On the Not-Too-Rich

I wrote a short piece on the political untouchability of the upper-middle-class and why it’s a problem. My basic argument is that

(1) raising marginal tax rates is a terrible way to raise revenue, because it creates work disincentives;

(2) curbing tax expenditures are a much better way to raise revenue;

(3) but (2) threatens the interests of upper-middle-income households, particularly those residing in high-tax jurisdictions in high-cost metropolitan areas, a constituency that tilts to the left but that is important to both of the major political coalitions;

(4) and I argue that the collective political influence of the upper-middle-class is greater than that of the ultra-rich.

This last point should be obvious. The United States may indeed be a Plutonomy, in which the influence of the top 0.01 percent is enormous. But the influence of the slice of the population from, say, the 90th percentile to the 98th percentile is expressed in many different ways: small dollar donations, direct involvement in campaigns, and, most importantly but far more difficult to measure, through disproportionate cultural influence, i.e., heavy concentration in the upper echelons of the “culture industries,” including the news media. 

An obvious check on the influence of upper-middle-income households is the ideological heterogeneity within this group: the upper-middle-class is not a monolith. Yet on an issue like tax expenditures, it may as well be a monolith, united across party lines by a shared interests in defending the mortgage interest deduction and the state and local tax deduction, among others. 

To illustrate why the upper-middle-class matters in the tax debate, I recommend taking a look at this chart, which I found via the Hoosier Pundit. It measures the amount of total taxable income for all filers by adjusted gross income level for 2008, and it shows that the total taxable income for households earning $100,000 to $250,000 — comfortably beneath the upper bound of the “middle-class” — approached $1.4 trillion.

Reihan Salam — Reihan Salam is executive editor of National Review and a National Review Institute policy fellow.

Most Popular


The Gun-Control Debate Could Break America

Last night, the nation witnessed what looked a lot like an extended version of the famous “two minutes hate” from George Orwell’s novel 1984. During a CNN town hall on gun control, a furious crowd of Americans jeered at two conservatives, Marco Rubio and Dana Loesch, who stood in defense of the Second ... Read More
Law & the Courts

Obstruction Confusions

In his Lawfare critique of one of my several columns about the purported obstruction case against President Trump, Gabriel Schoenfeld loses me — as I suspect he will lose others — when he says of himself, “I do not think I am Trump-deranged.” Gabe graciously expresses fondness for me, and the feeling is ... Read More
Politics & Policy

Students’ Anti-Gun Views

Are children innocents or are they leaders? Are teenagers fully autonomous decision-makers, or are they lumps of mental clay, still being molded by unfolding brain development? The Left seems to have a particularly hard time deciding these days. Take, for example, the high-school students from Parkland, ... Read More
PC Culture

Kill Chic

We live in a society in which gratuitous violence is the trademark of video games, movies, and popular music. Kill this, shoot that in repugnant detail becomes a race to the visual and spoken bottom. We have gone from Sam Peckinpah’s realistic portrayal of violent death to a gory ritual of metal ripping ... Read More