http://www.marginalrevolution.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/12/18/tax_3.png

The 4th quintile has an average income of 85k and 17% of tax revenue, and the top quintile has an average income of 230k and provides 69% of total tax revenue.

So I’d say that 4th quintile is definitely very comfortable middle class (in all but the most expensive parts of the country) and the top one makes “a hell of a lot more than I do” which is how most of us define “rich”.

I’m not saying that these people don’t deserve to pay lots of taxes. Clearly, they’re benefiting quite a bit from the American system. I’m just saying that given they past most taxes, it’s hardly surprising if a tax cut benefits them.

Now, six years ago our family was in the 2nd quintile (avg income for 2nd quintile is 37k, and they provide 9% of total tax revenues) with two kids, and that year I paid a whopping -500 dollars in income tax. In other words, they paid me $500 after tax credits. Now given that I was getting back more money than had been witheld in the first place, is it surprising that it would be hard to “cut” my taxes even farther? Sure, it would be great to help out some people without kids making 35k, since I’m sure they’re paying at least a little in taxes. But there’s just not much to cut.

Look, I’m moderately open to the idea that cutting personal income taxes further is simply not the responsible approach right now. It’s not like we’re at the ludicrous top rates that we were back before Reagan. But your complaint that under McCain our tas system would be less progressive in any significant fashion is partisanship over an issue that hardly signifies. Under _any_ of the proposals on the table, 50%+ of total federal income tax receipts would still come from the top 10% of earners.

The Bork nomination is a good example of what I’m talking about. Bork’s nomination failed not because the Democrats controlled the Senate (they controlled the Senate during the Thomas nomination too, and by a larger margin). It failed because the Democrats were able to convince the public that Bork was too extreme for the job.

Of course.The public was so outraged with the theatrical attempts to stop the Bork nomination that it never allowed anything like the debacle that led to David Souter. Oh wait, I forgot. :)

Supreme Court nominations are different from taxes in a number of respects. If the President sends a tax bill to congress, they can just ignore it, water it down, pass their own bill instead, etc. In the case of a Supreme Court nomination, however, they have none of these options. They can’t simply ignore the nomination; the public wouldn’t stand for it. They can’t offer their own nominee, so they know that even if they reject a particular nominee, the President could just nominate someone just as bad.

In addition, in the case of a tax people, the Senators pretty much know what they are voting on. They know what taxes the bill would cut and by how much. It’s a lot harder for people to know exactly what a Supreme Court nominee would do on the bench.

I tend to view nominations fights as being fundamentally about public perceptions. If opponents can convince the public that the nominee is too extreme or unqualified for the job, then there will be political cover for the Senators to reject him. If the public likes the nominee, then Senators will be reluctant to vote no.

I have doubts about the kind of justice McCain would appoint if he got the chance. I have no doubt as to the kind of justice Obama would appoint.

If so, why McCain?