plight, Mr. Henderson. Do you know how many people could, and DO, live quite comfortably off much less than your salary? Just under 300 million of us. Cry me a freaking river.

The Blog:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/s ... ent=safari

A journalist with the Wall Street Journal gives Mr. Henderson some tough advice and ZERO sympathy:
http://finance.yahoo.com/banking-budget ... -budgeting

[s0m3th1ngAZ]

Just goes to show no matter what people make, they fail to live within their means. Which just boggles my mind how someone can be "struggling" while making 250k a year. Here's a thought, STOP BEING AN OVERCONSUMING DUMBASS.

[nissangirl74]

The wife's student loans blow my mind. I know college is expensive, I'm a student as we speak. However, $250K is a lot of debt for just one debt. That's a year's worth of their combined salaries. I know the odds are against him ever posting a follow-up to that article, but I would be interested to see what their status is a year from now.

[heliochrome85]

med school is retarded expensive. im not shocked at the level of debt, but i am about the level of idiocy

[stebo0728]

Are you suggesting that its your right to dictate his level of lifestyle? Are you also suggesting that he is not entitled to the profits resulting from his intellectual property? It may seem a bit annoying to hear him whine about his situation when many others are dealing with similar issues with smaller incomes. I can understand that, but Im also tired of hearing the lazy "gimme" entitlement crowd whine about the "evil rich" when many times they had the same opportunities and pissed them away cause they wanted to "party" when they were younger. Howd that work out for you? And then someone who didnt waste their wonder years makes off well on their educational investments and now your pissed? Sorry its getting old. Heres a question. Whats a fair % that you could throw out that could be set as a max taxation level? Anyone?

[IBCoupe]

Wait, they're worried that taxes will go up for them and they make $250k? They do realize that the rate increases would only affect the dollar amounts over $250,000 right? So only if they earn more money than $250k they pay more taxes, and only pay taxes on the extra money, right?

[BusyBadger]

Are you suggesting that its your right to dictate his level of lifestyle? Are you also suggesting that he is not entitled to the profits resulting from his intellectual property? It may seem a bit annoying to hear him whine about his situation when many others are dealing with similar issues with smaller incomes. I can understand that, but Im also tired of hearing the lazy "gimme" entitlement crowd whine about the "evil rich" when many times they had the same opportunities and pissed them away cause they wanted to "party" when they were younger. Howd that work out for you? And then someone who didnt waste their wonder years makes off well on their educational investments and now your pissed? Sorry its getting old. Heres a question. Whats a fair % that you could throw out that could be set as a max taxation level? Anyone?

Did you even read all of the original post? Here's a few key words: private school (x3 even!), landscaper, maid, babysitter. Having lived on far less than he makes when I was in Chicago I can suggest public school for the kids, mass transit instead of two cars (what cars are they I wonder?) and renting instead of owning (cuts down on rent/mortgage and no need for a landscaper and probably not the maid either) I've no illusions that he's trying far too hard to maintain an image and lifestyle with a level of income that it can't support (at least in that city).

I'm certainly not trying to tell him how to live his life, and I doubt Helio is either, but to hear someone whine about their situation with a seemingly ample amount of control over his situation is absolutely ridiculous.

The gimme here sounds like the professor and his Dr. Feelgood wife thinking that his title the MD after her name entitles him to spending without consequences.

A journalist with the Wall Street Journal gives Mr. Henderson some tough advice and ZERO sympathy:
http://finance.yahoo.com/banking-budget ... -budgeting

Great link Bex!

[mattblancarte]

I'm certainly not trying to tell him how to live his life, and I doubt Helio is either, but to hear someone whine about their situation with a seemingly ample amount of control over his situation is absolutely ridiculous.

The gimme here sounds like the professor and his Dr. Feelgood wife thinking that his title the MD after her name entitles him to spending without consequences.

Yes you certainly are. No need to be shy about it.

The professor is complaining about taxes going up, not about his inability to live within his budget. He's saying that based on tax increase (on certain brackets of his income), he will be forced to cut back on some of his spending.

So what if his three kids go to private school. Those are private tax-paying entities, too, who employ private citizens.

The financial adviser that wrote the Yahoo! response was all about changing the professor's lifestyle to save him money, thus allowing him to "deal" with federal tax increases.

IB, I don't think the professor was concerned with growing income and how incremental federal income tax rates would affect him. From my take, he was concerned that his income wouldn't be growing, and that increased taxes would be cutting into his already "tight" budget.

[stebo0728]

Did you even read all of the original post? Here's a few key words: private school (x3 even!), landscaper, maid, babysitter. Having lived on far less than he makes when I was in Chicago I can suggest public school for the kids, mass transit instead of two cars (what cars are they I wonder?) and renting instead of owning (cuts down on rent/mortgage and no need for a landscaper and probably not the maid either) I've no illusions that he's trying far too hard to maintain an image and lifestyle with a level of income that it can't support (at least in that city).

I certainly did read the entire thing, and not one of the things listed bothers me, not one of them would I ask him to give up. I reiterate my original post. Who are you, or anyone else, to dictate to this man how to live. Following your logic, can we tell all the people on welfare to drop their $100 a month cellphone? Stop spending what cash you do have on lottery tickets and natty packs? Come on drop the wealth envy and go make something of you own life, then you can whine when the gubment wants to take it all.

Again I ask my question. What % of income would you say is a fair limit? What number is the most % any one person should have to pay from their income? If you just make that a sliding scale number, then what the hell is the incentive to even make a better life for yourself. The folks on welfare have it made these days. Dont have to work, and get whatever they need scott free.

[s0m3th1ngAZ]

Did you even read all of the original post? Here's a few key words: private school (x3 even!), landscaper, maid, babysitter. Having lived on far less than he makes when I was in Chicago I can suggest public school for the kids, mass transit instead of two cars (what cars are they I wonder?) and renting instead of owning (cuts down on rent/mortgage and no need for a landscaper and probably not the maid either) I've no illusions that he's trying far too hard to maintain an image and lifestyle with a level of income that it can't support (at least in that city).

I certainly did read the entire thing, and not one of the things listed bothers me, not one of them would I ask him to give up. I reiterate my original post. Who are you, or anyone else, to dictate to this man how to live. Following your logic, can we tell all the people on welfare to drop their $100 a month cellphone? Stop spending what cash you do have on lottery tickets and natty packs? Come on drop the wealth envy and go make something of you own life, then you can whine when the gubment wants to take it all.

Again I ask my question. What % of income would you say is a fair limit? What number is the most % any one person should have to pay from their income? If you just make that a sliding scale number, then what the hell is the incentive to even make a better life for yourself. The folks on welfare have it made these days. Dont have to work, and get whatever they need scott free.

We wouldn't give two s*** what he does with his money if he didn't create a blog specifically for the purpose of whining about his "struggles". Once he did that, it's open season. He obviously posted the blog for a reason other than vanity...and "help" isn't out of the question. So, we provided advice. And if he's whining that he doesn't have more discretionary income, he's doing something wrong here. It's not about telling him how to live his life, it's providing sound monetary advice (Granted those go hand in hand sometimes).

[IBCoupe]

IB, I don't think the professor was concerned with growing income and how incremental federal income tax rates would affect him. From my take, he was concerned that his income wouldn't be growing, and that increased taxes would be cutting into his already "tight" budget.

His budget being tight is of his own doing. If he's in such a position that he can't adequately account for his tax liability, something that millions of Americans manage to do. Let's suppose that after state and federal taxes he's left with roughly 65% of his annual income, because he's not clever enough to itemize deductibles. So, if he earns $300,000 a year, he sees $200,000 get into his wallet. Tight budget indeed. It's his own damned fault for living his life where the extra $2500 he's going to have to pay from the increased tax rate is make-or-break.

[BusyBadger]

I certainly did read the entire thing, and not one of the things listed bothers me, not one of them would I ask him to give up. I reiterate my original post. Who are you, or anyone else, to dictate to this man how to live. Following your logic, can we tell all the people on welfare to drop their $100 a month cellphone? Stop spending what cash you do have on lottery tickets and natty packs? Come on drop the wealth envy and go make something of you own life, then you can whine when the gubment wants to take it all.

I can and do tell people that voice their financial plights within earshot about how to alleviate some of the pain of their situation. People with a two pack a day habit (name brand no less!), or people sucking down a venti-sized Starbucks every morning complaining that things are so tough are high up on my list. Funny, those folks tend to be late more often and take more sick days than other people too. So are the one's you mention on welfare...they're getting some of our money and I'm sure we'd all love some control over how they spend it (drug test thread anyone?) and in a perfect world we might have it, but it's not realistic. The gaggle of panhandlers with cardboard signs hanging around the entrance to Wal-Mart have gotten high up on my list lately, every weekend they're there in force. The last kid I saw holding a cardboard sign about a new wife and baby while sporting a set of Ray Ban's got a suggestion of selling his sunglasses from me.

The internet (blogging especially) is like a big barber shop - If someone says something loud enough to hear it's an open invitation for comment. The poor professor is worried about being able to make it and like everything else in life there are sacrifices that can be made. He listed some of them but his "poor me routine" is so uninspired as to appear comical. More than anything I'm surprised about how someone that's so seemingly book smart could be so money dumb. I suppose he could always go on welfare since, according to you, those folks have it made. I'm certainly not raising the rally cry for higher taxes, I'm just saying this guy should take control of finances before he gets backed so far into the corner that he'l have even fewer options left than he thinks he already does. Dave Ramsey would say the same thing.

Honestly you sound a lot like the flipside of the people on the left that make so many excuses for the financial situations of so many people on the other end of the income scale. And why I should envy someone that (apparently) has less discretionary income and (admittedly) fewer cable channels and one less car than I do doesn't make any sense at all.

The folks on welfare have it made these days. Dont have to work, and get whatever they need scott free.

It's actual "scot free"...one T. I bring it up because it's actually pertinent. "Sceot" is Old English for a tax, someone that got off "scot free" was someone who had managed to avoid this medieval taxation.

We wouldn't give two s*** what he does with his money if he didn't create a blog specifically for the purpose of whining about his "struggles". Once he did that, it's open season.

[mattblancarte]

His budget being tight is of his own doing.

No argument there. We're all responsible for our own financial health.

If he's in such a position that he can't adequately account for his tax liability, something that millions of Americans manage to do.

Well, from what I understand, he currently can adequately account for his tax liability. Something to the tune of $100,000 per year.

I believe the professor's argument is more about the idea of not wanting to pay $102,500.

So, if he earns $300,000 a year, he sees $200,000 get into his wallet. Tight budget indeed.

That's entirely subjective. He earns $300,000 a year, he sees $100,000 go into the pocket of government. Huge tax payment indeed.

$200k is a good amount of cash flow, but it's not even close to enough to be rich. I bet he wishes he could make $500k a year or more.

It's his own damned fault for living his life where the extra $2500 he's going to have to pay from the increased tax rate is make-or-break.

It's not even an issue of make or break. In the article he's talking about having to cut back on expenses in general. C'mon now.

Extra $x,xxx or whatever number, it's still pretty lame that taxes keep going up. I think that is the guy's point. I didn't realize so many people in here were for Robin Hood tax strategies.

[Crazyirish]

Its not about Robin Hood tax strategies, its about showing a little grace. This guy whining about money on his blog is the equivalent of me going to the local homeless shelter and complaining about how much my burger sucks, then throwing it on the ground and stomping on it. Then looking at the crowd and saying "You guys feel me, right?"

[mattblancarte]

That comparison doesn't make any sense. What is the professor's burger equivalent? What is the professor getting for free in this scenario?

The article wasn't a complaint about how his tax money was being used or his related satisfaction.

[themadscientist]

Ah class warfare. Hey America look at the keys *jingle jingle* aren't they pretty?

Hate your fellow Americans everyone, they are the enemy, not those stuffed shirts in Washington, right?
Outrage successfully redirected, check.
Congressional lifestyle safe, check.

[AZhitman]

The expatriate is the only one who got the "big picture".

Everyone point at the guy in Japan and say, "OOOoohhhh, I get it now!"

Side note: Whining about your condition when you're well-off, and unwilling to do the things that you have to do to "make it" is ASKING for criticism.

I live WAY better than anyone I know with a similar income. Why? Because my wife and I manage our money well, and when we don't, it's our own fault - I certainly don't whine about it.

[IBCoupe]

That's entirely subjective. He earns $300,000 a year, he sees $100,000 go into the pocket of government. Huge tax payment indeed.

Riiiiight, but here's the thing: that still leaves him with $200,000. Huge tax payment aside, that's a lot of income.

$200k is a good amount of cash flow, but it's not even close to enough to be rich. I bet he wishes he could make $500k a year or more.

I bet most of us do. It's not about being rich or poor. After federal income tax, I keep $42,070. I have a girlfriend who functions very much like a wife, but admittedly, I don't have three kids. We have two cars and two apartments. Yet, I survive quite well.

I don't b**** about my taxes - in fact, I happily pay them. Know why? Because I still have $42,070 at the end of the year, and that's enough to have what I want, and because I recognize that a society is worth paying for. Would I like more? Of course, and I'm taking real steps towards having it. Would I have more if the government took less? Duh, of course. Do I need the government to take less? No, because I'm somewhere near "financially responsible."

I'm intentionally leaving out exactly how much the government takes and how much I make before taxes because it doesn't matter.

[Crazyirish]

That comparison doesn't make any sense. What is the professor's burger equivalent? What is the professor getting for free in this scenario?

The article wasn't a complaint about how his tax money was being used or his related satisfaction.

It wasn't supposed to be a point for point comparison. Its about some people who have their head so far up their own a** that they don't realize that they have all the tools they need to live a happy and prosperous life.

[stebo0728]

Riiiiight, but here's the thing: that still leaves him with $200,000. Huge tax payment aside, that's a lot of income.

Sorry to say, but that sounds a bit like wealth envy to me.

[IBCoupe]

I don't really care how it sounds. $200,000 is a lot of money, regardless of how much else you gave away. Cry as much as you want about government taxation, but at $200,000 in your pocket, you're well-off.

I'm reminded of the Oprah/Pontiac G6 debacle.

Fact of the matter is that I'm not envious of his wealth - I'm perfectly happy managing with what I have, and so long as I'm able to pay off my student loans, I'd be perfectly happy making no additional money in the pursuit of a legal career.

[stebo0728]

Thats all well and good, and thats the typical response when someone is called out on wealth envy. Now Im sure you truely arent, Ive developed a much different opinion of you than that, but still, it does have that smell to it.

Who are you to say that $200k is too much? Or even enough? Wealth is tied to risk, when you cease to allow wealth to increase with risk taken, risks will no longer be taken, and we will cease to progress in society.

And again the man is not asking how to manage his current situation, he's managed to do that. Hes complaining about what will happen when his tax burden increases. And Im sure that he will deal with it when it happens, but still anyone b*tches when their expenses increase, not matter what their income level is. Cost of living continues to rise, and one day your meager salary that slides with cost of living will all of a sudden be at the "evil rich" level and be subject to the AMT. Hows that gonna sit with ya?

[themadscientist]

I define being rich as not concentrating on my money all the time. Sure a Lamborghini in the driveway would be nice, but if I am not laying awake every night worried to death about how I am going to make ends meet, I'm pretty satisfied. I was once "rich" by that definition, but with the new house payments, I'm back to that uncomfortable place again. I'm eating instant ramen again, but at least I am eating it in MY kitchen. I still consider myself lucky that my concerns are as high on the hierarchy of needs as they are. I can still remember sleeping on a stolen mattress in an empty apartment with nothing but a clock radio and a space heater. Life's good compared to what some people are dealing with so I'm not crying.

[IBCoupe]

Stebo, no one has said that $200,000 is "too much." And as for "enough," I'm telling you now that if I can survive with $42,000 in my wallet, it's probable that, even with three kids, he can survive on $158,000 more.

Also, no one is treating anyone as "evil rich." Stop making caricatures of people you disagree with. Disagree honestly, please. Where my pay slides, so will his - you're acting as if "rich" is a bright line, when no one else is treating it that way. It's relative. What one needs to get by quite well today is not the same as what one needed fifty years ago, and won't be what one needs fifty years from now.

And here's my pledge to you: in the future, should I come into wealth (as I would love to), I will be just as happy to pay my disproportionate amount of taxes as I am to pay what I pay now. I will not complain about my burden.

[stebo0728]

Will you complain if you dont change income levels, but the taxation at your current bracket increases?

And sorry to create caricatures, but I do get the sense from some that "rich" is an "evil" status. And my argument is not that he cant live comfortably with less income. Obviously he can, my question is that what right is it of yours or anyone else's to mandate that he do this? And the argument underlying all of this is of course, for or against the increase on the upper bracket income level. This guy in this story is just an effigy of the concept. Lets say he does tone it down a bit, fires his gardener, fires his nanny, fires his whatever other household help he has employed. Then he's adding to the jobs lost pool. Suddenly along with being "evil rich" (maybe not by your standards or anyone here, but thats certainly the label the left likes) now he is also an evil man for firing people.

[IBCoupe]

So long as I can continue to get by, I don't care. What matters to me is whether the money in my pocket is sufficient, not how much money is in my pocket in the imaginary alternate universe where the government takes none.

Obviously he can, my question is that what right is it of yours or anyone else's to mandate that he do this?

It is the right of the society within which he enjoys freedom, privileges, services, and other benefits to define exactly how much an individual owes, and it's not unreasonable for that society to say one person owes more than another. With that said, he doesn't have to live within his means; he doesn't have to budget for his tax burden, but he's not going to get any pity when he doesn't.

And before you go claiming that the "left" likes that label, please show it. No one here is using it, so (1) I don't know who you're defining as "left," and (2) I don't know if they're actually saying it.

[AZhitman]

I agree with 99.9% of what Stebo has said - I oppose any and ALL criticism of people's income and spending habits.... UNTIL they go whining about their condition.

But guess what? I don't want to hear it from ANYONE. I don't want to hear it from this guy, and I don't want to hear it from the out-of-work construction guy. The point is, everyone's got problems, and financial issues just happen to be theirs.

Here's the deal: He opened himself up to criticism by laying his entire financial condition out there for analysis. He needs to STFU and go get a second job if he doesn't like it. Better yet, take some of that "outrage" and lobby to get the tax laws reformed.

[stebo0728]

t is the right of the society within which he enjoys freedom, privileges, services, and other benefits to define exactly how much an individual owes, and it's not unreasonable for that society to say one person owes more than another.

Heres what I take away from your argument, both this time, and previous times, regarding wealth and society, and please correct me if I am wrong. It seems that in your world, wealth, and the acquisition of it, are solely dependent on society. And in no way is society dependent on the wealthy. Is this a fair summation? Assuming so, then is it a correct position? Does society not owe any of its current status to the financially successful? Its at least an equal symbiotic relationship, and I would even argue society has a bit more dependence than the wealthy in the relationship.

Also if its the right of this society to impose inequitable tax burden, then it is also the right of any individual to no longer subscribe to this society. Keep pushing the wealthy and successful in order to embolden and renew the lazy and stupid in society, and the wealthy will come to a point where they wont have it anymore, and this society that the wealthy "owe everything to" will quickly become a sh*t hole that the third world makes bubba jokes about.

[IBCoupe]

Yes, it's a symbiotic relationship. The wealthy benefit from society, and society benefits from the wealthy. I'm not sure what it is you expected me to say, but that's the fact of the matter. If nothing else, without a society through which to measure "wealth," you can't have it - it's a purely social conception.

Keep pushing the wealthy and successful in order to embolden and renew the lazy and stupid in society, and the wealthy will come to a point where they wont have it anymore, and this society that the wealthy "owe everything to" will quickly become a sh*t hole that the third world makes bubba jokes about.

How Randian of you. Look, if the wealthy want to give it all up, by all means, let them. There are plenty of people who'd be happy to take their place as the successful in society - waiting in the wings, as it were. The thing you, and perhaps some of the wealthy, fail to comprehend is that, even with the burdens placed upon the wealthy by society, they're still much better off. So, yeah, if the wealthy are retarded enough to cut off their noses to spite their faces, let them do so. If you want to ditch $200,000 in order to prevent the government from collecting $100,000, be my fracking guest.

[AZhitman]

^ Has a point.

Here's the deal - Whenever s*** hits the fan (like it has the past couple years), I'll piss and moan. I'll lash out at those responsible.

BUT, at the same time, it strengthens my resolve to find a better way... to make more, to spend less, to protect what I've earned, and to parlay that (and my resources) into somthing bigger.

Doing the former without the latter is just making noise.