PDA

View Full Version : Long Live Todd Henderson and the Age of Self-Reliance!




DisillusionedPatriot
09-24-2010, 11:33 PM
Todd Henderson is a law professor at the University of Chicago. He has been excoriated in the news since Sept. 15, when he dared to write a short article explaining how his status among the so-called "super rich" threatens to destroy his financial security. Todd and his wife make over $250,000, "more than enough" for some people. Instead of respecting the hard work that made his success possible, media idiots have argued that between two cars, a babysitter, and his children in a private school, his lifestyle is so lavish as to eliminate any right to his property and the fruits of his hard work. Say it ain't so, Joe.

Henderson's full article:

We are the Super Rich

Posted by Todd Henderson on September 15, 2010

The rhetoric in Washington about taxes is about millionaires and the super rich, but the relevant dividing line between millionaires and the middle class is pegged at family income of $250,000. (I’m not a math professor, but last time I checked $250,000 is less than $1 million.) That makes me super rich and subject to a big tax hike if the president has his way.

I’m the president’s neighbor in Chicago, but we’ve never met. I wish we could, because I would introduce him to my family and our lifestyle, one he believes is capable of financing the vast expansion of government he is planning. A quick look at our family budget, which I will happily share with the White House, will show him that like many Americans, we are just getting by despite seeming to be rich. We aren’t.

I, like the president before me, am a law professor at the University of Chicago Law School, and my wife, like the first lady before her, works at the University of Chicago Hospitals, where she is a doctor who treats children with cancer. 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. After all, we can afford it, and the world we are now living in has that familiar Marxian tone of those who need take and those who can afford it pay. The problem is, we can’t afford it. Here is why.

The biggest expense for us is financing government. Last year, my wife and I paid nearly $100,000 in federal and state taxes, not even including sales and other taxes. This amount is so high because we can’t afford fancy accountants and lawyers to help us evade taxes and we are penalized by the tax code because we choose to be married and we both work outside the home. (If my wife and I divorced or were never married, the government would write us a check for tens of thousands of dollars. Talk about perverse incentives.)

Our next biggest expense, like most people, is our mortgage. Homes near our work in Chicago aren’t cheap and we do not have friends who were willing to help us finance the deal. We chose to invest in the University community and renovate and old property, but we did so at an inopportune time.

We pay about $15,000 in property taxes, about half of which goes to fund public education in Chicago. Since we care the education of our three children, this means we also have to pay to send them to private school. My wife has school loans of nearly $250,000 and I do too, although becoming a lawyer is significantly cheaper. We try to invest in our retirement by putting some money in the stock market, something that these days sounds like a patriotic act. Our account isn’t worth much, and is worth a lot less than it used to be.

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.

Fox McCloud
09-24-2010, 11:58 PM
they're still doing better off than a lot of Americans, but I think he's making a very good point; the "rich" as portrayed by the government, aren't always "rich", but upper middle class, or (depending on where they live) regular middle class.

For example, if you live in Silicon Valley, $250,000 isn't going to go nearly as far as in rural Ohio.

Money is relative.....that's that bad thing about a large, centralized government that applies a "one size fits all" style of rules and regulations to the entire nation; $60,000 in Wyoming is not the same $60,000 in NYC, yet they'll be taxed, at the Federal level, the same.

DisillusionedPatriot
09-25-2010, 12:01 AM
they're still doing better off than a lot of Americans

Which of course really has nothing to do with it, when you get down to the real issues here. Either we as a society accept that we want equality of outcome instead of equality of opportunity or we realize that such a belief is not only tyrannical, but doomed to the most ignominious failure. Equality of outcome cannot be obtained by any means, let alone government redistributive efforts. All that entails is dragging everyone down to the lowest common denominator. But at least it's "fair," right?

Fox McCloud
09-25-2010, 12:08 AM
Which of course really has nothing to do with it, when you get down to the real issues here. Either we as a society accept that we want equality of outcome instead of equality of opportunity or we realize that such a belief is not only tyrannical, but doomed to the most ignominious failure. Equality of outcome cannot be obtained by any means, let alone government redistributive efforts. All that entails is dragging everyone down to the lowest common denominator. But at least it's "fair," right?

It was just an observation; I don't, at all, believe in equality of outcome, as it reduces society to a state of utter economic ruin that causes suffering for nearly everyone. Equality of opportunity? I'm not a huge fan of that either, unless by "equality of opportunity" you mean "equal treatment before the law", then I would agree with you.

DisillusionedPatriot
09-25-2010, 12:39 AM
It was just an observation; I don't, at all, believe in equality of outcome, as it reduces society to a state of utter economic ruin that causes suffering for nearly everyone. Equality of opportunity? I'm not a huge fan of that either, unless by "equality of opportunity" you mean "equal treatment before the law", then I would agree with you.

You're right - a poor choice of words. "Equal treatment under the law" is better. What I meant by equality of opportunity was merely the idea that each person would be able to proceed in life under his own banner, advancing exactly as far as his own talents and hard work take him, neither being impeded nor demanding aid in his efforts.