Manuel is an unskilled laborer who has settled into the only job he can find. It pays $250 per week, but his takehome pay is only $200. He doesn't realize that he gets the money back every spring. He dreams of the things he can buy with that extra $50 (mouthwash, desserts every night, haircuts). He doesn't know much about politics or macroeconomics, but he figures that people who are eager to raise taxes on rich people will someday raise taxes on poor people, so he's planning to vote Republican. George, also with no particular skill, has bounced aimlessly from job to job and has settled with a position that pays $400 before taxes and $300 after taxes. He knows he gets the money back. The happiest day of most years is the day his IRS refund check arrives. He eats dessert every night, uses mouthwash and gets good haircuts. He knows that the richest employers he's had were the ones who account for every penny, and if their taxes go up they will make adjustments and someone will suffer. He'll be voting Republican. Paul is a low-level manager for a major retail chain. He makes $600 per week plus a small annual bonus. He is divorced, gets drunk three nights each week and has a great cable package. He's not very good at his job, but his boss likes him and covers up for him. He also has a good team under him that require little supervision. He doesn't want a promotion. He can't handle his boss' job. He opposes tax increases for the wealthy because he knows if the store were to eliminate exactly one position it would probably be his. Several on his team would take his job for less money. Two of the best could divide his duties for an extra quarter per hour apiece. The job could probably be vacant with no harm done. Rob owns a small convenience store. He's very efficient and most of the perishables sell on schedule. After expenses and salaries his actual weekly income averages $800. He works over 80 hours each week, can't risk a vacation and never stops thinking about the business. Store revenues are going up every year and are approaching the $250,000 mark. He's afraid he'll be hit with those taxes and sees no way to cut any part of his budget. He has to vote Republican. John is a handsome young salesman. A few years ago he was persuaded to take a part-time direct selling job, selling high-end products to women. His good looks and charm made him so successful he quit his other job. He recruited two clients who especially loved the products. They're not very good but they both met the minimum standards and he is now a level-one manager. What he didn't realize was that these two women cut into the two most productive branches of his client chain, so his sales dropped slightly. He presently averages $1,000 per week, which supports a flashy car and keeps him well-groomed and in good suits. He recently acquired a serious girlfriend and is considering home ownership. To meet his goals he needs to work harder and find more recruits. Most of his clients have household incomes over $250,000. He knows if they have to economize the first thing to go will be his products. He has to vote Republican. Susan is a single mother of two. She has a day job which she hates and an online sales job that she loves. The jobs combined earn her $1,200 per week, almost twice as much as she was making 10 years ago and more than her parents (now retired) ever made. Her parents are ailing and her kids are wearisome, so she recently hired a nurse for her parents and a nanny for her kids. Her lifestyle has only slightly improved. She has no idea how much money her customers have but she needs twice as many to quit her day job and that should include some rich people. She's been a liberal all her life and has a crush on Obama, but for the first time she's thinking about voting Republican.
In short, even those not making a lot of money realize they are getting more from their employer that they would get from the government.
I guess the moral of the OP story is that if you are not rich, you should envy those that are and punish them for being so. Isn't that one of the deadly sins?
Paul is based on a person I know well. My situation at present represents the second guy and in the past I was frequently in the range of the first guy. The fourth one is adapted from my best friend. The fifth one represents a realistic expectation I had when I went into the direct selling business though I never reached that point. The sixth one is pure fiction. Do you think the reasoning is flawed? Specifically, are you sure today's young Democrats will never raise taxes on people making less than $250,000 per year? Do you think business owners, faced with paying higher taxes, will not try to get their money back by cutting personnel or raising prices? Do you think that major chain stores will not find someone they can do without to compensate for shortfalls? Do you think wealthy husbands will not ask their wives to sacrifice one small luxury to sustain their portfolios? Do you think overworked business owners won't be tempted to close their business in favor of working half as many hours for the same income? Do you think people trying to transition into a full-time sales career are not worried that a tax increase for anyone will limit the list of possible customers?
They'd have to be a large firm with market power, otherwise their personnel and pricing decisions will reflect market forces and its impact on the profit maximisation decision. You have to be rather careful. It is likely that an individual's labour supply is backward bending (i.e. as compensation per hour increases there will be a point where income effects dominate such that labour supply will actually fall). A tax can then actually increase work incentives. The state of the economy will be more important. We'd therefore have to factor in how taxes are utilised (and how it impacts on demand).
We know that the poorer income deciles will typically support higher taxes on the rich. The issue is whether that should be deemed to be envy or the result of class conflict (something that can't be rejected for the US as, compared to other Western nations, it is rather socially immobile). I'd suggest that it doesn't matter, as an objective analysis based on economic rationality would lead to support for higher tax
