[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
Opinions/Editorials Title: The Upper Middle Class Is Ruining America By the time I made it to a selective college, I found myself entirely surrounded by this upper-middle-class tribe. My fellow students and my professors were overwhelmingly drawn from comfortably affluent families hailing from an almost laughably small number of comfortably affluent neighborhoods, mostly in and around big coastal cities. Though virtually all of these polite, well-groomed people were politically liberal, I sensed that their gut political instincts were all about protecting what they had and scratching out the eyeballs of anyone who dared to suggest taking it away from them. I cant say I liked these people as a group. Yet without really reflecting on it, I felt that it was inevitable that I would live among them, and thats pretty much exactly whats happened. So allow me to unburden myself. Ive had a lot of time to observe and think about the upper middle class, and though many of the upper-middle-class individuals Ive come to know are good, decent people, Ive come to the conclusion that upper-middle-class Americans threaten to destroy everything that is best in our country. And I want them to stop. Who counts as upper middle class? It depends. Back in 2013, one survey found that 85 percent of Americans saw themselves as part of a broad middle class, stretching from lower middle (26 percent) to middle middle (46 percent) to upper middle (12 percent). We could define it by incomesay, all single adults who earn more than $100,000 a year, or all married couples that earn more than $200,000but thats too crude. Lets just say that upper-middle-class status is a state of mind. Were talking about families that earn well into the six-figure range yet dont feel rich, either because of their student loan debt or the enormous cost of the amenities they consider nonnegotiable: living in well-above-average school districts for those with children or living in cool neighborhoods for those without. We often hear about the political muscle of the ultrarich. Billionaires like the libertarians Charles and David Koch and Tom Steyer, the California environmentalist whos been waging a one-man jihad against the Keystone XL pipeline, have become bogeymen for the left and right respectively. The influence of these machers is considerable, no doubt. Yet the upper middle class collectively wields far more influence. These are households with enough money to make modest political contributions, enough time to email their elected officials and to sign petitions, and enough influence to sway their neighbors. Upper-middle-class Americans vote at substantially higher rates than those less well-off, and though their turnout levels arent quite as high as those even richer than they are, there are far more upper-middle-class people than there are rich people. One can easily turn the Kochs or the Steyers of the world into a big fat political target. Its harder to do the same to the lawyers, doctors, and management consultants who populate the tonier precincts of our cities and suburbs. Another thing that separates the upper middle class from the truly wealthy is that even though theyre comfortable, theyre less able to take the threat of tax increases or benefit cuts in stride. Take away the mortgage interest deduction from a Koch brother and hell barely notice. Take it away from a two-earner couple living in an expensive suburb and youll have a fight on your hands. So the upper middle class often uses its political muscle to foil the fondest wishes of egalitarian liberals. This week offered a particularly vivid reminder of how that works. In the windup to his State of the Union address, Barack Obama released a proposal to curb the tax benefits associated with 529 college savings plans, which primarily benefit upper-middle-class families, to help finance the expansion of a separate tax credit that would primarily benefit lower-middle- and middle-middle-class families. Only 3 percent of households actually make use of these accounts, and 70 percent of the tax benefits go to households earning more than $200,000, so you can see why Obama might have thought no one would get too worked up about the proposal. If anything, he might have thought, and hoped, that his critics would get more exercised about his call for big capital gains tax increases, which would have allowed him to play the part of Robin Hooda role Obama loves to play. Thats not quite how things turned out. From the get-go, the 529 plan, like the capital gains tax-hike plan, was totally politically unrealistic, as Republicans in Congress were never going to sign on. But within days of the State of the Union, the Obama administration was forced to reverse course and abandon its plan to make 529 plans less generous. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, who represents San Francisco, and House Budget Committee ranking Democrat Chris Van Hollen, who represents the wealthy Maryland suburbs of Washington, D.C., were the key drivers of the decision, according to a report by Rachael Bade and Allie Grasgreen in Politico. My guess is that both Pelosi and Van Hollen saw firsthand the fury of upper-middle-income voters who sensed that Obama, normally a paragon of upper-middle-class virtues, was daring to mess with one of their precious tax breaks. Paul Waldman, writing for the Washington Post, had it right when he observed that the 529 proposal was targeted at what may be the single most dangerous constituency to anger: the upper middle class. Many smart peoplethe libertarian Peter Suderman of Reason, the neoliberal Josh Barro of the New York Times, and conservative Patrick Brennan of National Review, among othershave made the point that if Obama and his allies cant even tweak the tax treatment of this tiny little savings plan, they sure as hell cant succeed in raising other taxes enough to finance entitlement spending as the baby boomers retire in ever-larger numbers in the decades to come, let alone expand social services and public investment with an eye toward making the United States just a bit more Scandinavian. To conservatives, myself included, this is not in itself a bad thing. European social democracies finance their generous welfare states through high consumption taxes that virtually everyone pays. In America, a cross-party consensus that middle-income, including upper-middle-income, households should pay low taxes necessarily limits the growth of government. This is why Obamas plan to bring back the Clinton-era tax rates for households earning more than $250,000 was abandoned for a higher figure of $450,000 shortly after his re-election. Democratic lawmakers like Pelosi and Sen. Chuck Schumer were terrified of angering voters who earned more than $250,000 and who insisted, despite all evidence to the contrary, that they were merely middle class, and who would have skinned them alive had they not been shielded from higher taxes. You might be wondering why Im so down on the upper middle class when theyre getting in the way of the tax hikes that will make big government even bigger. Doesnt that mean that while liberals should be bothered by the power of the upper middle class, conservatives should cheer them on? Well, part of my objection is that upper-middle-income voters only oppose tax hikes on themselves. They are generally fine with raising taxes on people richer than themselves, including taxes on the investments that rich people make in new products, services, and businesses. I find that both annoyingly self-serving and destructive. The bigger reason, however, is that upper-middle-class people dont just use their political muscle to keep their taxes low. They also use it to make life more expensive for everyone else. Take a seemingly small exampleoccupational licensing. In North Carolina, teeth-whiteners without expensive dental degrees would like to be allowed to sell their services but are opposed by the states dentists, as Eduardo Porter noted in a recent New York Times column. Are the good dentists of North Carolina fighting the teeth-whiteners because they fear for the dental health of North Carolinians? It doesnt look like it. A more plausible story is that dentists dont want to compete with cut-rate practitioners, because restricting entry into the field allows them to charge higher prices. We often hear about how awesome it is that Uber is making taxi service cheaper and more accessible for ordinary consumers but how sad it is that they are making life harder for working-class drivers who drive traditional cabs. Notice that upper-middle-class credentialed professionals like dentists, lawyers, and doctors rarely get Uberd to the same degree. Even when innovative services try to do things like, say, offer a free alternative to expensive insurance brokers, state and local governments will often step in to say, Oh, no you dont. Want to offer a low-cost, high-quality education by, say, replacing expensive professors with Filipino instructors who teach calculus over streaming video? Sorry, pal, you first have to get approved by an accreditation body controlled
by the existing schools youre trying to out-compete, which employ upper-middle-class people who dont take any crap. Or take immigration policy: Dean Baker of the liberal Center for Economic and Policy Research has called for increasing the number of doctors, dentists, and other professionals allowed into the U.S. while limiting the number of less-skilled people, like would-be retail clerks, custodians, and housekeepers. The reason is that high-skilled immigrants squeeze the wages of upper-middle-class professionals, who can afford to take a hit while lowering the cost of various services for poorer people by giving them the option of going to cheaper doctors and dentists. By contrast, bringing in retail clerks, custodians, and housekeepers makes life cheaper for the upper-middle-class professionals while squeezing the wages of working people, particularly immigrants who already live in the U.S. Want to guess how popular the idea of increasing the wages of nannies is with the upper-middle-class people who employ them? Id love to know, but Im sorry to report that upper-middle-class pollsters have yet to ask the question. Youd almost get the impression that while working- and lower-middle-class people are expected to compete, whether with the Ubers of the world or with Chinese manufacturing workers or with immigrants with modest skills, members of the upper middle class ought to be immune. The result is that all Americans have to pay more to get their teeth whitened, to get a formal education, or to do any of the other million things that we can only get through licensed providers. Even more egregious is the way that upper-middle-class NIMBY-ism pushes for strict land-use restrictions that drive working- and lower-middle-class people out of the countrys most desirable and productive cities, as Timothy B. Lee of Vox reminds us. We see this most vividly in affluent suburbs, where the local public schools are just as exclusive as elite private schools, and where high home prices do the work of high private school tuitions. Sometimes exclusivity is justified on other grounds. The UCLA economist Matthew Kahn has found that in California, at least, it is liberal cities that have the most stringent zoning regulations. It seems that upper-middle-class California liberals use their supposed environmentalism to justify policies that wind up excluding the less well-off, despite the enormous environmental benefits that would flow from allowing more people to live in coastal California communities. Closer to my home in New York, Ive found that upper-middle-class people are the chief culprits behind the gentrification wave that is driving many poor families out of close-in neighborhoods in Brooklyn, my hometown. Stephen Smith has done an excellent job of explaining the dynamic. Most affluent people would be just fine with living in condos in Manhattan if they could afford to do so. But rich Manhattanites fight new development with every fiber of their being, which forces slightly less rich people to move to Brooklyn. Here is where things get interesting. Early on, as gentrification first takes root, these new upper-middle-class arrivals root for development, particularly when it means things like a new Whole Foods and other amenities that make their neighborhoods seem less sketchy. Once they have their fancy grocery stores and their Pilates studios and whatever else it is that floats their boat, however, they sharply shift toward absolutely hating new development, as new development means having to share their new amenities with more newcomers. These new restrictions on supply mean that homeowners who arrived at the right time, before the drawbridge was raised, see their homes get more and more valuable. Landlords can charge higher and higher rents.* The neighborhood gets less and less sketchy, which is to say less diverse and less inclusive. How convenient. What can we do to break the stranglehold of the upper middle class? I have no idea. Having spent so much time around upper-middle-class Americans, and having entered their ranks in my own ambivalent way, Ive come to understand their power. The upper middle class controls the media we consume. They run our big bureaucracies, our universities, and our hospitals. Their voices drown out those of other people at almost every turn. I fear that the only way we can check the tendency of upper-middle-class people to look out for their own interests at the expense of others is to make them feel at least a little guilty about it. Its not much, but its a start. Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top Page Up Full Thread Page Down Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 27.
#1. To: Vicomte13, Willie Green (#0)
Maybe instead of obsessing over tycoons or the evils of voting Republican, people should be concentrating on the very real and extensive political power of the upper middle class. Reihan Salam is an impeccably conservative deep-policy wonk that used to write some of National Review's best stuff. He tries to address substance and larger policy issues. I'm surprised he's working for Slate but they couldn't have made a better pick for a house liberal.
"Well, part of my objection is that upper-middle-income voters only oppose tax hikes on themselves. They are generally fine with raising taxes on people richer than themselves," Yeah, those rotten bastards, not at all like the 50% of Amercians that don't pay any Federal income tax at all. "Reihan Salam is an impeccably conservative deep-policy wonk that used to write some of National Review's best stuff. He tries to address substance and larger policy issues." Well that marijuna well do that to folks.
Exactly like them. Except they make 10 times more than the 50% you despise.
Yeah, those rotten bastards, not at all like the 50% of Amercians that don't pay any Federal income tax at all. Exactly like them. Except they make 10 times more than the 50% you despise. Despise? You demonstrate an irrational and hostile characteristic of jumping to unjustifiable conclusions based on nothing in fact other than your mean spirited black soul. I will try to correct you, with little expectation of success. My comment merely reflects that those that do not pay federal income taxes don't GAS if you raise taxes on those that do pay. Further those that do not pay what can arguably be called their "fair share" vote for those that will make sure that they will continue to get the free ride, usually with the promise of more freebies. Simple concepts of human nature, no? "Except they make 10 times more than the 50% you despise." Another simple concept that will probably confound you is that they also pay much higher than 10 times in Federal income taxes. But perhaps you are on of those that believes that the top 25% income earners should pay 100% of Federal taxes, or maybe even 200%?
People of any class never care if taxes get raised on others. They often think "better them than me" and even "better them because it'll be that much longer before they go after me and my connected wealthy friends". Exactly who cries over it when someone's else's taxes get raised, other than some Republican pols around election time? You're the one showing real naiveté here.
There are no replies to Comment # 27. End Trace Mode for Comment # 27.
Top Page Up Full Thread Page Down Bottom/Latest |
||||
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|