...to the extent there is a relationship between income and party affiliation, it isn't the one you're suggesting. This Pew Study suggests that those with household incomes over $150,000 a year are leaning toward Democrats, while those with incomes between $75,000 and $150,000 are tending toward the Republicans.
Moreover, while Republicans do poorly with households with income below $40,000, once income rises above that threshold, higher income voters are no more likely to support Republicans than lower income ones. For example, 32% of those with households incomes between $40,000 and $50,000 support Republicans and 31% of those above $150,000 in household income support Republicans.
So it just doesn't seem right to say that Republicans are the party of the wealthy. They might be the party of the countryside, of churchgoers, of military families, of white men--but they seem clearly not to be the party of the rich.
Posted by rwe | May 9, 2008 12:55 PM
meganmcardle.theatlantic.com
Stan, rather than characterizing Republican policies as designed to help the affluent, I’d say it’s more fair to characterize them as favoring self-made successes, e.g., small businessmen. Such people are sensitive to taxes because a tax increase substantially affects their financial standing. Furthermore, the individualism that characterizes Republican perspectives resonates with small businessmen.
Democratic policies, on the other hand, exert their greatest appeal to those either a) aren’t successful, or b) didn’t make their success but came by it through, e.g., inheritance. These people are not concerned about tax increases, because group a) effectively doesn’t pay taxes, but stands to benefit from government handouts made possible by tax increases, and group b) has enough money that a tax increase doesn’t materially change their financial status (and their CPAs can probably get around paying any increase anyway). These groups also favor collectivism because group a) figures it’ll be lumped upwards, whereas group b) feels guilty about unearned wealth, and figures that the (for them) imperceptibly larger tax bite makes up for being born on third base (e.g., Kennedy) or ruthlessly and brutally shaking down the poor to become wealthy (e.g., Soros and Thailand)...
meganmcardle.theatlantic.com |
