The thing is, there is a contingent of people that support the Democratic Party assuming they benefit or, at the very least, have someone else pay for it. As an example, if you took a cross section of supporters, if they had their taxes increase by 100% to support $some_policy, they would be less inclined to support that increase. But if you say “the rich” should pay for XYZ, then support grows substantially. There are those that would pay higher taxes for altruistic reasons, however, those people are certainly welcome to write a check to the Treasury — but they don’t. When a policy hits close to home: more work, higher taxes, reduced disposable income, suddenly support isn’t quite so robust. If you aren’t charitable to your cubical mate, it’s ironic that one can expect charity for “society.” It’s easy to be charitable when someone else is paying for it, either with money or work. In other words, it’s easier to spend other people’s money and time.
If your conception of Democrats is that they will only vote for tax increases on people richer than them, then you have a pretty inaccurate conception of Democrats.
Yes, Democratic politicians will try to tailor their tax increases to not hit the middle class, but that's because they are trying to attract more voters than just Democrats.
> An individual’s likelihood of being a Democrat decreases with every additional dollar he or she earns. Democrats have a huge advantage (63 percent) with voters earning less than $15,000 per year. This advantage carries forward for individuals earning up to $50,000 per year, and then turns in the Republicans’ favor — with just 36 percent of individuals earning more than $200,000 per year supporting Democrats.
> Interestingly, the median household income in the United States is $49,777 — right near the point where the Democratic advantage disappears and the Republicans take over. [0]
seems like, at least in aggregate, people stop voting blue around the point where taxes/benefits stop being a net positive transfer to their household.
Seems like you should have included the next section for a broader context:
“ While Democrats lose support as income increases, there seems to be a tipping point where the ultra-wealthy begin leaning Democratic. The most famous example would be the entertainment industry, where star-studded events have become a significant part of Democratic culture.
But this phenomenon is not limited to Hollywood. A review of the 20 richest Americans, as listed by Forbes Magazine, found that 60 percent affiliate with the Democratic Party, including the top three individuals: Bill Gates, Warren Buffett and Larry Ellison. Among the riches families, the Democratic advantage rises even higher, to 75 percent.”
it's interesting that there's a second tipping point, but it occurs high enough in the income percentiles that I don't think it's particularly relevant to the discussion at hand. these people may contribute an outsized share of tax revenue, but they make up a very small fraction of the democratic base.
in any case, I don't think the voting tendencies of the ultra-rich do very much to invalidate my point. they're in a position where they can dodge the brunt of most taxes they vote for, and even if they weren't, there are basically no tax policies within the current overton window that could meaningfully affect their standard of living. if bill gates lost 98% of his net worth, he might have to dial back his charitable endeavors, but I doubt the material comfort of his family's lifestyle would change at all.
>When a policy hits close to home: more work, higher taxes, reduced disposable income, suddenly support isn’t quite so robust.
Yes, because I'm not going to put my family at a disadvantage versus others in society unless everyone is going to chip in. That's a perfectly reasonable position to hold.
Well, that is just silly. Median americans have income several times higher than e.g. median people in central/eastern Europe (not to mention third-world countries) even after correcting for different price levels, and even these are able to feed themselves.
Here in Czechia income tax breakeven is roughly on minimum wage. Above that (almost everyone who has fulltime empolyment) people pays some income taxes.
