Who is the Party of the top 1% of earners?

Fervent · Tuesday at 2:47 AM

Is this a question of voting habits of the 1%, or about which party's politicians are owned by the 1%?

Cause I'm not sure what the first answer is, but the second is both. It's cute that people believe that either party is concerned with the well being of the majority of the country especially considering that everyone in congress is on the upper end of the wealth scale. Accusations about one party being the party of the wealthy are just the pot calling the kettle black.

ozso · Tuesday at 2:48 AM

GoldenBoy89 said:
Do you disagree with their conclusion?

I haven't bothered to evaluate it in order to agree or disagree with the conclusion. I just suggested that those who want to get and idea of which party has the most 1% supporters, they could start with a list of the wealthiest people in America.

iluvatar5150 · Tuesday at 6:32 AM

ozso said:
I haven't bothered to evaluate it in order to agree or disagree with the conclusion. I just suggested that those who want to get and idea of which party has the most 1% supporters, they could start with a list of the wealthiest people in America.

That's not a very good metric, either, because there's still a pretty big difference between the handful at the very top and the average 1%er.

ozso · Tuesday at 6:57 AM

iluvatar5150 said:
That's not a very good metric, either, because there's still a pretty big difference between the handful at the very top and the average 1%er.

It could be a starting point though. Couldn't it?

Akita Suggagaki · Tuesday at 7:01 AM

ThatRobGuy said:
Or to put it more succinctly, the Koch/Mellon ilk and Soros ilk are two very different types of billionaires motivated by two very different types of power. The former just want a lot of money (and the removal of impediments that could stop them from making even more), the latter enjoy the ability of being able to manipulate people into seeing things "their way", but making it feel like it was their own choice.

Not so clear division when both sides "enjoy the ability of being able to manipulate people into seeing things "their way", but making it feel like it was their own choice." That explains MAGA and Trumps "mandate".

FAITH-IN-HIM · Tuesday at 7:30 AM

Always in His Presence said:
The media is a never ending source of information telling us that the Republican Party is for the ultra wealthy particularly the oft repeated tax cuts for the rich.

Who do you say it is?

You got it exactly right.

Media and Democrats unfairly criticize the top 1% and claim wealthy always prevail, the poor consistently suffer, and Republicans are solely concerned with the interests of the rich is an inaccurate characterization.

Fifty years ago the Democratic Party was primarily associated with the working class and blue-collar workers, while the Republican Party attracted more affluent, educated individuals. In recent decades, there has been a shift in American political alignment. The Democratic Party now tends to draw support from wealthier, upper-middle-class, educated, and more prosperous regions. Conversely, rural populations, blue-collar workers, and those with less formal education, who may not have benefited as much from economic growth over the past fifty years, increasingly align with the Republican Party.

Biden-voting counties equal 70% of America's economy. What does this mean for the nation's political-economic divide? | Brookings

This economic rift that persists in dividing the nation is a problem because it underscores the near-certainty of both continued clashes between the political parties and continued alienation and misunderstandings.

www.brookings.edu

Democrats Represent the 40 Congressional Districts With Highest Home Values, by Terence P. Jeffrey

The 40 congressional districts in the 116th Congress that had the highest median values for their owner-occupied homes were all represented by Democrats. In fact, during that Congress, only 10 of the 100 congressional districts with the highest median owner-occupied home values were represented...

www.creators.com

The 40 congressional districts in the 116th Congress that had the highest median values for their owner-occupied homes were all represented by Democrats.
In fact, during that Congress, only 10 of the 100 congressional districts with the highest median owner-occupied home values were represented by Republicans.

Mapped: U.S. Median Income in Blue, Red, and Swing States

Blue states generally have higher household incomes.

www.visualcapitalist.com

However, neither party has updated its policies to align with the current electorate. The Democratic Party continues to support economic measures aimed at assisting the less fortunate and those in need, while the GOP maintains its advocacy for trickle-down economic policies.

ThatRobGuy · Tuesday at 8:13 AM

Akita Suggagaki said:
Not so clear division when both sides "enjoy the ability of being able to manipulate people into seeing things "their way", but making it feel like it was their own choice." That explains MAGA and Trumps "mandate".

Well, remember, this was a thread about the 1%'ers, not the rank and file voters of each party.

There's a stark contrast between the viewpoints of a power hungry billionaire, and the average person who votes for the same party as a power hungry billionaire.

One type: Doesn't care about the money quite as much, but deeply wants to convince others to see things through their own ideological lens on a range of social issues. -- even if it means they have to pay a little more in taxes for that matter.

Other type: Has interests that are purely financial, doesn't really care about the social issues as much, but is more than happy to pretend to align with rank and file voters on said issues if it means they can get that voter to vote for the person that will give them the tax break/monetary kickback.

That's why I cited some examples:

Soros & Adelson would be the first type: They're less interested things like tax breaks. But Soros deeply wants to steer society toward a social justice mindset that mirrors his own, and Adelson is deeply concerned with making people have a Israel-centric geopolitical perspective.

Whereas...

Koch/Mellon... they're more of the "show me the money" types. They're not particularly concerned as much with any of the social issues, they'd be just as happy to promote the republicans and help get them elected even if the republic base had completely opposite views on the social issues.

Perhaps a simpler way to summarize:

Soros is willing to go backwards financially in order to try push progressive values via massive cultural promotion devices... Adelson will do the same to promote "Israel first, anyone who says otherwise is an antisemite" ideas in the ethos.

Koch & Mellon will happily pander to any pre-existing position and funnel money to PACs based centered around that, if it means rallying a base around the candidate(s) who will help them go forward financially.

Prime example: Koch, himself, has publicly gone on record as supporting marriage equality, however, has funneled money to PACs and groups that are explicitly Christian-right advocacy groups so long as he thinks that those are also the same people who will vote for the person who will give him a tax break and lift some regulatory burdens.

rambot · Tuesday at 8:19 AM

The fundamental problem with this poll is that it impliess there is a party that does not service the 1%.

With the tax breaks in the recent cuts Republicans servitude to their better is obvious.

The better question is which party supports the middle class.

Again. Neither are great.

But Democrats are coming to the conclusion as the poorer get more poor and thw working class also gets more poor, their party truly doesn't work foe them.

That Republican supporters have not yet realized that about their own party is just a fantastic demonstration of the Lyndon Johson quote.

iluvatar5150 · Tuesday at 8:22 AM

ozso said:
It could be a starting point though. Couldn't it?

I dunno... maybe? I understand the logic, but I'm not sure how representative that group is of anything. First, anybody at the absolute top of anything is, by definition, an outlier. Second, there are so many people at the top who didn't earn that money in the traditional sense that they could easily skew things.

What I mean by that second point is - of the top 25, seven of them (i.e. more than a quarter) got there solely by inheriting their wealth: four from WalMart, two from Mars Candy, and one from Koch Industries. If you look at the full Forbes 400 list, you can see the same trend extending at least through the first couple pages (which was all I checked): Bill Gates' and Jeff Bezos' ex-wives are both in the top 35 and a bunch of other heirs in there, too. So, who knows.

What I think is telling for these purposes is that, according to the same Pew study that produced the OP's graph (and to which I linked earlier), homeowners (i.e. the folks in possession of the largest single wealth asset for most Americans and beneficiaries of a very large tax break) skew Republican.

rambot · Tuesday at 8:24 AM

ThatRobGuy said:
That's operates on the assumption that money is the only form of "currency" out there, and the only lever of power and influence.

When you boil it down to practical terms (and how the two parties pander to various rich people):

One party says (to a small group of uber wealthy people) -- if you back us, we'll make sure you get to keep an extra $400k of your income rather than paying it to taxes, and we'll get some of those inconvenient regulations out of the way for the businesses that you own.

vs.

The other party who says (to a different group of uber wealthy people) -- if you back us, you won't get the tax break, but we'll make sure the institutions of academia, entertainment, and 75% of the mainstream media promote your preferred viewpoints on all of the non-economic social issues to influence the public over to your side, and we'll occasionally try to squash opposing viewpoints on your behalf.

Basically, they're appealing to two distinct different types of "thirsts for power".

One is mostly greed-based based, with a dash of "I have a lot of money, so I want to be able to get rid of laws I don't like that prevent me from making even more"

The other is more power craving that involves wanting to be able to manipulate public viewpoints in order to have everyone else think the way they do.

If I may use a Batman villain analogy to describe which types of rich people the 2 parties appeal to...

The republicans appeal to "The Penguin" type of rich person,
The Penguin doesn't seek to prove philosophical points; he simply wants to be rich, respected, and feared. His crimes are almost purely elaborate (ethically compromised) business ventures designed to have more money -- regardless of who it hurts.

The democrats appeal to the "Riddler" type of rich person.
The Riddler wants people to acknowledge his "genius" and see the world through his lens. His strategies are elaborate demonstrations designed to reshape how people think about intelligence, authority, and who deserves to hold power.

Or to put it more succinctly, the Koch/Mellon ilk and Soros ilk are two very different types of billionaires motivated by two very different types of power. The former just want a lot of money (and the removal of impediments that could stop them from making even more), the latter enjoy the ability of being able to manipulate people into seeing things "their way", but making it feel like it was their own choice.

Interesting idea but I gotta tell ya that Musk is 100% riddler

iluvatar5150 · Tuesday at 8:53 AM

rambot said:
Interesting idea but I gotta tell ya that Musk is 100% riddler

Given his taste for mind-altering chemicals, I would've put him down as Scarecrow.

ThatRobGuy · Tuesday at 9:43 AM

rambot said:
Interesting idea but I gotta tell ya that Musk is 100% riddler

I would say he's a hybrid.

He's been both over the past 20 years.

He was the Riddler when he was fancied as a "climate visionary" who was dead set on developing a "cool looking" electric car that people would want to buy (even if they didn't believe in climate change) thereby making them an asset to his perceived "solution" regardless of whether or not they acknowledged what he saw as the problem.

He became the Penguin when he decided to just throw money at people who would get regulations out of the way so he could make even more money and cut his taxes.

Hans Blaster · Tuesday at 11:07 AM

rambot said:
Interesting idea but I gotta tell ya that Musk is 100% riddler

I've seen Musk try to make a clever statement and he fails consistently. Not sure how he'd do crafting a puzzle. I've thought of him more of a "Max Zorin" type.

Who is the Party of the top 1% of earners?

Who is the Party of the top 1% of earners?

Democratic Party

Republican Party

Well-Known Member

✦

Well-Known Member

✦

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Part of the IT crowd

Senior Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Member

Well-Known Member

Part of the IT crowd

Hood was a loser.

Similar threads