Poor Todd Henderson Just Can't Catch a Break

[walkitout]

Mind you, it's really only the editorial page at the WSJ that is batshit crazy screamingly right wing (yes, I'm questioning the grammar there, too). Still, here's what one blogger had to say to the professor who complained about how he couldn't afford to pay more taxes because he was barely making it as it was.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704129204575506051919012596.html

First, a financial advisor was invoked: "Too many people have "unrealistic expectations," says Mr. Kalscheur. They figure they should be vacationing in Italy, driving expensive cars, the whole deal. "We need to knock him upside the head. He's got to stop spending money." Every financial planner will tell you the same thing: The real challenge is tackling the psychology."

Then the standard array of budget tricks: track your spending, refinance your mortgage, rethink the private schools decision, pay down debt before saving/investing, hire fewer people, buy cheaper stuff. And think about moving your professor and doc gigs to a cheaper place.

Straightforward, obvious, useful advice to a wide array of people. What a nice public service this blogger is doing.

There are two zingers for the prof:

"contrary to what you seem to think, federal taxes are not extortionate by modern historical standards. According to the CBO, families in the top 20% pay average federal taxes of 25.1%. The figure in President Reagan's final year in office: 25.6%."

"Never, ever, ever again blog about how hard it is to live on $300,000 or $350,000 a year at a time when one middle-aged man in four can't find a full-time job, and one in five can't find any job at all."

Think of it as the memo for rich people. At least one version of it. Nice to see it in the WSJ, even if it's only in an online blog associated with the WSJ.

Comments

[ethelmay.livejournal.com]

Wait, did Arends mean top *two* percent, rather than top 20 percent? Surely the 80th percentile is nowhere near $190K?

I think the article may have been modified

[walkitout]

I can't find any indication of $190K in the article, and citing averages for percentile groups is just _wrong_.

Here's a nice wikipedia article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_in_the_United_States

20% $92,000
5% $167,000
1.5% $250,000
1% $350,000

Information from 2005.

I was just looking at my tax review in turbo tax. It is _wrong_ what we pay in taxes. And the only reason we pay as much as we do is because we trigger AMT. Taxes should go up on households with more income.

Re: I think the article may have been modified

[ethelmay.livejournal.com]

Oh, that's weird. It was modified after I looked at it, but the 20% didn't change. It now says "Stop blaming the government. According to the Congressional Budget Office, $265,000 is the average income of a household in the top 20% of the country, and $395,000 is the average for those in the top 10%. (The thresholds, of course, will be much lower)." I swear that it previously STATED the thresholds, with $190K being that for top 20%.

And yeah, what you said about averages and percentiles.