

Pity the Poor Couple Who Make $450,000 Per Year - tokenadult
http://scienceblogs.com/mikethemadbiologist/2010/09/pity_the_poor_couple_who_make.php

======
mmaunder
A few lessons here re the blog post being referred to:

1\. The title "professor" does not confer knowledge, intelligence or wisdom.

2\. Know that your online audience is diverse even if your regular readers
aren't.

3\. If you're in a prominent non-activist position, avoid discussing politics,
religion or sex.

4\. Never disclose details about your personal life, especially financials,
unless you've thought it through and had a trusted and objective friend to
review your post.

5\. Be careful about making yourself the subject of a blog entry. It's tough
to avoid coming off as narcissistic.

And the obvious cliche: Write your emails and blog entries as if they're going
to be published on the front page of a very popular newspaper that holds
opposing views to yours.

~~~
atomical
Look at the whole picture. As this man's salary grew he started to add
services and dependents and a wife and a lot of other things to his budget. He
basically has reached a point where it is unsustainable but now he has
convinced himself that he is in a hardship.

Not so different from the general public that believes owning a home, having
three or four kids, and driving new cars is a right.

~~~
btmorex
Everyone spends more as they make more money. It's pretty much human nature.
The difference is that most people keep some bearing on reality and realize
that they have it better than almost anyone else in the world (speaking of
wealthy Americans here). They can also probably imagine cutting some stuff out
if need be without blogging "woe is me".

~~~
loewenskind
>(speaking of wealthy Americans here)

You mean wealthy citizens of first world countries, right?

------
robconery
The link is here:
[http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:kpzaEp0...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:kpzaEp0IVw4J:truthonthemarket.com/2010/09/15/we-
are-the-super-rich/+todd+henderson+poor&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us)

~~~
ww520
Thank you. The original blog post seemed to have been removed.

------
liedra
This is ridiculous. Any American (or Australian for that matter!) who whines
about their taxes should come and work for a few years in Europe. In Belgium,
on an entry-level salary (for a post-doc academic position) I was being taxed
at over 50% (my communal tax was at 8%):

"For 2010, marginal income tax starts at 25%, rises to 30% over EUR 7,900, 40%
over EUR 11,240, 45% over 18,730 EUR with a top limit of 50% for incomes above
EUR 34,330. Residents also pay communal and regional taxes at rates between 0%
and 8.5% of the total income tax payable. The most common rate is 6%."
(source: [http://www.expatica.com/be/finance_business/tax/taxation-
in-...](http://www.expatica.com/be/finance_business/tax/taxation-in-
belgium-8618_8286.html) )

Throw in a 21% VAT on top of that and watch most of your income go to tax.

Mind you, Belgium is one of the heaviest taxers, but coming from Australia,
where it is significantly less hard-hitting (top tax bracket is 30% for 180k
AUD, then 45% for every $1 after), it was astonishing. I don't think I got
what I paid for in Belgium either, to be honest, but that's a different issue
;)

~~~
houseabsolute
While it may be true that Europeans are taxed more heavily than Americans,
that does not necessarily mean that Americans being taxed more heavily is a
good thing to happen. Your argument seems to boil down to, "You think that
frying pan is hot? Join me in the oven then you'll really have good reason to
complain." Thanks, but what if the best thing is to sit near the AC instead?
I'm not claiming, by the way, that it would or wouldn't be better to tax
American rich more, I'm just saying the argument you made is not a very good
one.

~~~
liedra
Whereas I'm all for experiencing how others live, and thereby gaining a
greater appreciation and experience of how the world works :) My argument
isn't that Americans should be taxed more, just that Americans should come and
see how the rest of the world works before having a good old whinge ;) (which
is basically the theme of all the objections to this article -- I'm just
expanding it out from rich/poor). 'tis the same with socialised medicine -- if
those against it lived in Europe/Australia/Canada/etc. for a bit and saw how
well it worked and how well loved it was in these countries, they'd probably
have a different idea about it for their own.

~~~
houseabsolute
OK, I see your point, and I think it is a fine one. Not very practical because
of immigration policies and whatnot, but definitely of an idealism that I can
subscribe to.

------
geekman
To a certain extent this guy has a point. You are rich if you can afford a
good lifestyle without having to work for a living. These people have a high
income, but they also have high level of spending and they have nowhere near
the assets to support their lifestyles.

So, rather than being rich, they are wage slaves with high incomes.

When you have enough money to stop working and still have the lifestyle you
want, your life is completely different. It buys you the one thing that is
really precious - the time to do what you want with your life.

Although I am not extremely wealthy, I have enough savings to stop working and
to spend my time the way I want.

The other interesting aspect of this case is that it is a classic example of
the hedonic treadmill. No matter how rich you are, how successful, how
productive, after a while the joy wears off and you think: If only I had a bit
more, then I'd be happy. The millionaire thinks he or she needs $10m, with
$10m you think $100m, etc. "The only way to win this game is not to play".

------
jasonkester
As somebody who stands to get clobbered by this high tax bracket, I sometimes
feel like I'm the only one out here who thinks it's just fine.

I've always been in favor of a flat tax with a lower bound. So, say 50% of all
income above $20k. Let the regular folk (like me last during the last couple
years of getting a bootstrapped startup off the ground) get off without paying
any tax whatsoever. Take up the slack by making those with plenty (like me now
that things are going well) pay our fair share.

I mean sure, losing _half_ your income to taxes is a problem, but it's one of
those good problems, because to get it you need to be making _four times_ what
everybody else is making.

As long as you figure out what your _actual_ means are and live within them,
you'll still do fine.

EDIT: 50% -> "high" thanks to the below:

~~~
guelo
There is no "50% tax bracket". Obama's proposed plan would raise the 33% and
35% brackets to 36% and 39.6%.

~~~
bhickey
Sure, but you're leaving out FICA (6.2%) and Medicare (1.45%). This bumps the
brackets to 40.65% and 42.65% (or 43.65% and 47.25%). After local taxes this
can easily top 50%. Suppose you earned $357k gross in Rhode Island. Your total
tax liability would be in the area of $189k, or 52.7%.

All of this also ignores the employer FICA contribution.

~~~
ryanwaggoner
Can you break down your calculation a little? It's way higher than what I
got...wondering if you forgot that these are marginal tax rates?

~~~
bhickey
You're right. I bungled it up and didn't treat the rates as marginal.

------
ju2tin
Lost in the bashing of this professor who had the temerity not to want to pay
higher taxes, is the fact that he had to invest lots of money to be able to
earn his big salary. He probably has at least 7 years of higher education. His
wife, as a medical doctor, probably has at least 8, if I understand correctly
how med school and internships work. They sank a huge amount of money -- maybe
close to $500,000 -- into investing in their careers, while most people in the
lower income brackets have spent little, if anything, in that way. And the
cost to the professor and his wife is even greater if you factor in the
opportunity cost of not working high-paying jobs all those years they were in
school. Call it a cool million sunk into their education and training, easily.

So it's hardly greedy of the guy to want to be able to at least pay back his
wife's student loans before Obama hits him up even harder to help finance a
new era of government expansion. There's a difference between revenue and
profits, after all.

As for saying he shouldn't have bought a million-dollar house, that's hardly
an unreasonable price for a couple with a combined annual income of roughly
half that amount. As a multiple of their income, it's comparable to a couple
who makes $125,000 a year buying a house worth $250,000. That doesn't sound so
crazy, does it?

~~~
alextingle
I think you're living in la-la land. If he had $500,000 to spend on education
in the first place, then he started rich and just keeps getting richer. If
he'd foregone the education and invested the $500k in something else, then
he'd still be rich, and (presumably) he'd still feel hard done by.

~~~
sokoloff
From the original article, which you may not have actually read:

"My wife has school loans of nearly $250,000 and I do too"

They made the investment in their education and future with borrowed funds,
just as I (and many others) have. It's not like he broke $500K off some trust
fund he was born with...

------
Untitled
<rant>

This article irritates the living hell out of me. I was extremely poor as a
child, yet there are sensible ways people act who are in poverty and ways in
which poor people act that causes poverty.

> Because personal responsibility should not be the sole purview of single
> minority mothers.

The popular idea (in the USA at least) is that once a person is a “single
mother” they are somehow special and everyone has to pay their way. Popular
politicians (Hillary Clinton) say things like “it takes the village to raise a
child”. This is against the normal notion of the father and mother paying for
the child and raising the child. Most single mothers probably do not know the
father of their children.

This is utter bullshit - a poor (and rich girl) is not supposed to get
pregnant out of wedlock – that is insane stupidity. This has nothing to do
with poverty. Getting pregnant does not entitle you to a big chunk of
another’s money.

> Being poor is going to the restroom before you get in the school lunch line
> so your friends will be ahead of you and won't hear you say "I get free
> lunch" when you get to the cashier....

Nice. I didn’t get lunch at school.

> Being poor is feeling the glued soles tear off your supermarket shoes when
> you run around the playground.

Hmm… fair enough. I only wore shoes since 8th grade (because it was
mandatory). In any case, running around barefoot makes you faster (almost
everyone did that). Gluing is a bad way to fix shoes – the better way is with
a thick type of needle and twine (don’t exactly know what this is in English).

> Being poor is relying on people who don't give a damn about you.

I never had a problem with people not caring about me. Of course you will not
be the most popular guy with the girls or have fancy clothes (you know that
group). But that doesn’t mean that people do not care about you.

> Being poor is not talking to that girl because she'll probably just laugh at
> your clothes.

Or having extremely bad acne+teeth but no money for medicine? Been there.
Still doesn’t entitle you to someone else’s money.

> Being poor is your kid's teacher assuming you don't have any books in your
> home.

You know what many teachers like? People who do well and work hard. All the
money of rich kids cannot (usually) buy them good test scores. Fair enough,
they have fancy scientific calculators and computers while you must do with a
hand-hand-hand me down. But that doesn’t help them that much. More often the
privilege that rich kids experience set them up for failure later in life.

Here is what I have found with parents that are different: 1\. Became super
conservative – everything is saved, nothing is wasted. Even now, when my
parents are doing well, my father still can’t throw away glass bottles. 2\.
Obsession with cleanliness (my mother used to say: “We may be poor, but we are
not dirty”). 3\. Obsession with education and forcing children to work
extremely hard. 4\. Extremely socially conservative. My father forbade
dancing, alcohol. Even forbade my sister from watching television soaps, etc…
5\. Extremely strict. 6\. Obsessed with being successful. My father has a
successful business now, but still work 15 hours a day.

<\rant>

------
dmor
He's already taken the original post down, did anyone capture it and want to
repost?

~~~
latif
[http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:kpzaEp0...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:kpzaEp0IVw4J:truthonthemarket.com/2010/09/15/we-
are-the-super-rich/)

~~~
gaius
Damn, you would think a lawyer of all people would be more careful with trying
to destroy the evidence!

~~~
atomical
Content removals can take up to 24 hours with Google webmaster tools.

------
lionhearted
> Perhaps Henderson's outburst should be chalked up to the influence of
> degenerate white culture

This would be unacceptable to say about any other ethnic group - I've got to
say, if you're Caucasian you should get upset at general hate speech and
slapping "white" on something like it's a bad thing. I keep the company of
people of all color and background, I'll do business with anyone I like, but
it's time white people stop taking abuse like this passively. Any other ethnic
group would be up in arms, calling this guy a racist asshole, and writing off
his credibility permanently.

~~~
houseabsolute
> Any other ethnic group would be up in arms

That is because the other ethnic groups are not the dominant ones in society,
and are typically disadvantaged on the whole because of their race. My
personal view as a White person is that I have enough advantages by my White
male-ness that I do not need to demand more, or do anything to offset whatever
minor inconveniences might arise from the same. Doing so would seem petty to
me if I walked in another man's shoes.

Is this racist? Yes, I suppose. White privilege is real, though. A recognition
of this fact requires some ability to discriminate between race when observing
the state of society, so perhaps "racist" should not be the bad word. Instead,
"racial oppressivism" might be a better thing to demonize.

~~~
yummyfajitas
What are the advantages you receive due to white male-ness?

(Note: I'm asking about advantages to an individual, not statistical
advantages to a group. )

~~~
poppysan
-No imbred fear of inferiority. -Acceptance all across the nation if not the globe. -Inspirational historical role models that you can relate to taught by default(save for february...lol) -Less chance of long-term jail sentencing for proportional crimes -etc... the list can go on. This is not to say that you should feel bad for having a slight advantage, but not to recognize it can be confusing to those who have lived with the disadvantages.

~~~
yummyfajitas
Interesting - at least two of the disadvantages are entirely self inflicted
(inbred fear of inferiority, unwillingness to be inspired by people of a
different race).

I'd be curious to see numbers for the jail sentencing claim. It sounds
plausible, but numbers would be nice.

~~~
houseabsolute
Only in the sense that any psychological issue stemming from abuse is self-
inflicted.

------
mhb
Does the law professor have a right to complain? (Marginal Revolution):

[http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2010/09...](http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2010/09/does-
the-law-professor-have-a-right-to-complain.html)

------
nhebb
What's with all the class warfare in the US lately? There isn't anything wrong
with making money. I'm no where near the 450k/yr earnings range, but I
certainly don't begrudge anyone who is. Some people seem to have the
perspective that your earnings are the government's money, and they, through
the goodness of their hearts, let you keep a percentage of it.

~~~
rdl
I think people don't (at least in the US, and probably globally, generally)
begrudge people what they view as "fair" rewards, especially if they
themselves might have a shot at them. Most of the political supporters of low
taxes in the US are actually not incredibly high income, but people who think
they may have high income in the future.

If you view most wealth and income as coming from fraud/crime or deceit, then
it is much more reasonable to want some kind of confiscatory taxes. I think in
the past, most Americans with relatively high incomes (doctors, small business
owners, etc.) were well respected for contributing more value to the community
than they took out in salaries. It is a lot harder even for me as a
libertarian to defend those who make huge amounts of money from wall street,
government regulation, etc.

In most third world countries with pretty open class warfare, the rich have
largely made their money from extractive industry or other exploitation. I'm
not sure if this is cause or effect -- there's a strong argument that living
in a country where wealth only comes from that kind of thing actually turns
your country into a horrible place to live, any where anyone who would
otherwise be productive would then want to flee to be productive elsewhere.

------
Poiesis
Is the title here incorrect? From the article:

 _Our combined income exceeds the $250,000 threshold for the super rich (but
not by that much), and the president plans on raising my taxes._

As for the author's premise, it all depends on what you're willing to put up
with. I have a rusting 25 year old car and a dead front lawn (no gardeners,
scarce water, no time to landscape myself). There are likely people who
disdain this, and I posit the author may be one of them. But I have a family
of six in an expensive area for well under half of the money he describes.

To the people with plenty of money, gardeners and private school are simply
part of the cost of doing business; non-negotiable. But they remain optional,
just as my choices of four kids an an expensive area are also up to me. There
are others who would call me wealthy with my spending of money on such things.
And they are right, in their way.

------
grandalf
See my comment in a related thread:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1711490>

------
tokenadult
A follow-up article by Ezra Klein in the Washington Post:

[http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-
klein/2010/09/the_rich...](http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-
klein/2010/09/the_rich_are_not_bad_just_rich.html)

------
thrill
Yeah, it's not like they worked to earn it or anything - oh wait.

------
sliverstorm
While it does piss me off to read someone who makes so much money complain, I
don't think it's ridiculous for someone who already looses nearly half their
income in taxes being concerned about a further hike. Suppose that last year I
made $10k. Someone, somewhere, thinks that's a hell of a lot of money. But I
bet most people on HN would not condemn me for being concerned about the
government taking a few extra thousand.

His closing comment:

>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.

seems like it might have some merit as well, although I am not in a position
to actually know for certain.

Although, I have asked my father in the past what he pays for taxes, and he
has told me well above 50%. He makes nothing like this man's wages, which
makes me wonder how this man is getting away with less than 50%...

~~~
dangrossman
Very few occupations lead to a cash salary of more than a few hundred thousand
dollars, tops. All the rest of their income (interest and other gains from
investing, appreciation of assets, etc) is taxed at lower rates. Long term
capital gains are only taxed at 15%, for example. So the richer you are, the
lower your marginal tax rate can be as the proportion made up of ordinary
income becomes smaller.

~~~
sliverstorm
I think I may have just tasted the flavor of the "the rich are getting richer
while the poor are getting poorer" kool-aid for the first time.

------
aresant
Another article in the same vein

[http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/money_co/2010/09/obama-
bush-...](http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/money_co/2010/09/obama-bush-tax-
cuts-high-income-earners-wealthy.html)

------
lotusleaf1987
I wish he could lose his job for being so ungrateful and out of touch with
reality and learn how truly privileged he is. This guy needs a wake up call
ASAP.

Also, look at how disgusting some of the comments are on the cache, truly
disgusting: "The poor are inferior to the rich in the U.S. The ones who are
rich have used the system to generally move up, not manipulate the rest of the
population as the liberal biters/haters would have you see the world you
created."

~~~
houseabsolute
Hopefully he will keep his job if he is good at it. No sense wasting that
education when lawyers can learn good practice from him, even if his politics
suck. You are basically advocating employer censoring of employees' private
political opinions and expression, which is a dark road to advocate if there
ever was one.

~~~
sliverstorm
We can wish for bad karma though

~~~
houseabsolute
We shouldn't. There's enough evil in the world already, and this man losing
his job is not likely to make things better.

------
netcan
Not really saying all that much.

We earn over $250k so we're considered superich though that's not fair because
we're not really rich because we spend all our money on normal stuff like
house and groceries and richer people evade taxes offshore but we're not rich
enough to do that and we could evade taxes by pretending to be divorced but
we're too moral to do that and if you tax us we'll have to fire our gardener
and cleaner and sell our house and that's not good for the economy and who
said that you can spend money better that me anyway you Marxian.

~~~
bpodgursky
Your money might not be stashed offshore, but your periods and commas seem to
be safely hidden.

