Comment by gottorf
8 hours ago
> they'll vote against their practical (economic) interests
Not everyone's top policy priority is what will get them the most taxpayer dollars redistributed in their favor.
8 hours ago
> they'll vote against their practical (economic) interests
Not everyone's top policy priority is what will get them the most taxpayer dollars redistributed in their favor.
I think everyone has an interest in supporting their addiction to food and shelter.
Yet for the most part, the most Republican leading states are the poorest and already have the largest imbalance of tax and flows versus tax outflows…
You don’t think California and New York contribute less to the government than they receive?
> I think everyone has an interest in supporting their addiction to food and shelter.
Maybe if one's income is so low that all they can afford is food and shelter. But this is a rich country, and even Mississippi is very rich by global standards[0]. So there are surplus dollars beyond what goes into food and shelter, and people disagree politically on how much of it should be taxed and what it should be spent on.
I am merely one voter, but I am an example of someone who does not vote solely to enhance my own economic interests, whether spent on food and shelter or not. I will happily take the hit to my wallet for other causes I find worthy. Indeed, I would be extremely skeptical of someone whose highest political imperative was to funnel as much tax dollars as possible to their own wallet, even though by some definition this might be the most "rational" voter behavior.
> the most Republican leading states are the poorest and already have the largest imbalance of tax and flows versus tax outflows
> You don’t think California and New York contribute less to the government than they receive?
This is a point that gets raised often, but there are many confounding factors here, besides "Democrat rich, Republican poor" (and the implication that there is a causal relationship).
At its core, "California" and "New York" don't contribute anything; the people residing in those states who pay taxes do. And, conversely, the people residing in those states receive transfer payments. So you really want to look at the individuals who are net payers of taxes vs. net recipients of taxes and see how they vote and why they live where they live, to get a better idea on what policies may favor contribution.
At a national level, both higher incomes and higher accumulated wealth predict voters favoring Republicans over Democrats[1]. In fact, even among registered Democrats, those with higher incomes or wealth are roughly twice as more likely to vote for the Republican candidate in an election than those with low incomes or wealth. If Democratic policies were truly better for wealth creation, then why would wealth-focused individuals cast their votes the opposite way?
[0]: It has a higher median household income than Germany, which is not a country anyone thinks is poor.
[1]: http://www.lisdatacenter.org/wps/lwswps/19.pdf
Now compare the life expectancy, education levels, infant mortality rates, etc of Mississippi and Germany?
How many people in Germany don’t have access to health care compared to Mississippi? If you were out of work for a year, would you rather be in Germany or MS?
If California didn’t receive anything from the federal government and didn’t have to pay taxes to the Federal government and the same happen to MS, whose states citizens would be better off?
Let’s go a step further, if all the Blue states were a country and all of the red states were a country, which hypothetical country would be better off?
I vote for policies to help other people. The people in MS voted for a President who promised to hurt the evil brown people, the pet eating Hatians and to “own the libs”