Political leanings and personal wealth

[ruby sparks]

It is, I think, quite well accepted, documented, studied and evidenced that the more wealthy a person is, the more to the right (and perhaps conservative) their personal politics is. I am not so sure if the correlation is as strong the other way around (that lack of wealth means that someone is more likely to lean to the left).

Regarding the first instance, this leaves a chicken and egg question. Is the person wealthy because of the sort of person they are and worldviews they hold, or does their wealth cause (or at least influence) their views?

The article below cites a study on Lottery winners that suggests the latter effect.

If correct, it reinforces a not-altogether-pretty-picture of humans as being more motivated in their political (and moral) decisions by self interest and personal circumstances than anything else.

Money makes people right-wing and inegalitarian
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/money-makes-people-right-wing-and-inegalitarian/

It's probably not altogether surprising I suppose.

Of course these are tendencies and not hard and fast 'rules'.

 

[Minnemooseus]

Regarding the first instance, this leaves a chicken and egg question. Is the person wealthy because of the sort of person they are and worldviews they hold, or does their wealth cause (or at least influence) their views?

I'll go with feedback loop - both are true.

Greed is a very powerful human instinct. Being well off really tends to isolate oneself from those who are not well off.

A quote I use in my signature elsewhere:

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." - John Kenneth Galbraith

Moose

 

[thebeave]

It is, I think, quite well accepted, documented, studied and evidenced that the more wealthy a person is, the more to the right (and perhaps conservative) their personal politics is. I am not so sure if the correlation is as strong the other way around (that lack of wealth means that someone is more likely to lean to the left).

Regarding the first instance, this leaves a chicken and egg question. Is the person wealthy because of the sort of person they are and worldviews they hold, or does their wealth cause (or at least influence) their views?

The article below cites a study on Lottery winners that suggests the latter effect.

If correct, it reinforces a not-altogether-pretty-picture of humans as being more motivated in their political (and moral) decisions by self interest and personal circumstances than anything else.

Money makes people right-wing and inegalitarian
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/money-makes-people-right-wing-and-inegalitarian/

It's probably not altogether surprising I suppose.

Of course these are tendencies and not hard and fast 'rules'.

We had a thread a while back on the lottery, with lots of people chiming in about their fantasy of winning the big bucks. Many were die hard liberals of the type who in previous threads constantly bemoan the 1%er's and how they "don't pay their fair share in taxes". I asked how many would hire a lawyer and/or accountant to minimize their taxes as much as possible (as most sensible winners do), versus voluntarily giving Uncle Sam more than legally required. Oddly enough, not a single person admitted that they would write an extra big fat check to the US Treasury. Huh. Go figure.

 

[Toni]

No one in my family is fabulously wealthy by American standards. This is anecdote not data but in my family--and my husband's family as well, those who are the least well off tend to be the most conservative. I find the correlation is to education, not wealth.

 

[RVonse]

If you are wealthy and/or making a huge salary, you don't want to pay federal income tax. And the Republicans are the party that hates federal income tax. So its simply people voting for their self interest which is as it should be.

 

[Politesse]

Well, they do like to sell themselves as the party that "understands money." Perhaps us bleeding-heart liberals just aren't as good at making and keeping the stuff, what with our socialist notions and all.

 

[lpetrich]

If you're young and not against taxes, you have no heart.
If you're old and still against taxes, you have no brain.

As to hiring a tax lawyer so that one can legally evade taxes, I recall reading somewhere that many rich people spend more on tax lawyers than they pay in taxes, so one has to ask how cost-effective that strategy is. I think that I'd prefer paying some basic amount rather than trying to squeeze out every possible deduction while paying some big sum to a tax lawyer to do so.

 

[southernhybrid]

I think it depends on the person. There are many poor Republicans, usually because they are one item voters, guns or abortion. My brother in law is far more affluent that we are. He told my husband recently that he still supports Trump because, "he put more money in my pocket". He's a dentist, with a degree from Emory U. And, there are some extremely wealthy Democrats, like Warren Buffet, who for years has been saying that people like him should be taxed at a much higher rate. He gives away a large percentage of his money. Do ultra wealthy conservatives give away most of their money?

 

[James Brown]

We had a thread a while back on the lottery, with lots of people chiming in about their fantasy of winning the big bucks. Many were die hard liberals of the type who in previous threads constantly bemoan the 1%er's and how they "don't pay their fair share in taxes". I asked how many would hire a lawyer and/or accountant to minimize their taxes as much as possible (as most sensible winners do), versus voluntarily giving Uncle Sam more than legally required. Oddly enough, not a single person admitted that they would write an extra big fat check to the US Treasury. Huh. Go figure.

Lottery winnings already are heavily taxed, nearly fifty percent depending on the U.S. State of residence.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Lottery winnings already are heavily taxed, nearly fifty percent depending on the U.S. State of residence.

What a rip off. So, if I get $20 million for doing nothing, the goddamned leeches in the government are going to steal $10 million of my money? That's bloody communism is what that is. It's a strong disincentive for the value of hard work ... or whatever it is that people who get money without winning lotteries are doing.

This outright piracy needs to cease immediately because I'm about to go and buy a lottery ticket and I don't want fucking Obama or whoever getting their dirty paws on it.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

No one in my family is fabulously wealthy by American standards. This is anecdote not data but in my family--and my husband's family as well, those who are the least well off tend to be the most conservative. I find the correlation is to education, not wealth.

Anecdotally speaking, the correlation I observe the most in being conservative is emotionalism.

But there are all kinds of conservatives. I am financially conservative and socially liberal.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I see emotionalism on "both" sides.

The interesting thing about the lottery. It is tempting to think about, because although it is much less likely it is also much easier. Some people call it "the stupid tax" because you have to be stupid to think you've got a chance, but then some people have no other chance. A very unlikely chance is better than no chance. It is more of a "this one thing will finally make everything all right" mentality, which is going back to a form of wishful thinking. It might be interesting to see what kind of political correlations can be made about those who play the lottery. It has been shown that it is the more economically disadvantaged who disproportionally play the lottery. Even though it is a voluntary tax, it is still very regressive.

 

[Toni]

No one in my family is fabulously wealthy by American standards. This is anecdote not data but in my family--and my husband's family as well, those who are the least well off tend to be the most conservative. I find the correlation is to education, not wealth.

Anecdotally speaking, the correlation I observe the most in being conservative is emotionalism.

But there are all kinds of conservatives. I am financially conservative and socially liberal.

I’m not sure about the ‘emotionalism’ aspect. Most of my conservative family members are less well educated and tend to be on the lower edge of middle class, often hanging by a thread. They tend to be socially conservative —and financially conservative except where they can collect benefits. They are very patriotic—and ‘grateful for their service’ and completely uninterested in enlisting themselves. The I don’t begrudge them the benefits—they need them. I just wish they’d look at the disconnect between what they say and what they want for themselves and their families. For the most part, they are jaded working people who, for a variety of reasons, never were able to achieve much economic success.

What I hear is that they work hard and support their families (mostly true) and think that those that need help are somehow slackers—and probably a different color. I think that they see how hard they’ve worked and don’t see why they aren’t in better financial shape. They don’t see how the parts of the system they embrace work against them. I can understand the frustration—but not the bigotry.

 

[ruby sparks]

Lottery winnings already are heavily taxed, nearly fifty percent depending on the U.S. State of residence.

What a rip off. So, if I get $20 million for doing nothing, the goddamned leeches in the government are going to steal $10 million of my money? That's bloody communism is what that is. It's a strong disincentive for the value of hard work ... or whatever it is that people who get money without winning lotteries are doing.

This outright piracy needs to cease immediately because I'm about to go and buy a lottery ticket and I don't want fucking Obama or whoever getting their dirty paws on it.

Do the UK lottery. It's not taxable!

No wait, that's only for UK residents. Tough luck, Mountie Boy.*

Tell you what. Send me £104 (probably 10,000 Canadian dollars or thereabouts) and I'll enter for you once a week for a year. Honest.




* I actually don't know any derisory terms for Canadians and even googling didn't help (everyone must like Canadians or something) so I made one up.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Show

Frostback

Please don't report me to the mods for that.

Also this...

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgKwPrm7DYQ[/youtube]

 

[TV and credit cards]

As one ages and their income rises, they find they have to pay more in taxes and they get pissed off. They are going to vote in their own self interest. Their egalitarianism and charity extends only to the point at which it becomes inconvenient. This is true for so many, and not just conservatives, it would dive deep in to the pool of liberals too if they thought they were going to take a major hit in the wallet courtesy of Uncle Sam. Let's not kid ourselves. If an uber liberal US government decided to start up a universal basic income and said it was going to cost us all another 5-7% in our taxes, you'd see a lot of people get real conservative real fast.
People by and large are full of shit. They'll fly the flag a couple times a year and call themselves patriotic. They'll suffer church a couple hours a week just for the reward points. They'll rail against social services until a family member needs to avail themselves of one. And they'll stick a magnetic yellow ribbon on the back of their SUV for the first couple years of our latest war.
Deep moral views my ass. Let's stop giving humanity more credit than it deserves.

 

[Angry Floof]

No one in my family is fabulously wealthy by American standards. This is anecdote not data but in my family--and my husband's family as well, those who are the least well off tend to be the most conservative. I find the correlation is to education, not wealth.

No, it's actually wealth. Entitlement is the psychology of wealth, while shame is the psychology of poverty, even though the wealthy and their oblivious and less wealthy supporters among us assert the opposite.

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...e-of-entitlement-how-wealth-breeds-narcissism

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23963971

It seems the more material wealth a person has, not only do they feel more entitled, but also more insecure and afraid of hordes of poor people coming to take it all.

Obviously it's not a hard rule, and I believe education is what can offset that mentality in the wealthy people who do want to pay more taxes and who do support equality and all the bleeding heart liberal programs.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Another factor:

The left sees people as basically equal cogs--unions are the essence of this, they say all that matters is seniority. Income will increase with age but between one's peers there won't be that wide an income range. You need to do a reasonable job at whatever you do but there will be little benefit from trying to excel.

The right sees people as responsible for their own position in life. This will produce a much wider range of incomes, both higher and lower. Note, also, that most high-paying jobs are non-union, you get their by merit rather than seniority.

Put these together and you'll find that most of the high earners are from the right.

 

[Politesse]

The left sees people as basically equal cogs--unions are the essence of this, they say all that matters is seniority. Income will increase with age but between one's peers there won't be that wide an income range. You need to do a reasonable job at whatever you do but there will be little benefit from trying to excel.

I'm not sure what leftists you've been meeting, but speaking for myself, I think the myth of meritocracy is a lot more honest than a system where skin color or chromosomes determine your worth. Equity and motivation go hand in hand.

The right sees people as responsible for their own position in life.

That's a fat load of crap. The people they worship inherited their wealth and sneer at the hardest working members of society because they work for them.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The left sees people as basically equal cogs--unions are the essence of this, they say all that matters is seniority. Income will increase with age but between one's peers there won't be that wide an income range. You need to do a reasonable job at whatever you do but there will be little benefit from trying to excel.

I'm not sure what leftists you've been meeting, but speaking for myself, I think the myth of meritocracy is a lot more honest than a system where skin color or chromosomes determine your worth. Equity and motivation go hand in hand.

Most unions are the antithesis of meritocracy.