Unable to Scrape by on 250K+ a Year

[201Ked]

University of Chicago is tax exempted - no property taxes and all those other tax exempt perks. They are able to issue municipal bonds backed by Illinois tax payers.

They received $97B from the Recovery Act on June 30, 2010.

Mr Henderson is essentially a government employee and should be compensated in kind. A professor would equal a GS12 or GS13. Therefore his pay should be around $95K.

[Rambler]

What Hiredgun said.

I don't mind paying my fair share of taxes. But, I really wish the folks who do make more than 250k didn't have to take such a beating. I certainly don't have the issues that the blogger has...I live a much simpler life. But I do work very hard, very long days, employ and pay a lot of people, etc.

Kind of off-topic, but it hurts me when I have to remove workers during a recession. But, the hard decisions like that are the ones that keep the rest of my employees in a job. If the company goes bankrupt because we didn't downsize at the right time, we all lose our jobs, our shareholders lose equity, suppliers lose business and sometimes also go bankrupt, and the community loses tax revenue.

So no, the blogger should not be complaining about not being able to make it on 400k per year, but those of us who do make that much through extreme diligence do not need to be flogged for our success. What's the old saying? "The beating shall continue until morale improves!"

R

[photoguy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 201Ked Mr Henderson is essentially a government employee and should be compensated in kind. A professor would equal a GS12 or GS13. Therefore his pay should be around $95K.

I think he should be paid the market rate for someone of his skills and qualifications. I'm guessing that would be significantly more than 95K.

Also, he could probably earn much more in private industry and is forgoing salary for intangible benefits of being a professor.

[201Ked]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rambler What Hiredgun said. I don't mind paying my fair share of taxes. But,

the issue for me is OUR taxes are going to pay for his bloated salary and he complains about he pays to much taxes.

Doing quick sniff around the net University of Chicago has received at least $125B - THIS YEAR - from tax payers. This is a $13.9B per month pace. Can they send it back and lower their tuition and cut Mr. Henderson's salary?

[201Ked]

Quote:

Originally Posted by photoguy I think he should be paid the market rate for someone of his skills and qualifications. I'm guessing that would be significantly more than 95K. Also, he could probably earn much more in private industry and is forgoing salary for intangible benefits of being a professor.

If universities and colleges did not get tax payer hand outs he would be lucky to get $95K to teach a couple classes over and over again. You will find the college professors are there because they can not hack real corporate life. Which is why he does not even understand that his university is a tax payer subsidized sucking machine.

[photoguy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 201Ked If universities and colleges did not get tax payer hand outs he would be lucky to get $95K to teach a couple classes over and over again.

Given that starting salaries for new associates can begin at $160K (Law firm - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia), I find it hard to imagine that the university could attract talented professionals at that salary.

Quote:

You will find the college professors are there because they can not hack real corporate life.

In my experience with professors in top-tier universities in fields such as engineering and science, this is simply not true. They are typically highly talented individuals who can and do move between industry and academia. Many of them are also highly entrepenurial and are regularly involved with start-ups.

[obgyn65]

The whole thing looks very presumptuous to me. Some people egos have no limits.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TooFrugal They pay $100K in state and federal taxes but don't have the money to hire "fancy accountants."

[Hiredgun]

I have a very good friend who is a business professor at a private college in New York. The trade-off he has made is a very cushy lifestyle for a lesser salary (than in the business world).

He has an easy class schedule, lots of vacation and just took a 3 month sabbatical. That is the trade-off. Could he hack it in the corporate world? Sure, he just chooses not to.

And I believe his choice is well reasoned and an awfully good one.

[TooFrugal]

Quote:

The whole thing looks very presumptuous to me. Some people egos have no limits. Quote: Originally Posted by TooFrugal They pay $100K in state and federal taxes but don't have the money to hire "fancy accountants."

Those are facts taken from the original blog post. I'm unclear why using a direct quote is presumptuous or has anything to do with anyone's ego.

This is an excerpt from the original blog post -

"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."

[201Ked]

Quote:

Originally Posted by photoguy Given that starting salaries for new associates can begin at $160K (Law firm - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia), I find it hard to imagine that the university could attract talented professionals at that salary.

Mr Henderson got his degree in 1999, clerked for 2 years and worked at a law firm - corporate tax law for 1 year prior to teaching. 3 years of "experience" makes a talented professional? Sigh. He is teaching from a script. It is not rocket science. Follow the script, throw in some humor, act concerned, kiss a**, collect the check.

Of course, you are completing overlooking the factoid our tax payer dollars are subsidizing his salary.

P.S. Law Students fret because jobs disappear - http://nytimes.com/2009/08/26/studen...obs-disappear/

[obgyn65]

Sorry TooFrugal- I did not imply that using facts from a direct quote is presumptuous. I was not taking about you. What sounds presumptuous is the fact that these people being referred to (being a lawyer + MD) claim they are not being able to make ends meet. I don't have much sympathy for them.

Sorry for the confusion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TooFrugal Those are facts taken from the original blog post. I'm unclear why using a direct quote is presumptuous or has anything to do with anyone's ego.

[Bestwifeever]

I don't have a lot of sympathy for someone who makes that much money and can't figure out how to make ends meet, but he teaches at an extremely competitive top tier law school so it is unlikely he is a hack who couldn't make it in the real world. The University of Chicago's neighborhood is an expensive oasis in the middle of some of the most dangerous neighborhoods in the city, so their home is likely in Hyde Park or Kenwood (where the president's million-dollar home is), as their choices are very limited. And his wife's practice is likely with the university's medical center, so they are pretty much married to the area. The public schools are dismal so their children probably go to the university's Lab School. Finally, the University of Chicago is a private school, so any taxpayer subsidies it receives are indirect and nothing like those that support the public University of Illinois at Chicago--many people confuse the two schools.

It is probably the student loans that are killing them; when they are paid off and the wife is established in her practice, the couple will be on easy street.

[Emeritus]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hiredgun "The rich pay more because they have and get so much more" Sorry, but I have to take issue with that comment. The "rich" make more money (if they are like my wife and I) because we work our asses off, employ and pay health insurance, life insurance and disability for several employees, have gone to school for many years to earn a law degree from a prestigious university and took the risks of leaving a cushy law practice to venture out on our own. We've never been given anything. We earned every last penny we have and I get real tired of the class warfare (i.e. jealousy) that is apparent even on these boards. I also love the politico speak "a tax cut for the rich". Thanks so much for characterizing letting me keep some of the money I have earned (for which the government hasn't done a damn thing) as a tax break. Jeez, thanks for doing nothing (big Government) and allowing me to keep less than 50% of what my sweat and toil has earned. We don't "get some much more", we work hard, employ others and earn it. Show me a poor man who creates jobs for others. Good luck,

OFCS The Saudi Arabian ruling class makes all the same arguments.
I don't buy it from them either.

1) The rich get their opportunities from the government and are protected by it. The government provides the entire infrastructure that lets people make money. If you think you made it on your own go to Afghanistan and show us.

2) contempt for the poor is class warfare

3) I'm a lawyer too. Lawyers specifically depend on the public legal system to make money. We dont pay for it, but we profit from it.

4) We have a contingent fee system precisely so that poor people can create jobs for lawyers.

[Emeritus]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 201Ked Mr Henderson got his degree in 1999, clerked for 2 years and worked at a law firm - corporate tax law for 1 year prior to teaching. 3 years of "experience" makes a talented professional? Sigh. He is teaching from a script. It is not rocket science. Follow the script, throw in some humor, act concerned, kiss a**, collect the check. Of course, you are completing overlooking the factoid our tax payer dollars are subsidizing his salary.

I got my law degree in 1975, clerked for two years and began teaching law to engineers and economists. I respectfully suggest that you have no idea of the job of law professor. In many ways the law is much more complex than rocket science.

[Gone4Good]

Quote:

Originally Posted by photoguy Both sets of numbers ultimately come from the census bureau. The 47K per year is for new york city as a whole (the greater metro area) whereas the 100K per year is for manhattan itself. This is clearer if you go to

I'll also point out that $47K is MEDIAN FAMILY income whereas $100K is PER-CAPITA INCOME. Per-capita income is a pretty useless statistic when looking at income data in an area with large income inequality, like NYC.

Example: Assume NYC has only 5 residents, 4 make $50K and one makes $5MM. Median income is $50k, but per-capita income is $1MM. Master Blaster moves in to town earning $250K, and feels poor because he's not making $1MM, but conveniently ignores the fact that he's still earning 5x more than 2/3 of the population.

For some reason most folks define "rich" as "those who make more than I do," regardless of how much they make. It lacks any sense of perspective. I also don't know when "Middle Class" was redefined to include incomes many multiples higher than median incomes. Middle means middle, not top quartile, or decile.

[donheff]

Lets not forget that this whiner was undoubtedly doing just fine throughout the Clinton Administration right up until Bush tossed him a TEMPORARY windfall scheduled to expire this year so as not to bust the US budget long term. This guy sucks up all the extra cash and then cries when he can't adjust to the return to a slightly lower spending level.

[photoguy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 201Ked Mr Henderson got his degree in 1999, clerked for 2 years and worked at a law firm - corporate tax law for 1 year prior to teaching. 3 years of "experience" makes a talented professional?

According to his CV (M. Todd Henderson : Curriculum Vitae | University of Chicago Law School) he didn't become a professor until 2005 leaving 7 years of work experience.

[Orchidflower]

After reading this thread, I see I'm not the only one who thinks these whiners are ridiculous. Whatever would these two do if we had a war or some national disaster where they really lost everything (think Jewish professionals in WWII who ended up in the death camps)? Would they be able to make it out? Not so sure with the sense of entitlement I'm picking up in their whine.

I have no pity for these two people when there are single moms out there raising 3 kids by themselves and lacking the skills to do it even at a middle class level. These two need to get into reality about their situation IMHO.

[photoguy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gone4Good I'll also point out that $47K is MEDIAN FAMILY income whereas $100K is PER-CAPITA INCOME. Per-capita income is a pretty useless statistic when looking at income data in an area with large income inequality, like NYC.

Good catch. For some reason I was thinking median personal income although I don't know why. averages as you state can easily be skewed. Still, when I look at the median numbers in my home state (CA) it's quite easy for certain cities to have double the average.

Quote:

For some reason most folks define "rich" as "those who make more than I do," regardless of how much they make. It lacks any sense of perspective. I also don't know when "Middle Class" was redefined to include incomes many multiples higher than median incomes. Middle means middle, not top quartile, or decile.

For me, I define rich as having high net worth. Having high income gives one the potential to be rich but by does not qualify by itself.

Personally, I know that my household income in a high cost of living area is several times what some of my relatives make in the midwest. However, I can't say that my lifestyle is much different. I have a smaller home, still drive a 15 year old car, don't eat out much, etc.

[TooFrugal]

Quote:

Sorry TooFrugal- I did not imply that using facts from a direct quote is presumptuous. I was not taking about you. What sounds presumptuous is the fact that these people being referred to (being a lawyer + MD) claim they are not being able to make ends meet. I don't have much sympathy for them. Sorry for the confusion.

Okay, sorry for being too dense to understand what you meant.