A prominent college law professor's posting of his family's finances on the Web to make the case that they're struggling to make ends meet -- despite their more-than-$250,000 income -- has lit the fuse of an online debate that he claims has made him the target of an "online lynch mob."

Todd Henderson, a corporate law professor at the University of Chicago -- and a neighbor of President Obama -- says that since he posted his finances online he's been barraged with comments such as "die yuppie scum," forcing him to shut down his blog out of fear for his family.

“The consequences are devastating for me personally,” Henderson wrote, “but my family has to come first, and my blogging has caused them incalculable damage.” Contacted by FoxNews.com, he said he no longer wants to comment on his post.

Henderson usually kept his blog posts to matters of corporate law and the markets. But last week he made it personal. He posted a portrait of his family finances to make his case that those who make more than $250,000 a year are struggling, like everyone else, to make ends meet -- and people in that income bracket will see their taxes go up if Obama succeeds in his plan to extend the Bush tax cuts only for low- and middle-income Americans.

A quick look at our family budget, which I will gladly share with the White House, will show him that, like many Americans, we are just getting by despite seeming to be rich. We aren’t,” Henderson wrote.

He said he and his wife, a doctor, paid $100,000 in federal and state taxes last year and $15,000 in property taxes. He wrote that they have a mortgage on a house they own a short distance from President Obama’s home, and they are paying off $250,000 in student loans. With an annual income of more than $250,000, he wrote, he and his wife are far from super-rich.

But almost as soon as he hit the send button, a firestorm erupted.. Henderson says he was inundated with e-mails that divided along the lines of “die yuppie scum” and “thank you for saying what we couldn’t say.” He says the vehement tone of the responses -- he called it “an electronic lynch mob” -- and fears for his family forced him to delete the post and quit blogging altogether. A business website estimated his income at more than $400,000, a figure Henderson disputes.

But though his blog was short-lived, it opened up a fiery online debate over the continuation of the Bush tax cuts and Obama's plan to raise taxes on the “super-rich,” said Robert Bluey of the Heritage Foundation. Among the questions being asked: Just what is rich? Do the rich feel rich? Does America have a class system?

“Often these debates are conducted by the same faces. [Henderson] brought a new perspective to it,” Bluey said.

“Any time you want to take away a sizable chunk of people’s money, it has a big impact. You just have to look at Bell, Calif., to see how sensitive people are to wages,” he said, referring to the outrage there when it was revealed that public officials in the city had voted to give themselves salaries that reached as high as $800,000.

Bluey said Henderson's post showed not only that there are different perspectives on wealth, “but that the additional taxes will impact everyone.”

But others disagree -- and none more bitingly than Prof. Bradford DeLong of the University of California at Berkeley, who dismissed Henderson’s posting as whining.

"By any standard they are rich,” DeLong said. "But they don’t feel rich.”

He said the things Henderson takes for granted — retirement savings, private schools, new cars — are out of reach for most Americans, and he dismissed his complaint as a simple “cash flow problem.”

But Michelle Newton-Francis, a sociology professor at American University, said Henderson's blog had an impact because it showed “the country is redefining what it means to be rich and powerful.”

“We used to have a class hierarchy and most people wanted to be middle class,” she said. “Being labeled rich or poor carried a stigma. Now it appears we are either rich or poor. His blog opened up a debate about where he stands.”

And, by implication, where everyone stands. “But the bottom line," she said, "is that no one wants to pay more taxes.”

Correction: An earlier version of this report inaccurately stated that the Henderson family's income exceeded $400,000. Henderson acknowledges that he and his wife make more than $250,000, but he disputes claims circulating on the Web that they earn more than $400,000.

ZWICK 4 PREZ;502165 wrote:If you're struggling to make ends meet on 250,000 a year, you're living well beyond your means.

Manhattan Buckeye;502199 wrote:There are a lot of issues here, but the biggest one to me is that "they are paying off $250,000 in student loans." Folks, this is going to be an issue going forward. And it isn't a matter of "if", it is a matter of "when" the student loan crisis happens - much more foreseeable than the real estate bubble.

I recall Prof. Henderson's post before he took it off, it could have been written better but I actually agree with a lot of the underlying sentiment. It is difficult to be upwardly mobile when you have that type of debt burden. This is a nation that is getting drunker and drunker on debt, and eventually there is going to be a hangover.

Fab4Runner;502200 wrote:$250,000 is plenty of money....but to take half (or more) away for taxes is wrong.

Correction: An earlier version of this report inaccurately stated that the Henderson family's income exceeded $400,000. Henderson acknowledges that he and his wife make more than $250,000, but he disputes claims circulating on the Web that they earn more than $400,000.

FatHobbit;502204 wrote:I agree with what you're saying, but I think people need to consider that when they are taking out these student loans. Just because they are willing to lend you that money doesn't mean you can afford it. (That applies to houses, loans, cars, credit cards...) The banks don't feel the need to be responsible because they know someone's going to bail them out if they get in trouble, so they are apparently willing to loan money to anyone. When I bought my first house I was blown away by how much money they wanted to loan me. I bought a house that was significantly less than what I was approved for and still had to work hard to make my house payment.

Fab4Runner;502206 wrote:That's fine. I still think taking over half of someones earnings is wrong.

fan_from_texas;502207 wrote:I agree that we need to hold people accountable for taking on student loan debt. At the same time, the rules of the game have changed significantly, and people made decisions that for 100 years would have been the correct decision, but in the unforeseen 2-year window they hit, they're now crippled for life and will deal with massive loans with no realistic hope of paying them off. It's one thing to say to 40-year-olds that they shouldn't have spent more on a house than they could afford; it's another to tell a 22-year-old who did research and made a reasonable decision that they should've anticipated the entire economic collapse and planned accordingly.

se-alum;502219 wrote:I agree with the sentiment that they shouldn't have a problem living a good life on their salaries. I also think taking nearly 50% of someone's money in taxes is insane. I've always been in favor of tax cuts for the wealthy. It's incredibly unfair to tax someone more because they are successful. I've just never been able to fathom why people think it's ok to punish success.

FatHobbit;502227 wrote:I think my reaction about student loans is more about people who get an education for something that doesn't pay a lot and then cry when they can't afford the student loans. We had a thread about a girl who had a religious studies degree or something like that a little bit ago and then couldn't afford her student loans. Boo hoo. Seems to me that people are looking to be bailed out just like the banks and the auto industry.

This guy is obviously making decent money and complaining about his student loan load. If he chose he could pay that off in one year. It would take a big sacrifice - like not living in the same neighborhood as the president - but he could do it. I don't feel too bad for him either.

fan_from_texas;502229 wrote:Well, only their marginal tax rate (including fed, state, etc.) would be over 50%; their average total rate is certainly much lower than that.

...

fan_from_texas;502231 wrote:I'm willing to bet that upwards of 50-60% of people who finished law school in the past 3 years will end up defaulting on their student loans. When the average loan debt is in the six-figures, and yet the people who are employed have medians in the $40k range, the long-term outlook isn't too good. And those were people who did research and made what, historically, was probably a pretty good decision. When those people start defaulting in droves, we'll have another big problem on our hands.

FatHobbit;502238 wrote:Do you know if historically law students have used student loans to pay for their education?

I have absolutely no clue, but it seems to me that student loans did not become popular until the 80's or 90's.

fan_from_texas;502229 wrote:Well, only their marginal tax rate (including fed, state, etc.) would be over 50%; their average total rate is certainly much lower than that.

Some quick back-of-the-envelope math: if they contribute to their 401(k) and give 10% of net to charity, their monthly take-home pay is on the order of $11,100/mo. $250k in student loans @ 6% (probably low, considering these are probably mostly private loans @ 8.5%) over 10 years is $2,775/mo. If they're living in a 2 BR condo in Chicago, ($600k @ 6% over 30 yrs), that's another $3,600/mo.

That leaves them around $4,800/mo. to cover everything else. They shouldn't be struggling by any means, but that's not exactly the type of money that lets you live large and should result in being taxed like you're Bill Gates.

His point wasn't so much that they're poor; it's that they're not some disgustingly wealthy couple that deserves to be taxed super heavily. They're just upper-middle class HENRYs (high-earners, not rich yet) who are bearing the brunt of this nation's taxes.

queencitybuckeye;502240 wrote:I'm curious about several things, here are a couple of examples:

- Does all of the student loan debt belong to his wife? He completed his education in 1998. Shouldn't his loans be a thing of the past?

- Based on his age, I assume the private schools in question for his kids are at the primary level. Can one not find somewhere to educate an elementary school child as to not stunt his/her intellectual growth at a price somewhat less than $20K?

With an income at this level, one can do about anything they want, but not everything they want. The professor is living beyond his means. Period.

Manhattan Buckeye;502254 wrote:(2) It is hard for me to be judgmental on this. I haven't been to Hyde Park, but I know Chicago schools aren't known for their excellence. My wife and I live in an urban area with similar educational options. Simply put, you put your children in private schools or you move to the suburbs.

FFT can add his thoughts, but the increase in tuition for law school in the last 10 years is criminally insane given the fewer career options. I graduated in 1999 with a tuition of under $20,000/year (and I had a partial scholarship to help) with damn near guaranteed a $125,000/year job for graduates. The same school now charges tuition of $45,000/year, with nearly half of the graduates unemployed.