Comments on: The whining rich A slice of lime in the soda Sun, 26 Oct 2014 19:05:02 +0000 hourly 1 By: zotdoc Mon, 06 Dec 2010 22:09:14 +0000 I can’t understand how our taxation is “fair” when supposedly 40 percent or more of US citizens actually pay no income taxes. So why should there be a group that is allowed to reap the benefits that taxes provide, pay nothing and still be allowed to vote for ever more benefits and ever more taxes on the “rich”? Part of our problem is there are a whole lot of folks who don’t have any “skin” in the game, so of course they are happy to let the government increase taxes on those better off than they. Maybe they should raise taxes on the rich, but for each $10,000.00 in income taxes you pay, you get an extra vote?

By: phrage Sun, 21 Nov 2010 10:33:33 +0000 is bleating about “untold damage an oxymoron?” In Ireland the rich whiners are rolling their eyes at having to take 8 holidays a year instead of ten and telling the poor that “we must all tighten our belts” The really rich ones have fled to Switzerland and South of France with their gardeners driving trucks full of paintings and antiques abroad by night !

By: mjimih Tue, 16 Nov 2010 13:25:07 +0000 So we need to 1st make it so the richer you are, the higher the tax rate for you is. And remove all fancy deductions and loopholes too. Then we need to refurbish old factories or build new ones that make products that run on renewable energy (bring back some of the things China and other countries make for us now; the American flag, clothes, electronics), and put people to work at at least oh about $16.00/hr. This creates demand, which lifts all boats, eventually, especially if regulations keep the Corps. in check. We need to also remove the sucking sound that is Wallstreet, where money produces money and generally nothing else of real value. We need to remove super-high usery rates on consumer credit. Ah heck I could go on and on about the things that are not being addressed, let alone fixed, to improve the life liberty and the pursuit of happiness of everybody making less than um say about 200,000/ yr., but I have to go back to my machine in the plant.

By: johnsonv2k10 Thu, 14 Oct 2010 02:20:24 +0000 Another of my favorites, Congresswoman Michele Bachmann said, “I don’t know where they’re going to get all this money, because we’re running out of rich people in this country.” Actually, we have more billionaires here in the U.S. than all the other countries in the top ten combined, and their wealth grew 27% in the last year. Did yours? Truth is, there are only two things that the United States is not running out of: Rich people and bullshit. Here’s the truth: When you raise taxes slightly on the wealthy, it obviously doesn’t destroy the economy — we know this, because we just did it — remember the ’90’s?
Top Savings Accounts Savings Accounts

By: revusky Sun, 03 Oct 2010 09:05:18 +0000 Plenty of commentators, here and elsewhere, have appropriately ridiculed Professor Henderson for claiming that his $400,000 (give or take) household income does not make him rich. Of course it does. ‘Nuff said. However, my comment here is not just to add to that chorus. There is another aspect of this whole conversation that has not been touched on, despite being (IMHO) really a core issue.

Let’s start on first principles, shall we?

Todd Henderson is a lawyer. Okay, fine, nothing wrong with that, I guess. But… what that means (I think tautologically) is that he makes his quite handsome living off of something called “the law”, which is simply a social/institutional construct. People like Mr. Henderson do not actually produce any wealth. I think this is a very important point to be made here, because, the way he and people like this talk, it is as if they were farmers on a plot of land, growing rice and beans and wheat and whatnot, and some government tax collectors showed up and took the lion’s share of their crop. IOW, they talk as if they actually produced something real and the government came and took it and redistributed it. But, no, this guy is a specialist in “the law”, corporate law to be precise, a completely notional thing that only has an existence because the organs of the State — the courts, the law enforcement agencies, etc. — cause this notional thing to exist. Without the State, Henderson’s skills, his knowledge of and ability to debate “the law” would have no more value than being able to debate how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

This, to my mind, is the real problem with the stale libertarian claptrap that people like Henderson engage in. People like Henderson do not create any wealth. Their income is entirely based on extracting wealth from the people who really produce real, tangible goods and services. Granted, due to the existence of a labyrinthine judicial system that is entirely a creation of the State, a person who can help people (or corporations, but corporations are people too, right?…) navigate said system has a valuable marketable skill.

However, that somebody has a marketable skill (due to a set of social/institutional arrangements) does not mean that this person actually produces any wealth. You can easily realize this by asking yourself weather a nation could become wealthier by investing in educating more corporate lawyers. Obviously not. A nation can become more wealthy by training more engineers, more scientists, and simply skilled technical people of different types. Yet no society can become richer in aggregate by training more lawyers. (Though it can probably become poorer…)

So this guy specializes in this unproductive wealth-extracting activity, and I guess, is fairly good at it, so he teaches it at a top law school, but has so little _real_ understanding of his role that he complains essentially that the wealth he produces is being redistributed to unworthy, unproductive people. (Except the unworthy, unproductive people, by and large, are actually the people who do all the real work, like collect the trash and stack the supermarket shelves etc. etc….)

In short, while I see people calling Professor Henderson all kinds of names, why don’t people simply ask him pointedly what wealth he produces that is being redistributed. After all, that is the basis of his grievance, is it not? If the esteemed professor had to admit that he actually does not produce anything (i.e. Nothing, zip, nada, screw-all…) then would he not just have to concede that his supposed grievance only exists in his own mind?

By: hsvkitty Sat, 25 Sep 2010 17:59:27 +0000 (enriching too…)

By: hsvkitty Sat, 25 Sep 2010 17:55:02 +0000 While we must earn money to live… must we live to earn money?

I learned long ago that to live within my means and to give to others is satisfying and enrichening. the “greed is good’ indoctrinated into students, children and now most of American society is tearing your country apart. Having what you need is good, having more is something to be thankful for.

@runsoncoffee His whine has already a detriment to his family and his job. He doesn’t ‘need’ to have you anger as well … Mr. Henderson has a new premature baby at home and the lack of sleep and stress of that made him ac ta little crazy and air his anger.

I am sure he is now well aware how the world feels about him and his blog, being he and his family received threats through the email you just revealed and it was blogged about for days after. How does it make you better then he, to hound him personally?

He took down the post, made an apology and since decided to not blog at all for the time being. Let him reflect on what happened without more threats of violence.

By: DanHess Sat, 25 Sep 2010 02:51:43 +0000 Admittedly Todd Henderson was whining. That is a very high income he has, probably near the top 1% in America. But that doesn’t mean we should surround him like a pack of dogs and want to take his stuff by punitive taxes. It’s his. We should admire his success, not envy it. This is America.

Todd Henderson should have said:

“It’s my money. I earned it. I worked really hard. I did a lot of things for a lot of people to get that money. I am exhausted from my hard work and I want to give my kids a nice life. Go out and earn your own money. I will be happy to give you my money in exchange for services, the same way I got my money. Here is a list of services I am in the market for. Provide them and you can have my money.”

By: ayesee Fri, 24 Sep 2010 17:45:38 +0000 Sending kids to private school could in only very few cases be considered a necessity. IMO, and in my observation as well as opinion, sending the kids to private school is an exercise in elitism, if not downright arrogance, vastly more so than an academic advantage. We have ACT scores to show that there is no significant advantage in the private schools, particularly considering that the private schools do not serve all the types of kids – the unruly, disruptive as well as those with all manner of handicaps and those that come to high school not being able to speak or read a word of English – that the public schools are required to serve and do serve.

$60,000 a year, or any amount, spent to send kids to private school is not a necessity, but in some cases may be spending one’s retirement on the illusion that it is really worthwhile and a great advantage for the kids.

By: sb0623 Fri, 24 Sep 2010 17:05:38 +0000 Typical spoiled Yuppie brat. Wah, wah, wah! Get a grip! Most of the population can’t afford to send their kids to private school, and with tuition rates going off the charts, college is even tougher. He has plenty of tax breaks that the 30k a year guy can’t utilize. I wonder how honest he is on his tax return . . .

Bob D: Just wait till not November elections are over – if the Dems have their way, we will have the highest tax rates ever! History proves their administrations always have the highest rates.