The Out-of-Touch Campaign To Make $200K Middle-Class

Earlier this week, I noted that media stars Charlie Gibson and Maria Batriromo have pushed the idea that households earning $200,000 are not wealthy, even though they are in the top 3.5% of the country.

This morning, conservative commentator Ben Stein upped the ante, decreeing on Fox and Friends that $250,000 a year to be "middle-class:"

I think middle-class is, say, from $50,000 to $250,000. And you may say, "oh my gosh, $250,000 is a lot of money." After taxes, after you're paying for your basic education expenses, after you send your kids to a private school, after you pay for your property taxes, it's not much money at all.

Yes, that's why all those hedge-fund managers are begging on the streets of Scarsdale (one of just three towns in the country with a median household income above $200,000.)

Of course, the motivation to push this silly notion is to push back on proposals which have wealthier Americans once again contribute their fare share to America, so we can responsibly invest in areas long neglected under conservative government.

It would seem doomed to fail.

Two-thirds of Americans earning more than $150,000 don't consider themselves middle-class, according to Pew. Presumably, that number would be even larger for those over $200,000.

Furthermore, 63% of the country (the vast majority of whom don't earn $200,000 a year) say in a Gallup poll that "upper-income people" pay "too little" in taxes.

So trying to argue that these families struggle just like those earning $50,000 a year, and shouldn't have to contribute their fair share to America, might come across like ... what's the phrase ... an out-of-touch elitist.

Views expressed on this page are those of the authors and not necessarily those of Campaign for America's Future or Institute for America's Future