Voting Trends and Economics

There are a lot of trends that influence voting and which include but are not limited to, ethnicity, financial status, religion, education, sex, sexual orientation, profession, what part of the country you're from, children, age etc...  I found it interesting that people that have 4 year degrees and have a profession tend to lean more to the right, yet P.H.D's and teachers tend to lean to the left.  Cuban Americans tend to vote Republican yet Mexican Americans tend to vote Democrat.  Of course people with lower incomes that are from anywhere else other than the South have always been associated with voting democratic because of their social policies which are favorable to programs like welfare and the like.  I don't really have a point to argue here but I thought I could add some to this post.   

The 4/6 split your analysis breaks (AT MOST!) out belies the title of your article. Just like many newspapers I've seen. Of course that doesn't make the inaccuracy any less irritating.

But it does continue to tell me that controversy sells better than accuracy ... Or that some people continue to hold beliefs (ie your headline), despite the facts (ie the body of your analysis).

As to your flat fee idea ... might have some merit, but if you were only making $20,000 a year, a $1,000 a year would be alot on top of whatever you already pay pay in various other taxes.

JW

Jay,

I don't think the mandatory tax should be anything near $1,000.  I think it should be a set percentage of the overall federal budget that in 2004 dollars would be around $250 annually.  That way, if the federal budget grew, people would feel it.

Really? The poor want money and the rich want to keep their money?

Duh.

Oh, and all an "annual tax-"-a flat FEE-(not PERCENT) does is entrench the poor and elevate the rich. The US tax system provides the "have nots" a chance to be successful without more chips stacked against them then there already are.

I would have to agree that a "flat fee" does little to equalize the situation. Then again, does it necessarily have to be equalized? The goal of government should not be to equally distribute the wealth among its citizens (at least, not a Capitalist government).

It is fair to say, however, that historically the Republican party has favored the rich, which in turn causes the rich to favor that party. At some point, and for reasons I won't claim to understand, the Democrats have become the party of the disenfranchised and the poor.

What really does get my personal goat (poor goat; tired of being gotten all the time) is that any really creative accountant can set it up in such a way that their incredibly wealthy clients (those with more than $2 million in total assets) pay little or no taxes. On the average, people in the bracket of wealth pay a far lower percentage of their total income in taxes than someone in the Upper-Lower or Lower-Middle income bracket.

Most people who make less than $30,000 a year do not pay any federal income tax. You may pay some at the time but you get a tax refund at the end of the year.

I'd be interested to see where this information comes from. I personally paid a fair clip of Federal taxes each year I made less than $30,000. My wife continues to. Most people I know do unless they have more than 3 children, or pay outrageous interest rates on mortgages or other deductible loans.

Of course I'm torn on the issue. I'm not sure how fair it is to require someone to contribute more simply because they have more. On the other hand, it seems cruel to ask the same contribution from someone who struggles daily to make ends meet that is asked of the billionaire in the hills.

Last, but certainly not least, I do find the following rather insulting:

Tax payers vote Republican, Tax receivers vote Democratic

The idea behind this statement is that lower-income voters vote Democratic, and that wealthier voters vote Republican, as validated by the chart you provide. For this statement to be accurate however, it would imply that (at least) a majority of lower-income voters are receiving some sort of financial assistance funded by a Federal program. That might be true for those making less than $15,000, but not for the next bracket up. I would say that there are roughly as many people on the other end of that spectrum--those whose creative accounting exempts them from any and all significant Federal tax--as there are receiving Federal aid income.

What it boils down to is that the poor refuse to support a party that continues to legislate tax breaks and loopholes for the incredibly wealthy while ignoring the plight of those struggling in poverty. And the incredibly wealthy support such initiatives by Republicans because they don't want to part with what they have. But, really, is that news? I think the "Duh!" exclaimed above sums that up pretty succinctly.

Grr.  I am not suggesting we eliminate the progressive tax system.  Good grief, I spelled it out in there: I am in favor of the progressive tax system but believe there should still be some minimum tax fee.  Because right now, 23% of the population, to use that exit poll, is overwhelmingly voting for the party promising to give them free goodies.  And why shouldn't they if they don't feel any pinch themselves for doing so?

I'd be interested to see where this information comes from. I personally paid a fair clip of Federal taxes each year I made less than $30,000.

Perhaps you'd like to share your tax return then as I suspect you got most of that back as a refund. 

As for rich people getting tax loopholes, while there are certainly cases of that, it's not the norm.  The fact is, the top 5% pay half the income taxes in the country.  They're paying their fair share and then some.  Which doesn't bother me one bit until I see people who pay squat into the system complaining how easy the rich have it.

Who, after all, is greedier? The guy trying to keep the money he earned from working or the guy who demanding that other man's money for himself.

If you have a link to these tax loopholes, please let me know.  My taxes last year were in the six digit range. I've asked my accountants about these loopholes and barring very very specific cases for the mega ultra rich, they don't really exist.  But since you claim that the Republicans create them, you must be familiar with them so please pass on that info.

i dont know where you get your figures, but i make between 26,000 and 28,000 and i certainly DO pay tax's, and no, i dont get it all back in refunds, i get some back, but not all...
not even close, hell 2 years ago, when i made less, i OWED

"Most people who make less than $30,000 a year do not pay any federal income tax. "

That sounded fishy to me. I checked on an online tax calculators ( http://www.hrblock.com/taxes/tools/quickcalc/2003_quick_calc.html ), and someone (single, no deductions) making $30,000 pays about $2984 in taxes. Someone making $20,000 pays $1484 in taxes. You have to go down to $7800 not to pay income tax - but you still have to pay payroll taxes (not to mention state income tax and/or sales tax)

And as has been pointed out, $3000 in taxes is likely to be a lot more significant to someone making $30,000, than to the same person making $60,000 all other things being the same - especially since much more of the money is likely going to go to necessary products (shelter, food) leaving less disposable income.

Ok, here goes. I am a single man (58 years), Retired Navy (21 years). My income from retirement is $17040.00 a year; this is my only income (by choice). I treal around this great country of ours in my pickup, and 5th wheel (this I find very informative, and enjoyable). Now of that amount indicated above the IRS takes out approximately $100.00 a month; along with that I have the Military pay department in Cleveland take out another $30.00. This $30.00 is so at the end of the year I will not have to fork over another $250.00 over and above what has already been deducted. Yes I did get a refund. Oh, it was $67.00 dollars.

Someone has for some reason started a rumor that is if you make less then a said amount you don't pay any taxes. Now that is only the federal taxes, the state in which I spend my winters and considered my home state, asked for a check in the amount of $35.00 Dollars.

I do not mind paying this tax; I just get tired of hearing people tell me that those who make less than (whatever) don't pay taxes.

And, yes, Draginol I would love to show you my taxes.

Lee

Perhaps you'd like to share your tax return then as I suspect you got most of that back as a refund.

No, I didn't. I got less than 1/4 of what I paid out during the year back. And yes, I am just talking about Federal taxes, not total withholdings.

By the way, I'm not accusing you of suggesting we do away with progressive taxation. I didn't get that from your article. Even if I had, I wouldn't have called you on it. The truth of the matter is that I don't have the answer. The only thing I know for sure is that the current system is far too complicated, with too many provisions, exceptions, and loopholes (even if your accountant can't find them for you).

As for rich people getting tax loopholes, while there are certainly cases of that, it's not the norm. The fact is, the top 5% pay half the income taxes in the country. They're paying their fair share and then some. Which doesn't bother me one bit until I see people who pay squat into the system complaining how easy the rich have it.

Okay, so I understand the whole "The more you have, the more you want and the more you need" principal. I won't say that being rich is the cure for all sadness and that wealthy people have it "easy". The complications of great--or even moderate--wealth must by nature be significant. But there are also significant differences in the everyday concerns of the rich man and the poor man. The poor man may literally have to wonder where his next meal, or the meals of his children or other family members, will come from. Even $20k per year is barely enough to support a single person; and depending on circumstances, it may not be enough to even come close.

My wife and I are going to try to start a family next year. Between the two of us, we make enough to be considered Lower-Middle Class. We don't have many bills (some, but comparatively few). And yet we are constantly worried about the costs associated with pregnancy and delivery and childcare, etc. My concern isn't, "Can I send my child to some expensive private school?" Instead, it's "Can I pay for food and clothes and medical expenses for my child?" For the family pulling down half the money we do, I can't imagine how they do it. And for the family pulling down $12,000 per year, at which point they're paying taxes even considering the child tax credit, how on earth is it even conceivable they survive and provide their child with the basic necessities?

Yeah, I know the wealthy don't "have it easy". But come on...it's not the same sort of day-to-day struggle for survival as the very poor. Add to that the old adage "You have to have money to make money," which is so incredibly true on so many levels, and the wealthy man certainly has it easier than that poor man.

"People who don't pay federal income taxes tend to vote for Democrats."
...
"And in fact, the more taxes you pay, the more likely you are to vote for Republicans."

This is a bit dodgey, you start out with a certain specific claim, then switch to a more general claim in conclusion.

As (http://www.calpundit.com/archives/000072.html) shows the general claim is not true, assuming you mean 'more taxes' as relative to income. In absolute terms it is still a valid claim, but that should surprise no one.

Actually, there are only 2 voting groups according to Kerry-Edward and Bush-Cheney ad targeting. Kerry-Edwards target shows like Judge Judy that air in the middle of the afternoon and Bush-Cheney ads run in the evenings during programs like NYPD Blue. (Per a recent study by a WI think tank) Ostensibly, Kerry is targeting middle-aged women (my mom's middle aged and she ain't home in the middle of the afternoon) and Bush is going after working men.

It's amazing how only people with a disagreement tend to reply.

I made less than 15,000 last year, and yes, I got almost all of my taxes back at refund. If one takes all of their deductions correctly, then I think your figures are in a pretty good ballpark. There are always going to be exceptions, but you've got the rule pretty close.

A local starving artist (I'm pretty sure that constitutes low income) got money to fund a public art project. No offense to him, but it is hideous and takes away from the feel of the town. Myself and other local residents fought (and failed) to keep him from building the thing. Now it's there, a half million dollars of federal program money, making the field down the road look rediculous. He doesn't even live here, and I don't think he felt the 'pinch' you reffered to.

I don't think the tax system is necessarily flawwed. I just think we need to reconsider where a LOT of this money is going, because it's nice to give an artist a fund, but how does that help anyone but the artist? I would like to live in a capitalist country, not a socialism.

Poor people do not want other's money. They want their own. There are some people that get temporary assistance, there are some people that can't work. Most poor people are trying to take care of their family. You have a very prominent writer here that has said he is poor and wants no help. This is the way most poor people feel. They want to make their own way, so they work two jobs or whatever they have to do to make it on their own.

I should say that there are certainly exceptions to any rule.  But I stand by my statements as a general truism.

Secondly, my article only points out that those who pay little or no taxes overwhelmingly support Democrats.  The question is, why?

I should say that there are certainly exceptions to any rule.  But I stand by my statements as a general truism.

Secondly, my article only points out that those who pay little or no taxes overwhelmingly support Democrats.  The question is, why?

Not paying federal tax: votes Gore - 55%, votes Bush 40%
I don't think a 55%/40% split is overwhelming - a solid majority, sure. Overwhelming ... no.

An interesting counter-point question to yours, is if the poor are purportedly so greedy, then why don't they vote 80-90% Democrat, instead of just 55%?

JW

If income is a deciding trend for voting, why isn't it more pronounced?

One reason is that fiscal issues are not the only reasons to vote a certain way.

Secondly, my article only points out that those who pay little or no taxes overwhelmingly support Democrats. The question is, why?

I don't think there is a deep reason. It boils down to the fact that rich people generally support Republicans. If the poor, as a group, witness the rich supporting a party, they will by default assume that the policies of the party favor the rich (and not them) and vote for their primary opponents.

I think it is fairly obvious why most wealthier people support Republicans: Republican tax breaks, while sometimes partially beneficial to the Lower- and Lower-Middle-Classes, usually contain hefty tax breaks for wealthy people, and for those who own medium-to-large businesses. Add to that the fact that the Republican Party spends a fairly large majority of its campaign monies catering to the wealthier Americans and larger corporations (which is smart; the rich and big business certainly have more donatable money than those struggling to pay the mortgage). And last, but not least (and not all; I'm trying to be succinct), Republican administrations generally turn a blind eye to the indiscretions of the filthy-rich. Everything from the Enron scandal to the Microsoft vs. DoJ case points towards a regime that would rather wash its hands (while sweeping its involvement under the rug) of these infractions than deal with them head-on and punish those responsible. If I'm a rich person, or someone who owns tons of stock in large corporations, I would certainly feel that the Republican Party has my better interests in mind, or at least that they'll do less harm to my interests than the more industry-punitive Democrats. That may not be true in all cases, but as a general rule it holds water.

So if I’m in that category that generally feels left out by the Republican Party, I would align with the most viable of its opponents: The Democrats. In that instance, the Democratic Party comes off as the lesser of all the evils. Further, the Democrats know this, and campaign heavily as a party “for the People”, which endears them to the “disenfranchised” much more so that the Republicans.

The one overwhelming exception to this rule and line of thinking would be celebrities. Most are decidedly Democratic, which begs the question, “Why?” My best guess would be that celebrities, as a general rule, expect to be allowed to be slightly more immoral than the average citizen. Since the Republican Party seems bent on legislating morality (something Prohibition should have taught them is a bad idea), most celebrities steer clear of them like the plague.

One interesting thing, and I cannot find numbers for this at the moment but I know it's true, Republicans have more people who contribute to their campaigns, but a smaller average contribution.

What did Republicans do to help Enron? Aren't there around 10 Enron execs in jail? Also, didn't most of their crimes take place when Clinton was in charge?

misterme: Well you definitely give a good argument for the side of the Democrats.

I would counter with these:

Republicans may (wrongly) try to legislate morality but Democrats don't even bother to do that, instead, they try to get courts to issue orders on morality.

I highly doubt poor people vote for Democrats simply because rich people tend to vote for Republicans. I think people vote for the people that they feel will work in their interest. 

Since poor people generally pay little or no taxes and Democrats are proposing new goodies for people regardless of whether they've paid for them (health care, various aid packages, more social services, etc.) it makes sense that more would vote for Democrats. 

Similarly, Republicans tend to push for lower taxes which means that "the rich" get to keep more of the money they've earned.

Someone once said that they really don't like seeing wealthy people complain about the poor as free-loaders. I can understand that.  On the other hand, I see a LOT more complaining that the "rich" are supposedly getting off easy which I get sick of hearing since I know it's not true as a generalization.

Most poor people are trying to take care of their family. You have a very prominent writer here that has said he is poor and wants no help. This is the way most poor people feel. They want to make their own way, so they work two jobs or whatever they have to do to make it on their own.

I've corrected you before on this misconception. 

US census Bureau, 2000:

The poor, listed at those who make less than $15,569 per year: 23% work full time.

So spare us this "two job" bullshit Wisefawn.  Most people who are "poor" are poor because they don't or can't work.  BTW, 45% of them own a home.

people vote for the people that they feel will work in their interest.

This is sooooo funny! Considering the number of posts using terms like

lesser of two evils

when talking about the US elections, I find this highly amusing. If people really voted for what worked in their interest then the US would not be a two party system but would be full of parties looking out for the best interests of their voters. This doesn't happen though. So I would modify this statement to

people vote for the people they hate the least

Sad, but true. And not just in the US. Also totally true over here in the UK. But we actually have a third party which makes politics much more interesting. So if you hate 1 party you have 2 others to choose between.

Paul.

A great breakdown of just who really pays taxes:

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/menu/top_50__of_wage_earners_pay_96_09__of_income_taxes.guest.html

Only the "rich" pay taxes...