How someone in the top 1% of earners can believe he's just an 'average Joe'

[BurtWorm]

Over the weekend, Brad DeLong and Michael O'Hare ripped apart a whining post] from University of Chicago Law Professor Todd Henderson, who is fretting about losing the Bush tax break, due to expire in 2011, because he doesn't feel super rich.

I'm sure a lot of DUers can sympathize with anyone who feels their paychecks (if they're still getting paychecks) aren't stretching as long and far as they used to. I certainly can. But first O'Hare and then DeLong, using clues Henderson left them, figured out that Henderson is actually doing quite a bit better than he hinted at in his post. The only income figure he mentions is $250,000, the rate above which the richest 1% of Americans earn; given the taxes, mortgage and debt he's paying down, however, he and his wife probably earn nearly twice that. It's worth reading all of the posts in question to appreciate a) Henderson's remarkable self-pity, b) O'Hare's brilliant deduction and c) DeLong's profound insight into the psychology of the sub-super rich.


a) Todd Henderson's post "We Are the Super Rich":

http://truthonthemarket.com/2010/09/15/we-are-the-super-rich/

...


Like most working Americans, insurance, doctors’ bills, utilities, two cars, daycare, groceries, gasoline, cell phones, and cable TV (no movie channels) round out our monthly expenses. We also have someone who cuts our grass, cleans our house, and watches our new baby so we can both work outside the home. At the end of all this, we have less than a few hundred dollars per month of discretionary income. We occasionally eat out but with a baby sitter, these nights take a toll on our budget. Life in America is wonderful, but expensive.

If our taxes rise significantly, as they seem likely to, we can cut back on some things. The (legal) immigrant from Mexico who owns the lawn service we employ will suffer, as will the (legal) immigrant from Poland who cleans our house a few times a month. We can cancel our cell phones and some cable channels, as well as take our daughter from her art class at the community art center, but these are only a few hundred dollars per month in total. But more importantly, what is the theory under which collecting this money in taxes and deciding in Washington how to spend it is superior to our decisions? Ask the entrepreneurs we employ and the new arrivals they employ in turn whether they prefer to work for us or get a government handout.

If these cuts don’t work, we will sell our house – into an already spiraling market of declining asset values – and our cars, assuming someone will buy them. The irony here, of course, is that the government is working to save both of these industries despite the impact that increasing taxes will have.

The problem with the president’s plan is that the super rich don’t pay taxes – they hide in the Cayman Islands or use fancy investment vehicles to shelter their income. We aren’t rich enough to afford this – I use Turbo Tax. But we are rich enough to be hurt by the president’s plan. The next time the president comes home to Chicago, he has a standing invitation to come to my house (two blocks from his) and judge for himself whether the Hendersons are as rich as he thinks.

...



b) O'Hare's calculations:

http://www.samefacts.com/2010/09/economics/the-whining-of-the-rich/

...Let’s just sketch out the family budget here:

Taxes ........$100,000

Housing*.........$65,000 mortgage + 15,000 insurance & maintenance = $80,000

Two really nice cars........$.70/mile x 15,000** miles = $10,500

Student loan payments........(20 year amortization at 10%) = $60,000

*Why a couple with a half-million dollars of debts decides it needs a million-dollar house in Chicago, where the Hyde Park average price ” near their work” is a third of that, is not entirely clear. Also note that $25,000 of this is going into their own pockets, building equity in their house.

**They live near their work, so this is probably generous.

This leaves about $90,000, a lousy $245 a day, for food, clothes, vacations, cable TV, and like that. You can walk into Nordstrom’s on Upper Michigan and spend that in a minute, and for stuff you really need. Really, I don’t know how these people get by; their adaptive skills, economical habits, and modest living style is an inspiration to all of us. Perhaps they are careful to tip no more than 15% at the Sizzler when they splurge.

...


c) Brad DeLong's analysis:


http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2010/09/in-which-mr-deling-responds-to-someone-who-might-be-professor-todd-henderson.html


...Mr. Henderson doesn't look down.

Instead, Mr. Henderson looks up. Of the 100 people richer than he is, fully ten have more than four times his income. And he knows of one person with 20 times his income. He knows who the really rich are, and they have ten times his income: They have not $450,000 a year. They have $4.5 million a year. And, to him, they are in a different world.

And so he is sad. He and his wife deserve to be successful. And he knows people who are successful. But he is not one of them--widening income inequality over the past generation has excluded him from the rich who truly have money.

And this makes him sad. And angry. But, curiously enough, not angry at the senior law firm partners who extract surplus value from their associates and their clients, or angry at the financiers, but angry at... Barack Obama, who dares to suggest that the U.S. government's funding gap should be closed partly by taxing him, and angry at the great hordes of the unwashed who will receive the Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security payments that the government will make over the next several generations.

Do I wish that Professor Henderson had a little more self-knowledge? Yes. Is it pathetic that somebody with nine times the median household income thinks of himself as just another average Joe, just another "working American"? Yes. Do I find it embarrassing that somebody whose income is in the top 1% of American households thinks that he is not rich? Yes.

...

[Skink]

1. Goverment issue set top box.

no cable charges. Plus no Fox. You could then afford to go out to eat.

[BurtWorm]

2. He also wouldn't have Fox News constantly drumming it into a head what a victim he is.

:patriot:

[jtuck004]

3. I didn't see much in here about his stock portfolio, his retirement

and pension. Which is being funded with some pretty good dollars. A third of people "graduate" in to retirement with NOTHING more
than Social Security, taking it as early as they can to stave off living on the streets. Millions of our neighbors.

Tbis guy will call a moving van when he leaves the college. He has no idea how entitled and lucky he is, whether he worked hard or not.

The guy that used to operate the blast furnace at the smelter worked hard every day too. Got burned a few times, raised a couple of great kids. Then they closed, and his pension fund was full of junk bonds, gone with the management that sold the company. He tried working part-time at a customer service center, but couldn't stand it after 6 months. He has no idea how lucky or entitled the othe guy is, either. He will live only on Social Security if he lives that long, what with no jobs and being 6 years away.

[mrcheerful]

6. Besides all of those things he will also face attacks on his little bit of income by people who want

to tax any vices he may have so he can live longer, maybe, because while he was working at smelting iron for 20 or 30 years he was exposed and breathing in toxic fumes. Which wasn't a problem before the EPA was created because the company boss said there was no danger to exposer to toxic fumes, after all the boss was far away from those toxic fumes in a nice well ventilated office building so he didn't go home after an 8 or 12 hour shift coughing all night long nor did he suffer from the migraine head aches those fumes also caused.

So after all the years he put in breathing toxic fumes, he finds out medicare is his only health insurance, which after 1980 he had to take a part of his social security pay to hand over to medicare then he noticed that he started coughing up filth, so he had to go to the doctors to find out what the crap was, then Doc prescribes him inhalers to help him breathe better. He takes the prescription to the drug store hands it over to the guy behind the counter, who then fills his prescription.

After he gets his inhalers he goes to leave thinking every things taken care of, when the guy behind the counter informs him that because of the drug program called medicare part D he is in a dough nut hole so now he has to cough up the $225 that the inhaler costs. Because of these set backs to his SS check the guy has to start eating starchy foods and cheap pork products so after a few years he develops a heart condition, which means he has to cut out the cheap foods plus because he is still in the dough nut hole from part D the new drugs to help with his heart condition also has to come out of his pocket. Ah yes retirement is truly the golden years for those that really worked hard. Then he picks up the news paper and low and behold he is informed that he is now a welfare queen who needs his SS check reduced. He then goes to the election pole and votes for the very people who wants to cut his SS because the other guys tax and spend Democratic candidate who Rush and Glen said was after his wealth.

[BlueCheese]

4. Any couple making that much money...

... really ought to be able to afford a return to Clinton-era tax rates. Especially since to really feel any bite, they'd have to be making quite a bit more than $250,000, given that it's a marginal rate.

I understand that he may not feel as rich as other people think he is, given that he lives in an urban area with higher costs of living, and that he can't just quit his job. But really, maybe he should take a look at the lives of his gardener and cleaning person before he starts complaining.

[hunter]

5. If you can hire a housekeeper and a gardener...

... if you can pay a car mechanic or a plumber or a doctor without your budget taking a serious and painful hit...

you are not an "average joe" in today's USA.

[bergie321]

46. The housekeeper and gardener

Are far closer to the average joe than the person who can afford to hire them.

[elias7]

7. One of Henderson's points follows the adage "you spend what you make"

Henderson (link no longer works, but got some info from the other two sites) makes a point that is valid, though I think many here would scoff at it. That is, the more money you make, you don't necessarily end up with more discretionary income. He is defining "rich" as those who make so much money that they do have substantially more discretionary income.

I think it is a worthwhile distinction. Because his complaints are valid within that context. If you define rich as anything over the poverty level or some other arbitrary number, then it is easy to ridicule him, but it would be in the same vein as some Somalian ridiculing you for complaining about your 40k/yr when his family is starving along at $600/yr.

The first thing I did when I had an income increase was to take out life insurance and disability insurance for my wife's and young daughter's sake. A luxury in a slightly perverse sense, but no longer discretionary income, so my $15,000 raise bought me piece of mind, but didn't mean I felt $15,000 richer. Sure, it is a luxury for the Henderson's of this world to collect that next tier of "essentials".... higher mortgage, private schools, additional insurances, higher retirement contributions, but for these people, there is minimal net change in their discretionary income, and once again, they get maxed out and don't want a higher tax for fear of falling short on their expenses, not because of greed or assholishness.

[blondeatlast]

8. "falling short on their expense..." You mean, like penalties for tax non-payment, as I saw on one

of Henderson's followers whine list?

Poor babies. Better they suffer than the people who run my favorite street taco stand.

Or wait--your post is joking, right? It almost has to be, because we on DU deal with reality.

[elias7]

29. Nice, take one statement, distort it, and ridicule me. Nice democrat...

"We on DU deal with reality". Oh really? Who are "we"? Am I out of the club because I am trying to explore a topic rather than slam it shut, black & white...

Or is your post joking? It almost has to be, because we with an open mind deal with discernment

[BurtWorm]

10. Complaining about a $40,000 salary in front of a $600 a year Somalian would be just as unseemly.

And it isn't just unseemliness that's the problem. As Obama said earlier today, he'd love to give the wealthy another tax break, but he doesn't "have the math." Somewhere the line has to be drawn.

The super rich are telling the unemployed to "suck it in and cope?" Maybe they should try telling that to the bottom tier of the top 1% and see how good a reception they get.

[elias7]

36. I agree a line has to be drawn

I trust a man like Obama to draw it fairly and in the best interest of the country. I may be above the cut off, I may not. But no one has to tell me to suck it up, because I'm not complaining. I'm just saying that my reasoning for wanting to be below the cut off is not due to greed.

I have never voted my pocketbook or my own financial interest because that is not in the best interest of the health of the country, IMO.

[mainer]

12. He also uses that income to hire two people

and hiring a housekeeper and gardener are discretionary expenses. One of the side effects of the recession has been a huge raft of lay-offs of domestic workers.

[elias7]

39. That's one of the valid complaints of conservatives, IMO

It pisses me off when corporations report higher quarterly profits due to layoffs, but for the small business people or for households employing folks, I can easily imagine how a few dollars this way or that makes the difference.

[MajorChode]

9. They put on their pants one leg at a time?

[SoCalDem]

11. Boo-Hoo, Rich Boy

"poor folks" have all of the "expenses" you have....BUT they have far less income to pay those bills.

You may have a live-in nanny or pay for pricey day care, but those poor folks have daycare expenses too. That one cost might just eat up 1/4 of the lower-wage earner's take-home pay (it may actually be more), and it's certainly likely to be a lot more disruptive to the kids & the family.

Poorer families do actually need health care too., but THEIR jobs often come without an employer-assist, so many of them go uncovered, and when someone does get sick they have to seek out an ER whether they can "afford" it or not.

Cars?

well poor people need transportation to those menial jobs, but they often have to rely on rattle-trap cars that barely run a lot of the time, because they cannot afford even a small car payment.

Housing?

Poor people need shelter too, but their shelter is usually owned by someone else, and they are at the mercy of a landlord when they need something repaired or updated....and when the landlord raises the rent, they often have to move , even if they don't want to.


I am sick to death of hearing about how hard the "upper crusties" have it.. If they cannot find a way to live comfortably on $250K+, they only need to look in the mirror to find out who's blowing all the money:)

[JanMichael]

33. Agreed 100%. The fact that he feels so put upon is a sign of incompetence.

Or worse dishonesty.

Or maybe he's simply incompetent and a liar...

[mainer]

13. He's a law professor. She's a cancer doctor.

And you all are saying they have no right to hire a housecleaner and a gardener? That they're among the filthy rich who should be stripped of their income?

These are hardly deadbeat people. They devoted years to their educations. They're in debt from educational loans. The doctor probably works 60 hours a week. She can't work such a demanding jobs without hiring additional household help. If a couple who's a doctor and a law professor have no right to earn $250,000, I don't know who is.

I understand the anger against bankers and financial wizards who made their millions with fancy money tricks. But a doctor and a lawyer who work hard don't deserve our scorn. And if you want to guillotine these people, I suggest you learn how to do your own appendectomy and treat your own cancer.

[BurtWorm]

14. Someone said they should be stripped of their income?

Where?

[blondeatlast]

16. Ya got me--but that just shouted at me, too.

:wow:

[mainer]

18. Guillotines. Sharpen the knives. Revolution.

Just look at what's being said about people who make more than $250,000 a year:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=9164549&mesg_id=9164549

Why don't you guillotine all the thoracic surgeons and neurosurgeons while you're at it? They probably earn more than $250,000 a year. But they're the filthy rich who don't contribute A THING to the country. They only save lives, after 12 - 15 years of medical school and post-graduate training. Anyone could do that.

[blondeatlast]

20. Funny that you didn't address BurtWorm and my's replies.

Got oversimplified distortion? No one begrudges a doctor a reasonable income. No one begrudges anyone their income--just the fact that they don't pay their fair share as a percentage of their income.

I used to be near that 250K level and paid less taxes as a percentage of my income than I do now (thanks to divorce from a cheat) than I do now that my income is about 25% of what it was before.

And damn yes, I resent seeing people who have the LUXURY of nannies and gardeners whine about it how hard life is.

:banghead:

[Occulus]

22. see my post #21

Mainer isn't here to discuss the topic. Mainer is here to shit on the thread and make people angry.

[mainer]

28. They pay $100,000 a year in taxes

That doesn't sound insubstantial to me.

So you resent seeing people who have "the luxury" of nannies and gardeners while they contribute to society as doctors and law professors. Better they should fire the nanny and gardener, quit their medical and law practices, and stay home and whine?
So many of the comments here sound like envy, plain and simple. Just as it sounds like envy when I hear people talk about guillotines for people who make $250,000, people who worked for those degrees and put in the years and the hours for that income.

It's my right to say these things here because I've been a longtime member of, and contributor to, DU. You complain that I'm here to rile things up -- no, I'm saying these things because they're what I think, but you would have me shut up and go away. But trust me, there are doctors and lawyers on this site as well, people who feel they contribute to society, who don't like talk of guillotines. Who don't like being called deadbeats and drags on society. We're people who get weary of hearing how we gamed "the system", when most of us went to grad school on loans and took years to pay off those loans.

[blondeatlast]

30. All the while distorting what others have said. No one here said a thing about guillotines--in fact,

earlier today I alerted on a post that called for them and it was deleted. Your exact words were "stripped of their income." No one, but no one, said anything of the sort.

You may be a member, but you don't belong in my social circle. But thanks--I think you just convinced me to somehow pull $80K out of my ass and go to law school. And I don't need nannies and gardeners when I get out.

[BurtWorm]

37. You're the only one talking about guillotines in this thread

As far as I can tell.

$100,000 in taxes is not fair if you earn $200,000. It's not fair in quite another way if you earn $1 million, though, is it? So what would be fair for a household earning $500,000?

[mainer]

40. $200,000 in tax is fair for that income

And that's a Clinton-era tax rate.

But trust me, folks here will probably demand that such earners should be squeezed until they're bled dry "because they're the idle rich." Since only rich bloodsuckers could possibly earn that much.

[BurtWorm]

49. In your mind they may be saying that.

[Hannah Bell]

55. if they pay $100K in taxes, they make more than $250K. that's one of the points made in the op.

op calculates they make close to half a million.

[mainer]

35. my problem is not with Burtworm

it's with the "boo hoo rich boy" comments that put a law professor and a doctor in the same class as the idle rich.

[BurtWorm]

27. Why don't you just calm down and talk about what people are actually talking about

Instead of the hysterical strawman arguments you're thrusting on us?

[blondeatlast]

15. "Stripped of their income"?!!! Are you serious?

They have a right to a housekeeper and a gardener--but I have a right to call them "whiners" for bitching about it when I have to limit my job searching to school hours because my kid can't take the bus and still attend the PUBLIC school he's attende since kindergarten (he's in 8th now).

I can't buy him basketball shoes to wear for the YMCA league until next week; he's had to wera shoes too tight for two weeks now.

Pardon. Me. While. MY. BLOOD. BOILS. :banghead::mad:


REALLY?

[mainer]

19. Did you go to medical school?

Did you go to law school?

You're angry that they did and they're earning an income commensurate with their education?

[Occulus]

21. Nobody has said the things you're claiming they said

Nobody has said they should be stripped of their incomes, and nobody said they shouldn't be making an income based on what they put into their educations (even though a very great many equally educated people aren't).

What people are saying is that they are much, much, much better off than they think they are. And I do think you know that very well and are only trying to stir the pot and rile people up. I also think you know exactly what you're doing on this thread, and I think you know you aren't here in the interest of discussing the topic at hand.

[blondeatlast]

24. I believe you are correct. nt

[blondeatlast]

23. Could you possibly distort what I said a little more? I'd LOVE to go to law

school--my diagnostic on the LSAT is impressive and I've been a paralegal for some time.

But dammit, I can't afford it.

Quit whining.

[mainer]

31. I went to grad school on loans.

I couldn't afford it either.
who's the one who's whining?

[blondeatlast]

32. I went to undergrad on loans. Can you top that? I'm still paying them--and not whining

about it.

[The Magistrate]

25. You Are Making Yourself A Ridiculous Spectacle, Sir

The complaint is that the author of the letter considers himself put upon unbearably by a potential increase in the amount of income tax he will pay that cannot total more than three or four thousand dollars in a year, that he envisions himself as an ordinary working American when his income is greater than ninety-nine percent of the people in the country, and most egregiously and finally, that he WHINES so....

The temptation to take a stick to him in the public way is not only understandable, but damned nigh irresistible.

[mainer]

34. He's being ridiculed here while paying $100,000 in taxes

and working as a law professor, with his wife working as a cancer doctor.

I didn't know it was now an offense on D.U. to be among the "educated elite".

[blondeatlast]

38. How contemptuous are you? I have a Bachelor's degree and I'm betting that

the vast majority of DUers do as well.

I owe you no more or less respect than I owe a teacher who must have a Master's and makes, far, far less than you seem to. In fact, I owe the janitor just as much respect as I owe to the "educated elite."

[The Magistrate]

41. He Is Ridiculed, Sir, For Whining Over Paying Another Couple Of Thousand In Taxes

And richly deserves the ridicule, in a social setting where millions have lost their livelihoods and scores of millions had their retirement savings wiped out.

My sympathy for this wretch comes in well below my warm regard for televangelists and pay-day loan sharks.

The man is a disgrace, and if his wife actually allows him coitus, she is no better.

[mainer]

42. A disgrace, a wretch, a blight on society.

Yes, and so is his wife, the cancer doctor. They shouldn't be allowed to save for their retirement. They should live like all the rest of us, in insecurity and despair. Only then will you approve of them.

[blondeatlast]

43. Here's the thing, mainer, on which we agree. No one should live in "insecurity and despair."

But at a time when millions upon millions are losing their jobs, homes, and opportunities for higher education--Mr. amd Mrs. Henderson should suck it up and HELP THE COUNTRY THE FUCK OUT.

[The Magistrate]

45. They Have, Ma'am, A Helluva Long Way To Go Before Insecurity And Despair Loom....

[blondeatlast]

47. Indeed. It's wrong of me to wish for karma but alas...

I'm only human.

[The Magistrate]

44. He Will Meet My Approval, Sir, If He Stops Whining About Having More Money Than 99% Of Our Citizenry

As it is, he calls the quality of his judgement, as well as his humanity, into serious question.

[Ikonoklast]

48. They could make adjustments, just like the rest of us do.

One does not 'need' a million-dollar abode, and its associated expenses,; they could economize and live in a half-million dollar shack.

[BurtWorm]

50. I really don't understand your emotional response to this thread.

So some people feel no pity for a well-positioned law professor as he complains about his potentially revised tax bill, which amounts to a few thousand less in his disposable income. His complaint amounts to a whine. Welcome to our world, Professor Henderson!

No one is saying his work or his wife's work is worthless--no one but your ludicrous straw man. The Magistrate is right. You are making a spectacle of yourself, just like the good professor from Chicago.

[mainer]

54. my emotional response stemmed from...

first reading this http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=9164549&mesg_id=9164549

and then this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=9166337&mesg_id=9166337

And after having read so many mesasges of "eat the rich" and "guillotines," I then came across this particular OP and I guess I'd just had enough. I've had it with hearing that everyone who makes > $250,000 is a parasite.

Another OP pointed out many people in the >$250,000 income bracket are actually iN FAVOR of higher taxes. (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9173130) But no, DUers tend to ignore that inconvenient fact because it goes against their deeply held belief that anyone who makes that much money is a freeloader on the backs of the poor. So hey guys, let's get out the fava beans and have us a rich man roast.

True, I should have directed my wrath at the earlier threads that set me off. Then again, I noticed that some of the same people were posting on both threads. So some of the very people who were shouting "eat the rich" and "guillotines" on another thread are also on this thread innocently claiming "Guillotines? Wow we have no idea what Mainer is talking about." Stargazer? Blondatlast? Magistrate? You have NO idea? One of you posted over there: "The French had it right."


Yes, I'm one of the lucky Dems who is in that lofty income bracket. I'm also among those who believe I should be taxed at a higher rate. But I'm from a blue-collar family, went to public school, and lived frugally on loans for my education. None of this was handed to me, and I now support my mother. I resent being lumped in with the Waltons and the Kochs. But on this board, there are no shades of gray. There's only black and white.

[blondeatlast]

58. Do you understand our emotional response, then?

Again I note that I actually alerted o the "guillotine" posts yesterday and the mods removed them. I'm sure that sentiment will be expressed yet again but it's clear that even that historical analogy is not permissible and if you encounter it again you should alert as I will.

That being said, my disdain wasn't for his wealth or his tax bracket--it was for the sheer hubris of his whining about his "hard life." I don't have the luxury of a nanny, yet I make a very comfortable living. It's as simple as this--I DO WITHOUT WHAT I CAN'T AFFORD. Right now, I can't afford new basketball shoes for my son. I'm fortunate--some people can't afford to fix the car or buy groceries. You want an emotional response? Try telling your kid to make do with painful basketball shoes for just one week--I had to go for a drive so I could cry, I really did. and again, I'm very, very fortunate, even though I would guess I make maybe 1/10th what you do, maybe less. Let me repeat, I feel very fortunate--at less than $50K a year.

Friday, we can get him basketball shoes. I'm lucky (but I think I mentioned that already).

When is the last time you faced that? The past week? Month? Year? Most of the people I know are dealing with such decisions and find it very hard to summon SYMPATHY--and that is what Henderson sought--for those who can't pay the gardener.

Is that so hard to grasp? Because if it is, you are more similar to Prof. Henderson than to me and the folks on this thread.

[BurtWorm]

59. Ok, but that wasn't the tenor of this thread. Not the intended tenor, anyway.

I don't object to people earning as good an income as they can get. I'd like to earn one of those myself! ;-) It's not income that's at issue. It's taxes on income. I think I've made that clear enough--or I hope I have.

You shouldn't feel guilty for being well off. You should enjoy it. And you certainly shouldn't be defensive about it.

Let me ask you something, out of curiosity (of course, you don't have to answer, but the question is sincere): do you feel sort of a sympathy with people in your bracket? I was going to say you don't need to defend the Hendersons, but maybe you feel an obligation to, the way someone who has been homeless might want to defend a homeless person?

[Greyhound]

61. Oh yes, the feeble cry of the "self made man"...

Of course we must all ignore the two most important factors of your success (assuming you are truthful about your blue-collar background), being extremely lucky and living in a system that made it even remotely possible, a system that you mow feel put upon to pay for.

Tell you what, all of you that feel that way have the means and the opportunity to leave, use them. Then we'll all see just how valuable you all are to society as a whole. Besides, you will not have to worry about ending up as the main course at the community BBQ.
:eyes:

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

57. .

:spray:

[BurtWorm]

26. I don't see how you feel able to make any statement about how I feel about their incomes.

I'm not even concerned about their incomes. This thread is about the taxes they pay on what they earn. If you reread the OP you'll see i'm actually sympathetic to the crunch they feel. But as the president said today we can't afford to give people struggling to feed themselves and their children a tax break and extend the break these earners have had for the last decade as well. We have to make a choice of what the economy can bear better now.

[gmoney]

17. Guessing he's fully funding his retirement options, too...

A mantra of the wealthy is "pay yourself first" whereby they steer 10% straight into savings, and I'm guessing they're both part of 401k or other retirement plans through their jobs, which is probably funneling 5 to 10 percent of wages towards retirement. So, yeah, maybe he doesn't feel he has vast amounts of money to piss away, but I'm guessing they never neglect feathering the nest egg, never skip their annual vacation to Hawaii, and still have the lake house and the investment properties. And they probably have zero debt, except possibly a mortgage.

Of course, as Mike Tyson, Michael Jackson, and countless others show us, there's no level of income that can't be outspent. Maybe the guy has a gambling problem or other lifestyle issues eating into his disposable income.

[diane in sf]

51. There's a really huge difference between a rich professional upper 1% and the upper 1/10 of 1%

As the saying goes, your enemy is not the person in the $1-2M dollar house it's the Kochs and the Waltons and the others in their $40M dollar houses.

[BurtWorm]

52. Should we cry for the Hendersons? Should we ask for a different dividing line

from the one the Republicans themselves drew in 2001?

[blondeatlast]

60. But there is a much, much bigger difference between the upper 1%

and the average American wage-earner. I feel very fortunate at considerably <$50K a year and yet I struggle. I do hate the Kochs, etc, quite honestly--but I resent Mr. Henderson's whining about nannies and cars, too.

You can read about my short-term dilemma uptherad; maybne it will offer you some insight.

[KillCapitalism]

53. More evidence of declining living standards.

$250K/yr. to me is in the upper middle class. It's that way b/c most people making $250K-$500K depend on an employer's paycheck for a living. If you have to work & depend on anyone else for a paycheck, you're not rich.

Cost of living has skyrocketed dramatically in the past 40 years. In 1970, $250K/yr. would most certainly be rich, but not anymore.

$25K yr. was good money in 1970, but now is poverty.

If you deny inflation exists, just look at the numbers. There are homeless and hungry billionaires in Zimbabwe, that's where we're headed.

[Ramulux]

56. This dude is a delusional piece of shit

Wow, I am struggling to find money for food on a weekly basis and I am nowhere near being able to afford a car or health insurance or any of the other "basic" needs this guy talks about. I would love to just have this guy live my life for a fucking week and then he can see how hard shit is when you have NO money, not just a "a few hundred dollars for discretionary spending".