the HENRY class - High Earners, Not Rich Yet

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

IndyColtsFan

Lifer
Sep 22, 2007
33,656
687
126
I had an opportunity to go to Medical School and make over $300,000 a year. I would probably have gone to a state school and or a private school with the help of grants and student loans backed by the Federal government.

Yes, I think living in the US is worth paying taxes for.

It is definitely worth paying taxes to live here. I don't think anyone would deny that at all. What people like me want to see is the tax burden distributed more fairly -- and yes, I am including the rich who use loopholes to pay nothing and the poor/middle class who use credits to make a profit on their tax returns.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Because of politics. Why should people who buy homes and have children have more tax breaks than males who are single and renting?

Maybe because investing in America's children is an investment in the future of America?

Or do you really think we should determine policy the way modern capitalists worship the quarterly balance sheet?
 

DietDrThunder

Platinum Member
Apr 6, 2001
2,262
326
126
hah. I'm sub-henry, but thanks to my status as someone that makes a decent income, is single, rents, has no kids, etc, I get it pretty bad from the current tax code. The biggest break I would get - student loan interest (I paid $4800 in interest last year) - I am not eligible for. When I filed this year, the program shows stats for your income range. I was at the very bottom of this 100k range - and yet my federal income tax paid for 2009 was about 10% higher than the average for said range.

I'm already being gored, so might as well just let that continue, eh? I bet a lot of those henrys pay a lower % tax than I do.

We are sub-henry as well, but above the average for the same wage group as you (two wage earners). What isn't reflected by the chart is the total tax burden for this income level. Federal income taxes are the biggest chunk, but what you don't see is Federal + Med/EE + OASD/EE + Local Property Taxes + Sales Tax, etc. Two wage earners, $147K in income, just under $43K in total taxes, then take out $17K for private school (the public schools in our area suck), we are left with $87K before other household expenses. I've calculated the difference, if my wife quit her job, which would lower our Federal + Med/EE + OASD/EE taxes, and we home schooled our kid, we'd just about break even. What's the purpose of working hard to try and get ahead if all it does is make you pay so much more in taxes that you aren't really getting ahead.
 

TheBDB

Diamond Member
Jan 26, 2002
3,176
0
0
mag_HEN10_SLIDE_graphic.gif



I know all poor people are that way because they are lazy, and they just want their government welfare handout greedily taken from the hardworking decent wealthy folks....but given the choice is there anyone here who wouldn't prefer to be in that upper group?
 

Blackjack200

Lifer
May 28, 2007
15,995
1,685
126
No, I don't think the deduction should be eliminated unless we went to a flat tax system where everyone paid the same percentage and no deductions are allowed.

I'm on board with no deductions, just leave the progressive, graduated rates like every other sane (and successfull) nation has.
 
Jul 10, 2007
12,050
3
0
The HENRY's are a strange income class, but the problem with that article is getting me to care about the economic issues of a person that extended themselves to the hilt with fixed expenses and as above keeping up with the joneses.

again, lets not assume they're trying to keep up with anyone.

if you're living in a high CoL area - and I mean a real high CoL like NYC or SF, not some crummy place like NoVA - $250k gross doesn't go too far for a family of 5.

sure, you can say they don't need that 4 bedroom 4000 sq ft. house, but why shouldn't they reward themselves and their family with some luxury living?
you work hard when you're young and you reap what you sow.

presently, they're able to afford that lifestyle while paying their share of taxes, but when you start raising taxes unfairly (i'd argue that it's already unfair, the progressive scheme), they'll start complaining.
 
Last edited:
Jul 10, 2007
12,050
3
0
Maybe because investing in America's children is an investment in the future of America?

Or do you really think we should determine policy the way modern capitalists worship the quarterly balance sheet?

yeah, i'm sure those welfare moms' kids are going to turn out to be real winners and contributors to society.
 

tk149

Diamond Member
Apr 3, 2002
7,256
1
0
You know what? I find it hard to believe that someone that actually hauls down $200k+ has the time (or inclination) to google random web forums to find people talking about "HENRYs", register a brand new account, and post their idiotic, extremist views for everyone to see.

Really hard to believe.

I find it far more likely that you're some freeper keyboard jockey living in his parents basement who's never made more than $30k in his life, beating off to a portrait of Ronald Reagan and promising yourself that you'll finish that dog-eared copy of "Atlas Shrugged" some day (like that fundamentalist Christian that hasn't quite made it all the way through Genesis yet.)

amirite?

Of course, I may not be. Maybe you really are a brilliant and savvy businessman, and maybe you have climbed to the top of your field through nothing but your own blood sweat and tears. You hate the thought of a sick child being cured with money that could have gone to another BMW in your driveway. How will that child pull themselves up by their bootstraps if someone is killing their infectious diseases for them?

In that case, I humbly request that you exit the workforce and live off your investments. We will suffer mightily for the loss, but it is the only way we will learn. By continuing to work and pay taxes, you are just enabling us to continue down the dark and hopeless road of caring about each other and expecting those that benefit from our society to contribute to it.

Beautiful ad hominem attack. Keep up the good work! :rolleyes:

I humbly request that you get a higher-paying job. Maybe you'll have to worker harder and longer hours. Then come back and tell us how good it feels to pay higher taxes in your glorious socialist paradise.
 

CountZero

Golden Member
Jul 10, 2001
1,796
36
86
again, lets not assume they're trying to keep up with anyone.

if you're living in a high CoL area - and I mean a real high CoL like NYC or SF, not some crummy place like NoVA - $250k gross doesn't go too far for a family of 5.

sure, you can say they don't need that 4 bedroom 4000 sq ft. house, but why shouldn't they reward themselves and their family with some luxury living?
you work hard when you're young and you reap what you sow.

presently, they're able to afford that lifestyle while paying their share of taxes, but when you start raising taxes unfairly (i'd argue that it's already unfair, the progressive scheme), they'll start complaining.

You could argue that being able to live in a high CoL area at all is a luxury. It is still a trade off. They could probably get a nicer place if they were willing to give up on location (I don't mean move to KS just add a commute, etc).

It honestly sounds like whining to say you want to live both in a high CoL area and with a high QoL. 250k isn't what it was and earning that much doesn't suddenly entitle you to have everything you want. It does entitle you to walk away with more money than someone that earns less and hey, that is what happens. If paying more is such a burden they do have the option to not earn more I can pretty much guarantee you there will be someone else willing to earn more and pay more.

I don't know that 250k is the right place to set that line where taxes increase substantially but I do think a line existing is ok. It would be interesting to see some numbers related to tax burden based on relative earnings over the years and on how the spread in CoL has changed. I'm willing to bet the tax burden isn't what has changed so much as it is the spread of CoL.
 

Blackjack200

Lifer
May 28, 2007
15,995
1,685
126
Beautiful ad hominem attack. Keep up the good work! :rolleyes:

I humbly request that you get a higher-paying job. Maybe you'll have to worker harder and longer hours. Then come back and tell us how good it feels to pay higher taxes in your glorious socialist paradise.

Unlike our high rolling newbie member, I did not suggest how much money I make. Maybe I make nothing, maybe I make $500k+ (hey, I'm posting on ATOT so that's probably on the low end)

I'm happy to pay 50% more taxes if it means I'm making 100% more income.
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
I am in the $50,000 to $100,000 group. I went to public schools and a state university. I am doing well because I live in the US and actually I do not mind paying taxes to pay for living here. I would rather that so much of my taxes did not go to supporting the empire.

I always wonder about the people who have benefitted the most from living in the US complain the most about paying for it.
12% of the population makes over $100k a year and pays 74% of the tax burden. Tell me...exactly how much do you think is their 'fair share'?
 

CountZero

Golden Member
Jul 10, 2001
1,796
36
86
12% of the population makes over $100k a year and pays 74% of the tax burden. Tell me...exactly how much do you think is their 'fair share'?

I couldn't find stats for 2009 but I did see stats for 2007 which had top 10% making 50% of all the income in the country so the disparity isn't so great as you imply. And if you live somewhere that uses progressive tax you'd expect the top 50% of income to be covering more than 50% of the taxes so I don't think your numbers are surprising or terribly outrageous.

I'm assuming when you say 12% of the population you mean 12% of wage earners not 12% of people that could be working because 12% of the population is going to represent a much larger chunk of total wage earners making the 74% number even less outrageous.
 

Blackjack200

Lifer
May 28, 2007
15,995
1,685
126
I couldn't find stats for 2009 but I did see stats for 2007 which had top 10% making 50% of all the income in the country so the disparity isn't so great as you imply. And if you live somewhere that uses progressive tax you'd expect the top 50% of income to be covering more than 50% of the taxes so I don't think your numbers are surprising or terribly outrageous.

I'm assuming when you say 12% of the population you mean 12% of wage earners not 12% of people that could be working because 12% of the population is going to represent a much larger chunk of total wage earners making the 74% number even less outrageous.

But that's hardly the idea, is it?

Does anyone know what an income distribution curve would look like in this country? It can't be normal, I doubt it it's even a Pareto distribrution at this point. The IRS should have easy access to this kind of information...
 

child of wonder

Diamond Member
Aug 31, 2006
8,307
175
106
If we lower taxes on the top wage earners right now won't that exacerbate the deficit even more?

I'm all for revamping our taxes but right now we're spending so much into the red that we need all the tax revenue we can get and have to drastically cut spending or we'll be the ones asking other countries for bailouts because we're "too big to fail."
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
I couldn't find stats for 2009 but I did see stats for 2007 which had top 10% making 50% of all the income in the country so the disparity isn't so great as you imply. And if you live somewhere that uses progressive tax you'd expect the top 50% of income to be covering more than 50% of the taxes so I don't think your numbers are surprising or terribly outrageous.

I'm assuming when you say 12% of the population you mean 12% of wage earners not 12% of people that could be working because 12% of the population is going to represent a much larger chunk of total wage earners making the 74% number even less outrageous.
The numbers are based on taxpayers for the 2006 tax year. I was looking at the graph totalnoob posted earlier in this thread as follows:
mag_HEN10_SLIDE_graphic.gif

I'm not trying to spin the numbers here...just commenting on them as I see them. Please show me some less 'outrageous' numbers...I'd really like to see what you've got. And while you're at it...an answer to my question would be nice...but nobody seems to ever want to answer this question for some reason. All I ever hear is that the "rich" need to "pay their fair share"...what's "rich" and what's "fair"?
 

jhbball

Platinum Member
Mar 20, 2002
2,917
23
81
you know dave, you piss and moan more than anyone i have seen on these boards. Certainly more than any of the supposedly "rich" people here. So allow me to say it to you:

leave if you don't like it!

you have nothing to contribute and you clearly don't like our country, so we will be happy to give you a one-way ticket out to somalia. Iirc, shiner, motf bane, and myself all have volunteered to pitch in.

awesome computers dude.
 

AreaCode707

Lifer
Sep 21, 2001
18,440
101
91
Husband and I probably fall into the HENRY category. I am not at all apologetic about it.

- We both blasted through college by taking 20-36 units per quarter to save on student loans; no partying, social life or "finding ourselves" here
- We each work 80-100 hours a week. My husband owns his own business and I work at a high stress corporate job where my time off bank is maxed because there's nobody to cover my systems' 24/7 support requirements
- I drive a beat up (inside and out) salvage title Jetta and my husband drives a salvage title Miata in not much better shape.
- We own our own home but we rent the upstairs bedrooms of our house out and live in the basement
- We don't travel; I've never been outside the US and only once have I been off the west coast. I haven't taken more than a week and change off in the last 7 years
- We won't be having kids

Sound like a life any of you want? The flip side of it is that we're saving our money so we can someday afford to move "home" - my home area in Northern California that has no industry or work available.

I want to know why I can work twice as hard as my housemates and find (in 2008) that the government decided to give THEM $600 tax rebates when I was taxed significantly more. We live the same way they do, although at that point we were basically subsidizing their housing...

Tax spending!!! Right now I'm serious de-incentivized to work my arse off because it feels like no matter how hard I work I'm getting basically the same take home pay. Tax spending instead of income and let those of us that trade in our lives at least have the illusion for a little while that we're getting ahead.
 

child of wonder

Diamond Member
Aug 31, 2006
8,307
175
106
Tax spending!!!

This is something I tend to gravitate towards however the main problem I have with it is how it shifts a significant amount of the tax burden to the middle class.

However, the system would reward savings and would allow us to drastically cut the IRS and Social Security (since everyone could save their money 100% tax free).

On the other hand, this system would penalize anyone who has been saving in Roth IRAs and people who are already retired.
 

AreaCode707

Lifer
Sep 21, 2001
18,440
101
91
This is something I tend to gravitate towards however the main problem I have with it is how it shifts a significant amount of the tax burden to the middle class.

However, the system would reward savings and would allow us to drastically cut the IRS and Social Security (since everyone could save their money 100% tax free).

On the other hand, this system would penalize anyone who has been saving in Roth IRAs and people who are already retired.
Re: bolded text; it depends on what you tax. If you minimize or eliminate tax on necessities (certain types of groceries, gas, clothes) and you extremely jack up taxes on luxury purchases (second homes, boats, high end cars, luxury brand clothes, etc.) then you're taking your taxes off those who are using their means profligately. Saves the middle class, still incentivizes the exceptional earners, and provides for the lower classes.

Still not sure why this isn't the baseline approach by government to taxation, but I'm open to explanations from smarter people than myself.

[edit] I should add that I truly don't mind paying more tax dollars than someone who makes half what I do but it burns me to pay twice as much percentage-wise when I live in the same style they do. If we taxed spending I'd get dinged bad when we do move "home" because it would be a second-home and I find that a completely understandable point to be taxed, because my lifestyle would be substantially changing and it makes sense to me to be taxed extra for that luxury.
 
Last edited:

child of wonder

Diamond Member
Aug 31, 2006
8,307
175
106
Re: bolded text; it depends on what you tax. If you minimize or eliminate tax on necessities (certain types of groceries, gas, clothes) and you extremely jack up taxes on luxury purchases (second homes, boats, high end cars, luxury brand clothes, etc.) then you're taking your taxes off those who are using their means profligately. Saves the middle class, still incentivizes the exceptional earners, and provides for the lower classes.

Still not sure why this isn't the baseline approach by government to taxation, but I'm open to explanations from smarter people than myself.

[edit] I should add that I truly don't mind paying more tax dollars than someone who makes half what I do but it burns me to pay twice as much percentage-wise when I live in the same style they do. If we taxed spending I'd get dinged bad when we do move "home" because it would be a second-home and I find that a completely understandable point to be taxed, because my lifestyle would be substantially changing and it makes sense to me to be taxed extra for that luxury.

Trouble is, if we tax extra on the purchase of a second home then how does that affect someone wanting to get a cabin? I know plenty of people that have small lake cabins and they're not "HENRY's" by any means -- just people in their late 40s or early 50s who have done a good job saving or have their primary home paid for.

It's tough because no matter where you shift any tax burden, the individuals who are taxed more are ALWAYS going to complain. There really is no "fair" system so I think we should abandon that misnomer.

I would like to see a code that rewards people for saving or taking steps to maintain their independence even during tough times. This would be the governments way of rewarding people who don't need government assistance when times get tough and could also help encourage people to get off government assistance.
 

CountZero

Golden Member
Jul 10, 2001
1,796
36
86
The numbers are based on taxpayers for the 2006 tax year. I was looking at the graph totalnoob posted earlier in this thread as follows:
mag_HEN10_SLIDE_graphic.gif

I'm not trying to spin the numbers here...just commenting on them as I see them. Please show me some less 'outrageous' numbers...I'd really like to see what you've got. And while you're at it...an answer to my question would be nice...but nobody seems to ever want to answer this question for some reason. All I ever hear is that the "rich" need to "pay their fair share"...what's "rich" and what's "fair"?

I didn't say you were spinning the numbers I didn't remember the graph so wasn't sure where 12% of the population came from. I don't think you can say that 12% of taxpayers paying 74% of taxes is fair (or unfair) without bringing in what % of income that 12% represents. It seems like numbers chosen to make it sound worse than it really is. Given the point of this article it seems intentionally misleading.

The top 10% make 50% of the income. So if I said that the top 10% pay 50% of the taxes it would sound outrageous without that additional data.

Defining fair share isn't necessarily possible since there will be disagreements in any case. If you view progressive tax as inherently unfair than anything over 50% would be unfair to the top 50%. If you do not view progressive tax as a bad thing than the top 50% paying >50% is by design, it is the point. Is 74% unfair? I don't know, I don't think so.

The real test would be whether people would not want to actively move to that bracket. The implication being that earning 287k and walking away with 230k is worse that making 133k and walking with 116k seems flawed. By the brackets the 100k-200k pay 13% rate and the 200k-500k pay 20% rate (the next three brackets are 34%, 24% and 21%; a more interesting question would be why isn't the rate increasing as the brackets go up, it should in a progressive situation) I don't think a 7% increase in tax rate when you have doubled your income is particularly bad.
 

Blackjack200

Lifer
May 28, 2007
15,995
1,685
126
Husband and I probably fall into the HENRY category. I am not at all apologetic about it.

So you gross > $250,000/year and you live in your basement and drive beater cars, don't travel, and won't have kids? I think there's a word for that, and it's not HENRY.
 

AreaCode707

Lifer
Sep 21, 2001
18,440
101
91
So you gross > $250,000/year and you live in your basement and drive beater cars, don't travel, and won't have kids? I think there's a word for that, and it's not HENRY.

Not sure what word you're thinking of. "Saver" is my word. We know what we want out of life and we're just very focused on getting there. It's painful but we're making progress.