• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

the HENRY class - High Earners, Not Rich Yet

Page 8 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
20,980
849
126
If you will be enabled to retire at 50 while the majority of Americans will have to work into their late 60's (maybe even early 70's) then you have too much money hoarded away and can afford to pay more taxes. Sorry.
It doesnt take a fuck ton of money to retire early....IF you start early. Thats the key. But, most people dont. That and, you live within your means. As Warren Buffet says, theres two ways to accumulate alot of money. Alot of money and a little time, or a little money and alot of time. And most people have more time than money.
 

Throckmorton

Lifer
Aug 23, 2007
16,830
2
0
how is it fair that one gets taxed more because they make more? that is NOT fair.

do the rich use govt services more than the poor? i'd argue that the opposite is true. all the social programs that benefit the poor that the govt shits out is paid for not by the poor but by the middle and upper classes.
Consider this. Taxpayers pay a large part of the costs of the airline industry, from airports to security to air traffic control to regulation to R&D. From the time I immigrated to the USA in 1995 to the time I moved to Hawaii, I didn't fly at all. My upper middle class friends fly at least once or twice a year. What is the proportion of benefits gained from those tax dollars?
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
62,308
14,520
136
how is it fair that one gets taxed more because they make more? that is NOT fair.
So, uhh, would it be "fair" if their tax rate were lower?

Actually, it is lower at the tippy-top. America's top 400 incomes paid 17.7% federal income tax in 2007, on taxable incomes that averaged over $260M apiece.

Most Henry's pay a higher federal rate than that, and also pay a higher % of their incomes on other taxes, as well.

And, quite frankly, I see progressive taxes as a good thing, if they truly are progressive. Most middle Americans with a lick of sense would be tickled to death to make $500K/yr and pay standard deduction taxes on it. It's not what you don't get, really, but what you do get, and upper income people really do get a lot for their efforts.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
20,980
849
126
So, uhh, would it be "fair" if their tax rate were lower?

Actually, it is lower at the tippy-top. America's top 400 incomes paid 17.7% federal income tax in 2007, on taxable incomes that averaged over $260M apiece.

Most Henry's pay a higher federal rate than that, and also pay a higher % of their incomes on other taxes, as well.

And, quite frankly, I see progressive taxes as a good thing, if they truly are progressive. Most middle Americans with a lick of sense would be tickled to death to make $500K/yr and pay standard deduction taxes on it. It's not what you don't get, really, but what you do get, and upper income people really do get a lot for their efforts.
Sure, until you actually start making that much. Outlooks change ;)
 

AreaCode707

Lifer
Sep 21, 2001
18,425
45
91
If you will be enabled to retire at 50 while the majority of Americans will have to work into their late 60's (maybe even early 70's) then you have too much money hoarded away and can afford to pay more taxes. Sorry.
WTF? If we wanted to my husband and I could retire now, in our mid-twenties, because we CAN live on about $10,000 a year. Does that mean we have too much money hoarded away?

Most people have to work into their 60s or 70s because they buy brand new cars and houses they can't afford and have 3 kids and put them through college and take family trips cross-country and buy new TVs every few years and pick up new computers frequently and buy nice furniture and and and...

The fact that we are savers, go without the "necessities" of life and avoid credit card debt in our youth, therefore enabling us to retire earlier, doesn't mean we deserve to pay more taxes.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
62,308
14,520
136
Sure, until you actually start making that much. Outlooks change ;)
Heh. I doubt that's universal, certainly not to the extent of some of the supposedly high income snivelling and exaggeration in this thread.

When fortune smiles upon you, try to smile back, realize that you have it really, really good...
 

Argo

Lifer
Apr 8, 2000
10,045
0
0
If you will be enabled to retire at 50 while the majority of Americans will have to work into their late 60's (maybe even early 70's) then you have too much money hoarded away and can afford to pay more taxes. Sorry.
Wtf? Dude, seriously wtf? I just read this reply, and maybe I'm taking it out of context but seriously wtf? Wtf does it matter what majority of Americans do or don't? What other people do or do not do should have no impact on individual - there's this whole thing called bill of rights, you may want to read it.

Just because one person is better at something than the other, and hence can retire at 50 shouldn't mean "this person should be punished for that".

This kind of mentally has been driving me crazy last few years, and is the main reason I'm starting to get involved in politics more and more each day. Just because I can - doesn't mean I should. I can afford to buy every crackhead in my city a dinner at a nice restaurant, but I don't because I don't think they deserve it, or there are other things in life that I need to take care of, like my family.
 
Last edited:

Argo

Lifer
Apr 8, 2000
10,045
0
0
Heh. I doubt that's universal, certainly not to the extent of some of the supposedly high income snivelling and exaggeration in this thread.

When fortune smiles upon you, try to smile back, realize that you have it really, really good...
But what does it mean to "realize that you have it really good"? Helping those around you? Sure, but in that case can I pick and chose who I help? Of course not - because the politicians aren't interested in helping people, they're just interested in "buying up" few more votes, and catering to their lobbies.

Sigh, there are times I think this country is heading for a 2nd civil war.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
20,980
849
126
Heh. I doubt that's universal, certainly not to the extent of some of the supposedly high income snivelling and exaggeration in this thread.

When fortune smiles upon you, try to smile back, realize that you have it really, really good...
Few things ARE universal. Now, myself, make decent money. Im in the top 25th percentile. Im certainly not rich; however, I will be. Ive been an avid invester for about 15 years, and have another 10 or 15 to go. But, one thing I can say for sure. I dont recall off the top of my head personally knowing anyone who enjoyed tax day. In fact, everyone Ive known hated it. And Ive been in investment banking so personally have met and know at minimum 30 millionaires. My family is wealthy (grandparents) and own what was the oldest jewelry store in WA state. And none of them thought their taxes were fair or too low, and hated writing that check twice a year.

Now, there are the Gates and the Buffets of the world (although, Warren hasnt really done much more than state his intentions at this point), but they are far and few between.

THAT said, I have had several conversations with wealthy people who would be less bitter about paying taxes would the federal government show at least a little restraint. Yet they dont, and havent, and it doesnt look like they will very soon. But know this: wealth IS transferring out of this country. There are those who do say "good riddance", but for the most part the masses just want to tax them. Guess what...as investment leaves this country, so does innovation and motivation.

And finally, my position. I dont have a problem with a tiered tax system; however, I *do* have a problem with 46% (or whatever the percentage is now) of taxpayers who dont contribute. I also dont have a problem personally with my own tax rate. I think I paid net 19%. Thats fair for the income I make.

And as an aside, I have a rather healthy nest egg yet to be opened waiting for me...that is invested offshore. And it will remain there for tax reasons. So justify all you want...but the fact is, you sound like an envious little child when you do.
 

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
Wtf? Dude, seriously wtf? I just read this reply, and maybe I'm taking it out of context but seriously wtf? Wtf does it matter what majority of Americans do or don't? What other people do or do not do should have no impact on individual - there's this whole thing called bill of rights, you may want to read it.

Just because one person is better at something than the other, and hence can retire at 50 shouldn't mean "this person should be punished for that".

This kind of mentally has been driving me crazy last few years, and is the main reason I'm starting to get involved in politics more and more each day. Just because I can - doesn't mean I should. I can afford to buy every crackhead in my city a dinner at a nice restaurant, but I don't because I don't think they deserve it, or there are other things in life that I need to take care of, like my family.
This is the equality of outcome the left so strongly desires. Nothing more, nothing less. Get involved in politics because this disease is growing.
 

Blackjack200

Lifer
May 28, 2007
15,993
1,679
126
Sigh, there are times I think this country is heading for a 2nd civil war.
Lol, yeah, all those 6 figure middle managers are going to rise up in violent protest of the 40% they have to pay in taxes. Get real.

Few things ARE universal. Now, myself, make decent money. Im in the top 25th percentile.
25th percentile would put you just barely above the poverty line. I'm guessing you meant 75th percentile.
 

Slew Foot

Lifer
Sep 22, 2005
12,381
94
86
Lol, yeah, all those 6 figure middle managers are going to rise up in violent protest of the 40% they have to pay in taxes. Get real.
Yup, there's your typical entitled liberal doofus attitude.

"HAHAHA those losers are too busy working to care about how much Im stealing from them in taxes!"
 

DanDaManJC

Senior member
Oct 31, 2004
776
0
76
Wtf? Dude, seriously wtf? I just read this reply, and maybe I'm taking it out of context but seriously wtf? Wtf does it matter what majority of Americans do or don't? What other people do or do not do should have no impact on individual - there's this whole thing called bill of rights, you may want to read it.

Just because one person is better at something than the other, and hence can retire at 50 shouldn't mean "this person should be punished for that".

This kind of mentally has been driving me crazy last few years, and is the main reason I'm starting to get involved in politics more and more each day. Just because I can - doesn't mean I should. I can afford to buy every crackhead in my city a dinner at a nice restaurant, but I don't because I don't think they deserve it, or there are other things in life that I need to take care of, like my family.
That's cool that you're getting into the politics... there was a top notch discussion between Bowfinger and Cyclowizard in this thread:

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2062749&highlight=bad+rich

that really goes into some detail about each side of the story. I really wanna stress that you do give it an honest look because it isn't as simple as all these progressives being green with envy and wanting to take away your hard earned money.

Frankly, I don't agree with Icepick's statement either, but that doesn't automatically mean that his opinion is the "progressive" and "leftist" opinion as spidey would like us to believe it is. In fact, it isn't. Just take a look at the wikipedia page for progressive taxation.
 

Blackjack200

Lifer
May 28, 2007
15,993
1,679
126
Yup, there's your typical entitled liberal doofus attitude.

"HAHAHA those losers are too busy working to care about how much Im stealing from them in taxes!"
Hardly. I hear the same shit from the left. 'Waah, we don't liek the way it is. We're gonna revolt!' When what they really mean is they're gonna buy some more Che Guevara tee shirts and go down the coffee house and bitch at each other.

Threatening to revolt is the same thing as threatening to go to Canada. Don't tell me about it. Just fucking do it.
 

Blackjack200

Lifer
May 28, 2007
15,993
1,679
126
Way to pull a John Stewart. Diminish a statement by responding to it with sarcasm.
Ok Einstein. Can you tell me the last time the wealthy aristocratic class rose up and revolted against the laborers and peasants? If you don't want your statements to be "diminished", start making sense.

Civil War! Do you even think about what you type?
 

IndyColtsFan

Lifer
Sep 22, 2007
33,582
619
126
This is the equality of outcome the left so strongly desires. Nothing more, nothing less. Get involved in politics because this disease is growing.
Exactly. I like the idea of a flat tax with no deductions allowed. Of course the left will never go for that, will they?

As an aside, I also wanted to make a comment to a few people here -- working 80 to 100 hours a week is insane and is not a badge of honor or something to brag about. If you're salaried, you'll get paid the same whether you work 50 or 100 hours a week, and the work will always be there tomorrow. I used to work long, hard hours and then I woke up and realized it was getting me nothing in return and I moved to a less stressful job making the same amount of money and I am much happier. Don't let your lives pass you by chasing the elusive carrot on a stick.
 
Last edited:

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
2
0
Ok Einstein. Can you tell me the last time the wealthy aristocratic class rose up and revolted against the laborers and peasants? If you don't want your statements to be "diminished", start making sense.

Civil War! Do you even think about what you type?
The rich have nothing to gain by revolting in the US so they revolt with their feet. It was well publicized last year when one of NY state's richest men finally moved full time to Florida to avoid the huge taxation from NY and he said it was for tax reasons and there was no reason not to believe it. People do leave for tax reasons. It's a primary reason why NY state is not competitive to business and has a flat state population. Taxes are part of the household economy and obviously people move for economic reasons, from state to state or country to country. It's always a fine balance bleeding as much from the host as you can before it wakes up and runs off. I don't know where that is, but certainly the rich have means to act if they find an environment ultimately not worth its cost.
As an aside, I also wanted to make a comment to a few people here -- working 80 to 100 hours a week is insane and is NOT a badge of honor or something to brag about (unless if it is your own business, then that's different). If you're salaried, you'll get paid the same whether you work 50 or 100 hours a week, and the work will always be there tomorrow. I used to work long, hard hours and then I woke up and realized it was getting me nothing in return and I moved to a less stressful job making the same amount of money and I am much happier. Don't let your lives pass you by chasing the elusive carrot on a stick.
I agree with this in most cases. Sometimes even if you're salaried you do "have" to work longer because if you don't you could get squeezed out of promotions or even your job. I've heretofore been lucky enough, even working in IT for a decade, to work 40 hour weeks and I am evangelical about their importance to me. I don't want to burn up youth or time with my kids spending more time at work than necessary. I'm positive I could make more if I switched to a different job demanding more time from me but I have it sweet where I am now.
 

Blackjack200

Lifer
May 28, 2007
15,993
1,679
126
The rich have nothing to gain by revolting in the US so they revolt with their feet. It was well publicized last year when one of NY state's richest men finally moved full time to Florida to avoid the huge taxation from NY and he said it was for tax reasons and there was no reason not to believe it. People do leave for tax reasons. It's a primary reason why NY state is not competitive to business and has a flat state population. Taxes are part of the household economy and obviously people move for economic reasons, from state to state or country to country. It's always a fine balance bleeding as much from the host as you can before it wakes up and runs off. I don't know where that is, but certainly the rich have means to act if they find an environment ultimately not worth its cost.
I don't dispute any of this, I don't know the specific situation NY is in, but I wouldn't be surprised if the high income taxes are meant to capture revenue from people living in NYC.

What I was responding to was this:
Sigh, there are times I think this country is heading for a 2nd civil war.
 

IndyColtsFan

Lifer
Sep 22, 2007
33,582
619
126
I agree with this in most cases. Sometimes even if you're salaried you do "have" to work longer because if you don't you could get squeezed out of promotions or even your job. I've heretofore been lucky enough, even working in IT for a decade, to work 40 hour weeks and I am evangelical about their importance to me. I don't want to burn up youth or time with my kids spending more time at work than necessary. I'm positive I could make more if I switched to a different job demanding more time from me but I have it sweet where I am now.
Yeah, don't get me wrong -- there are still weeks where I do log many hours (particularly when we have special events or projects). That should be the exception, and not the rule, however. At my last job, it was stressful and 60+ hours per week was the norm and when I really got nothing out of it, I decided my time was too valuable to waste working my life away. Working 80 to 100 hours every week for years on end is not only not something you should brag about, but it really makes me question the person's priorities in life.

One person here implied that people working into their 60s or 70s have to do so because they lived beyond their means. While that might be true in some circumstances, it isn't fair to generalize that to an entire group of people. I will work into my 60s and maybe later, but it isn't because I lived beyond my means -- it is because I choose to enjoy life now rather than live like a poor person hoping that I can save up and retire early. Plus I think I would get bored having nothing to do. The bottom line is that you never know what is going to happen down the line, so you should try to enjoy life now rather than putting it off.

It is really something that I've thought a lot about over the last couple of years and something that I used to be a diehard believer in (the line of "the rich/wealthy worked so hard to get where they are!") I have no doubt that many do, but I have also seen many shockingly incompetent people receive promotions simply because they were in the right place at the right time and they knew how to schmooze people.
 
Last edited:

child of wonder

Diamond Member
Aug 31, 2006
8,307
175
106
As an aside, I also wanted to make a comment to a few people here -- working 80 to 100 hours a week is insane and is not a badge of honor or something to brag about. If you're salaried, you'll get paid the same whether you work 50 or 100 hours a week, and the work will always be there tomorrow. I used to work long, hard hours and then I woke up and realized it was getting me nothing in return and I moved to a less stressful job making the same amount of money and I am much happier. Don't let your lives pass you by chasing the elusive carrot on a stick.
Couldn't agree more. My last job we each got called into the boss's office to tell him how much we worked per week (layoffs were coming). I said about 45 typically. Everyone else worked 50+ and one guy bragged he averaged 70 hours per week.

A month later I got laid off. Now I'm at a much better job, better benefits and pay, and work for a company that actually cares about me. Meanwhile I'm sure everyone at my last job is working the same or more hours for the same money.

In my opinion, I got the better deal by being let go.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
20,980
849
126
Lol, yeah, all those 6 figure middle managers are going to rise up in violent protest of the 40% they have to pay in taxes. Get real.



25th percentile would put you just barely above the poverty line. I'm guessing you meant 75th percentile.
Erm...top 25th I guess...haha
 

IndyColtsFan

Lifer
Sep 22, 2007
33,582
619
126
Couldn't agree more. My last job we each got called into the boss's office to tell him how much we worked per week (layoffs were coming). I said about 45 typically. Everyone else worked 50+ and one guy bragged he averaged 70 hours per week.

A month later I got laid off. Now I'm at a much better job, better benefits and pay, and work for a company that actually cares about me. Meanwhile I'm sure everyone at my last job is working the same or more hours for the same money.

In my opinion, I got the better deal by being let go.
From your description, I agree and think you got the much better deal. I learned my lesson at my last job. After putting in long hours and getting top reviews for years, the company decided to eliminate our infrastructure group (I worked for a subsidiary of a Fortune 500 company). I was given three options: 1) Take a position as an Oracle analyst (this was the option they automatically assigned me to; yuck!) 2) "Interview" with our corporate office for an opening and move if I got it or 3) Leave and get nothing. Option #1 wasn't attractive but option #2 was the one that opened my eyes to the fact that everything I did there, in the end, was for nothing. "Interview" for a position with the entity who was assuming responsibility for our operations? Excuse me?!?! So, I did what was logical -- I immediately became an 8 AM to 5 PM clock watcher and strung them along long enough for me to get another job and then told them what they could do with their "interview" option.

Never again. Never. People who are working 80-100 hours per week and who don't own the company they're working for are setting themselves up for disappointment. That $100K salary for 100 hours/week of work equates to less than $20/hr. No thanks. If my options are to work 100 hours a week or get laid off, I'll take the severance and find something better.
 

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
/office space

The bobs are coming! The bobs are coming!

What's the big deal? They're just consultants holding a few meetings.

No! You don't understand! Those "meetings"? They are interviews! You're interviewing for you own damn job and you'll likely not get it.
 

AreaCode707

Lifer
Sep 21, 2001
18,425
45
91
Exactly. I like the idea of a flat tax with no deductions allowed. Of course the left will never go for that, will they?

As an aside, I also wanted to make a comment to a few people here -- working 80 to 100 hours a week is insane and is not a badge of honor or something to brag about. If you're salaried, you'll get paid the same whether you work 50 or 100 hours a week, and the work will always be there tomorrow. I used to work long, hard hours and then I woke up and realized it was getting me nothing in return and I moved to a less stressful job making the same amount of money and I am much happier. Don't let your lives pass you by chasing the elusive carrot on a stick.
Thanks for the sage words but for many of us, that's the qualification that it takes to get and keep our job. I don't intend to do it forever; far from it. I'm not a career ladder gal and I just want to save my cash and get out of here young. As I mentioned in the thread earlier, I'll most certainly be disabled at a younger age than most people can expect, so I'm living my life on double time intentionally - work twice as hard, retire early, enjoy life for a bit and then when my arthritis puts in me in a wheelchair I'll have both memories and still enough money to care for myself so I don't spend decades in a care home.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY