Reeds which category of Rich do you dislike? - Dallas-Mavs.com Forums

FishForLunch · 10-12-2004, 10:49 PM

moneybox
Millionaires for Bush, Billionaires for Kerry
Why the super-rich favor the candidate who will raise their taxes.
By Daniel Gross
Posted Tuesday, Oct. 12, 2004, at 1:52 PM PT

In Fahrenheit 9/11, a tuxedoed President Bush jokes: "This is an impressive crowd—the haves and the have mores. Some people call you the elite. I call you my base."

Assuming they're economically rational creatures, rich people should support Bush. After all, Bush has cut taxes on the rich and promises to cut more, while Kerry vows to raise them. But the reality is clearly more complicated than rich = Bush supporter and poor = Kerry supporter. As Thomas Frank notes in What's the Matter With Kansas, plenty of struggling Great Plains denizens are reliable Republicans. Meanwhile, in many affluent enclaves on the East and West Coast—Bushenfreude hot zones—the rich seem to favor Democrats. And while Billionaires for Bush archly satirizes the Republican Party's efforts to cater to the extremely wealthy, there are plenty of billionaires who are ardently supporting Kerry. (See: Soros, George.)

Which raises the question: How rich do you have to get before you start favoring Kerry?

While the haves will surely give Bush a majority of their votes this fall, the have-mores might not. In September, the research firm Prince & Associates surveyed 400 people worth more than $1 million for Elite Traveler magazine. (Note to self: Try to get gig writing for this magazine.) The rich folk favored Bush by a 58-42 margin. Not too surprising. But when you break out the numbers, they tell a different story. The petit bourgeoisie millionaires were passionately for Bush: Those worth between $1 million and $10 million favored Bush by a 63-37 margin. But the haute millionaires, those worth more than $10 million, favored Kerry 59-41.

Russ Prince explained the difference by noting that, absurd as it may sound, those with a net worth of merely seven figures don't feel financially secure. "The people with less than $10 million are still very focused on their personal financial situation in the short term," he told the Wall Street Journal, where the results were first published.

Indeed, being a millionaire isn't what it used to be, thanks to inflation and high housing prices. According to this report from Merrill Lynch, there were 2.3 million Americans with financial assets worth more than $1 million in 2003. And if you counted home values, the number of asset millionaires would be several times higher.

But at some point, millionaires get so rich that they don't really have to worry about how to pay the mortgage, or for that new Bentley. And if you can live off the tax-free interest of your municipal bonds, it really doesn't matter whether the top marginal income tax rate is 33 percent or 39 percent.

On Wall Street, veterans speak of "f***-you money": the nice round figure a guy needs to set himself up for life, buy (and decorate) multiple residences, create trust funds for kids, and still have enough cash to buy expensive toys and pursue new business ventures. At a certain point—somewhere north of $10 million—wealth may become "f*** you and f*** you, Republicans" money. This is the kind of cash that George Soros, Warren Buffett, Peter Lewis, and the 200 business leaders who endorsed Kerry possess. People with such sums don't need to worry about how income or capital gains taxes affect their daily lives. Raise 'em, lower 'em, who cares? They're still going to be disgustingly rich. And so they are free to devote their attention—and resources—to other areas: the environment, education, foreign policy, the Supreme Court, social issues, stem-cell research, the war on drugs, whatever. And it seems that for many of the truly wealthy, focusing on those other issues leads them to favor Kerry over Bush.

Now, the Prince survey is unscientific and small. And depending on where you live, the magic number that signifies true financial freedom varies enormously. On $500,000 a year a person could live like a king in Topeka, Kan., and barely scrape by on the Upper East Side of Manhattan.

But the general thrust of the argument rings true. The specter of plutocrats spending millions of their own hard-earned dollars to elect somebody who wants to raise their taxes is mystifying to the materialists at the Wall Street Journal editorial page and the Club for Growth, who think that man is a purely economic being who lives and dies by marginal tax rates alone. But to many people who have made f***-you money, taxes are a byproduct of wealth, not an obstacle to its creation. It's hard to find anybody who has made $1 billion, or $100 million, or even $50 million complaining about high marginal tax rates. Of all the luxuries massive wealth affords, one of the nicest is not having to worry about tax policy.

Daniel Gross (www.danielgross.net) writes Slate's "Moneybox" column. You can e-mail him at moneybox@slate.com.

Article URL: http://slate.msn.com/id/2108136/

reeds · 10-13-2004, 12:07 AM

"Russ Prince explained the difference by noting that, absurd as it may sound, those with a net worth of merely seven figures don't feel financially secure. "The people with less than $10 million are still very focused on their personal financial situation in the short term," he told the Wall Street Journal, where the results were first published"

That paragraph in a nutshell explains my thoughts...but I take it to an even more exagerated extreme. When I use the term "rich"- I am using it very loosely..I am referring to people making over 200k a year..YES, I know I know, many of them are not even considered "rich", but they are the ones who LOVE BUSH to death..The money hungry, climbling the corporate ladder, my house is bigger than your house type of person I am referring to...are all of them "rich"? Probably not..some may live paycheck to paycheck for all I know..but, they are the ones who luv Bush..that is also why I agree with the paragraph I copied above..the "filthy rich" dont really care if their taxes are going to be 1 million for next year or 1.3 million..that is a different type of rich..the rich that dont need to count their bankroll.. Many many in this country are millionaires, but that isnt saying as much as it use to..I work in the banking industry- I see and speak with millionaires daily..and the ones between 1-10 million net worth- LUV BUSH TO DEATH..... or republicans in general for that matter....

mavsman55 · 10-13-2004, 07:04 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by: reeds
"Russ Prince explained the difference by noting that, absurd as it may sound, those with a net worth of merely seven figures don't feel financially secure. "The people with less than $10 million are still very focused on their personal financial situation in the short term," he told the Wall Street Journal, where the results were first published"

That paragraph in a nutshell explains my thoughts...but I take it to an even more exagerated extreme. When I use the term "rich"- I am using it very loosely..I am referring to people making over 200k a year..YES, I know I know, many of them are not even considered "rich", but they are the ones who LOVE BUSH to death..The money hungry, climbling the corporate ladder, my house is bigger than your house type of person I am referring to...are all of them "rich"? Probably not..some may live paycheck to paycheck for all I know..but, they are the ones who luv Bush..that is also why I agree with the paragraph I copied above..the "filthy rich" dont really care if their taxes are going to be 1 million for next year or 1.3 million..that is a different type of rich..the rich that dont need to count their bankroll.. Many many in this country are millionaires, but that isnt saying as much as it use to..I work in the banking industry- I see and speak with millionaires daily..and the ones between 1-10 million net worth- LUV BUSH TO DEATH..... or republicans in general for that matter....

First of all, what's wrong with Republicans loving Bush to death? I mean, he is our candidate and all...

This entire post is filled with you trying to prove that all people worth over 200K/year love Bush. This is not a fact. This is a stupid assumption, and nothing more. About every single musician out there is anti-Bush, and we all know how rich they are. I know more "rich" democrats than republicans. If anything reeds, it would be the other way around. Frankly, money doesn't have as much to do with it as you think.

But I'm not going to stoop to your level and make an assumption about how an entire group of people think.

reeds · 10-13-2004, 09:44 AM

"First of all, what's wrong with Republicans loving Bush to death? I mean, he is our candidate and all...

This entire post is filled with you trying to prove that all people worth over 200K/year love Bush. This is not a fact. This is a stupid assumption, and nothing more. About every single musician out there is anti-Bush, and we all know how rich they are. I know more "rich" democrats than republicans. If anything reeds, it would be the other way around. Frankly, money doesn't have as much to do with it as you think.

But I'm not going to stoop to your level and make an assumption about how an entire group of people think. "

"stupid assumption"??? You made the assumption- not me.. I never said ALL people making over 200k love Bush..please find where I said ALL??? MOST I know do, of course not all..there still are smart ones out there that value a strong country over a strong check book- those will still vote Kerry before Bush