How do Democrats do amongst those making over $400,000?

[mileslunn]

Biden has repeatedly promised he will not raise a cent in taxes on those making less than 400K, but has made clear he wants to raise taxes on those making over that.  It seems looking at zip codes with lots of people making over that, Democrats still do fairly well despite fact they would raise taxes on them while GOP would maintain or cut their taxes.  At same time too small a group to know for sure so wondering if GOP does better here or do people in this group not mind paying more taxes in exchange for other benefits they see from Democrats or price to keep Trump and GOP out of office?

[TML]

I think it depends on where these people stand on social issues - there is a substantial share of affluent people who are socially liberal, mainly because large corporations understand the need to appeal to a wide range of demographic groups (not just straight white men), and Democrats do pretty well among this group. Among those who are socially conservative, that's an entirely different story. For example, in Kings Point, NY (an affluent community close to where I live), even though over half of the adult population has higher education, most of this area's residents are Catholic or Orthodox Jewish, both of which are socially conservative, so this community is a Republican stronghold. On the other hand, East Hampton, NY (another affluent community in the metro NY area) is relatively secular and also has a majority college-educated population, so this community is a Democratic stronghold.

[Skill and Chance]

This seems like it would be really hard to gauge.  There just aren't that many people (do you mean households?) who make that much money anywhere.  While they are geographically concentrated to some degree in places like NYC, Silicon Valley, and some Mountain West resort counties that are quite left wing, people this wealthy in red states are likely near unanimous R and could cancel it out.  Also, in a relative sense, someone making $400K in NYC or Silicon Valley still has normal people problems and can probably relate more to Dem policies on housing, childcare, etc.  A household in the South making $400K can practically buy a new piece of real estate every year if they want to and can afford to either outsource all of their housework or have their spouse stay home without breaking a sweat.

[Tekken_Guy]

If you mean rich people in Manhattan or Silicon Valley, they overwhelmingly vote D.

If you mean rich people in the Park Cities or the Memorial Villages, then they overwhelmingly vote R.

[Tintrlvr]

I think the perception (speaking as someone in this group and with a substantial portion of my social circle also within this group - but caveated that outside of professional connections it's mostly gay men and mostly in Manhattan/Brooklyn so definitely not universally representative) is that Biden's stance is more that he doesn't want to promise he won't raise taxes on anyone with incomes in this range, not that he will certainly raise the taxes of everyone in that range. In particular, depending on what and how taxes are changed, it's possible or even likely that some people in the $400,000+ range would still see their taxes go down, and probably we are still more likely to be in the group that sees taxes go down than others (as a still relatively young, high-income but not yet extremely asset-rich group). But also it's a group that mostly wouldn't mind slightly higher taxes as long as the taxes seem to be being put to good use.

I know some Republicans in that range, too, mainly through work (though most people I work with are also Democrats), and they are the sort of who would be upset by taxes increases under Biden, although some of them won't vote for Trump regardless.

[ProgressiveModerate]

I think the perception (speaking as someone in this group and with a substantial portion of my social circle also within this group - but caveated that outside of professional connections it's mostly gay men and mostly in Manhattan/Brooklyn so definitely not universally representative) is that Biden's stance is more that he doesn't want to promise he won't raise taxes on anyone with incomes in this range, not that he will certainly raise the taxes of everyone in that range. In particular, depending on what and how taxes are changed, it's possible or even likely that some people in the $400,000+ range would still see their taxes go down, and probably we are still more likely to be in the group that sees taxes go down than others (as a still relatively young, high-income but not yet extremely asset-rich group). But also it's a group that mostly wouldn't mind slightly higher taxes as long as the taxes seem to be being put to good use.

I know some Republicans in that range, too, mainly through work (though most people I work with are also Democrats), and they are the sort of who would be upset by taxes increases under Biden, although some of them won't vote for Trump regardless.

Fun sidenote; pretty sure multiple studies have shown gay men couples on average earn more than their straight peers and are disproportionately likely to be wealthy - really interesting consider the group has only recently gained widespread social acceptance.

When it comes to wealth an ideology, it seems like the two extremes are more likely to be conservative than the group as a whole; those who did nothing and came from generational wealth and those who truly had the first gen immigrant came from nothing hustler kind of story, whereas those who got to 400k/year being raised middle class, excelling academically and having a very successful career tend to be more D-leaning.

I think people underestimate how "normal" people making 400k/year + generally are. For the most part, these aren't people living in ostentatious Beverly hill mansions with Bugattis just partying all the time; they're educated proffessionals who are often quite busy and live comfortably but not over the top.

[Del Tachi]

Obama's cutoff was 250k

[It’s so Joever]

Obama's cutoff was 250k

Okay?

[Young Conservative]

Honestly, I'd guess it's 50/50. People stop having economic incentives at a certain point and start philosophizing.

[LostFellow]

If you mean rich people in Manhattan or Silicon Valley, they overwhelmingly vote D.

If you mean rich people in the Park Cities or the Memorial Villages, then they overwhelmingly vote R.

I think this dichotomy leaves out the large portion of "suburbanites of high COL deep blue cities" who tend to be older and probably compromise the most significant portion of 400k+ earners, given correlations of age and income.

The VPs, directors, and other senior management at big law, Wall Street, big tech, insurance firms, etc. are probably tilt or lean D as a whole (solid D for tech), but most of them live in the suburbs of these high COL blue cities (Westchester, Morris, etc.). And of these non city-dwellers, their politics is definitely very mixed and more R-friendly (in the anti-Trump style). We have our resident representative Jaichind here on the forum who is much more radical in some weird libertarian ways, but my point being the vast majority of highest income (400k+) earners at NYC firms are not 30-something DINK progressive Manhattanites.

[Indy Texas]

Over $400K on a W-2? Democratic.

Over $400K in capital gains/dividends/business income? Republican.

[Tintrlvr]

If you mean rich people in Manhattan or Silicon Valley, they overwhelmingly vote D.

If you mean rich people in the Park Cities or the Memorial Villages, then they overwhelmingly vote R.

I think this dichotomy leaves out the large portion of "suburbanites of high COL deep blue cities" who tend to be older and probably compromise the most significant portion of 400k+ earners, given correlations of age and income.

The VPs, directors, and other senior management at big law, Wall Street, big tech, insurance firms, etc. are probably tilt or lean D as a whole (solid D for tech), but most of them live in the suburbs of these high COL blue cities (Westchester, Morris, etc.). And of these non city-dwellers, their politics is definitely very mixed and more R-friendly (in the anti-Trump style). We have our resident representative Jaichind here on the forum who is much more radical in some weird libertarian ways, but my point being the vast majority of highest income (400k+) earners at NYC firms are not 30-something DINK progressive Manhattanites.

If you're setting the threshold at $400k, you're definitely capturing a lot more 30-somethings than you might expect, and even some 20-somethings. At a big law firm, for example, there are probably as many or more associates making >$400k than partners (the partners of course make a lot more money total). Even more so if you are talking households.

See, e.g.: https://www.biglawinvestor.com/biglaw-salary-scale/

The same will be true in finance and tech.

Also, a larger portion of very high income professional workers live in urban cores (specifically the NYC urban core) than you might expect. A majority of partners at my big law firm live in Manhattan (Westchester is the second-highest, but it's about 55% Manhattan, 30% Westchester, 15% other), and I think we're fairly typical. Associates will obviously be even more urban.

[NorCalifornio]

If you mean rich people in Manhattan or Silicon Valley, they overwhelmingly vote D.

If you mean rich people in the Park Cities or the Memorial Villages, then they overwhelmingly vote R.

I think this dichotomy leaves out the large portion of "suburbanites of high COL deep blue cities" who tend to be older and probably compromise the most significant portion of 400k+ earners, given correlations of age and income.

The VPs, directors, and other senior management at big law, Wall Street, big tech, insurance firms, etc. are probably tilt or lean D as a whole (solid D for tech), but most of them live in the suburbs of these high COL blue cities (Westchester, Morris, etc.). And of these non city-dwellers, their politics is definitely very mixed and more R-friendly (in the anti-Trump style). We have our resident representative Jaichind here on the forum who is much more radical in some weird libertarian ways, but my point being the vast majority of highest income (400k+) earners at NYC firms are not 30-something DINK progressive Manhattanites.

If you're setting the threshold at $400k, you're definitely capturing a lot more 30-somethings than you might expect, and even some 20-somethings. At a big law firm, for example, there are probably as many or more associates making >$400k than partners (the partners of course make a lot more money total). Even more so if you are talking households.

See, e.g.: https://www.biglawinvestor.com/biglaw-salary-scale/

The same will be true in finance and tech.

Also, a larger portion of very high income professional workers live in urban cores (specifically the NYC urban core) than you might expect. A majority of partners at my big law firm live in Manhattan (Westchester is the second-highest, but it's about 55% Manhattan, 30% Westchester, 15% other), and I think we're fairly typical. Associates will obviously be even more urban.

I think this is an area where NYC is the exception to the rule. In most cities, you may have some rich people in the middle of the city, but most are going to be in the suburbs. I suspect that the degree to which this is true correlates with how "average" and unprestigious a city is, but most Americans aren't living in particularly glamorous cities.

[Skill and Chance]

If you mean rich people in Manhattan or Silicon Valley, they overwhelmingly vote D.

If you mean rich people in the Park Cities or the Memorial Villages, then they overwhelmingly vote R.

I think this dichotomy leaves out the large portion of "suburbanites of high COL deep blue cities" who tend to be older and probably compromise the most significant portion of 400k+ earners, given correlations of age and income.

The VPs, directors, and other senior management at big law, Wall Street, big tech, insurance firms, etc. are probably tilt or lean D as a whole (solid D for tech), but most of them live in the suburbs of these high COL blue cities (Westchester, Morris, etc.). And of these non city-dwellers, their politics is definitely very mixed and more R-friendly (in the anti-Trump style). We have our resident representative Jaichind here on the forum who is much more radical in some weird libertarian ways, but my point being the vast majority of highest income (400k+) earners at NYC firms are not 30-something DINK progressive Manhattanites.

If you're setting the threshold at $400k, you're definitely capturing a lot more 30-somethings than you might expect, and even some 20-somethings. At a big law firm, for example, there are probably as many or more associates making >$400k than partners (the partners of course make a lot more money total). Even more so if you are talking households.

See, e.g.: https://www.biglawinvestor.com/biglaw-salary-scale/

The same will be true in finance and tech.

Also, a larger portion of very high income professional workers live in urban cores (specifically the NYC urban core) than you might expect. A majority of partners at my big law firm live in Manhattan (Westchester is the second-highest, but it's about 55% Manhattan, 30% Westchester, 15% other), and I think we're fairly typical. Associates will obviously be even more urban.

I think this is an area where NYC is the exception to the rule. In most cities, you may have some rich people in the middle of the city, but most are going to be in the suburbs. I suspect that the degree to which this is true correlates with how "average" and unprestigious a city is, but most Americans aren't living in particularly glamorous cities.

Yes, this only really applies in the NE.  Elsewhere, $400K+ households can get a borderline mansion with a 1/2 hour commute into town and generally do.

Also I would suggest the proper comparison given cost of living would be to compare people making $400K in small cities to people making $800K in average large cities to people making like $1.2M in NYC/SF/Boston.  I would guess all are Lean R.  Or to compare people making $400K in NYC/SF/Boston to people making $200K in average large cities to people making $135K in small cities.  I would imagine all are Lean D except maybe the last group.

[NorCalifornio]

If you mean rich people in Manhattan or Silicon Valley, they overwhelmingly vote D.

If you mean rich people in the Park Cities or the Memorial Villages, then they overwhelmingly vote R.

I think this dichotomy leaves out the large portion of "suburbanites of high COL deep blue cities" who tend to be older and probably compromise the most significant portion of 400k+ earners, given correlations of age and income.

The VPs, directors, and other senior management at big law, Wall Street, big tech, insurance firms, etc. are probably tilt or lean D as a whole (solid D for tech), but most of them live in the suburbs of these high COL blue cities (Westchester, Morris, etc.). And of these non city-dwellers, their politics is definitely very mixed and more R-friendly (in the anti-Trump style). We have our resident representative Jaichind here on the forum who is much more radical in some weird libertarian ways, but my point being the vast majority of highest income (400k+) earners at NYC firms are not 30-something DINK progressive Manhattanites.

If you're setting the threshold at $400k, you're definitely capturing a lot more 30-somethings than you might expect, and even some 20-somethings. At a big law firm, for example, there are probably as many or more associates making >$400k than partners (the partners of course make a lot more money total). Even more so if you are talking households.

See, e.g.: https://www.biglawinvestor.com/biglaw-salary-scale/

The same will be true in finance and tech.

Also, a larger portion of very high income professional workers live in urban cores (specifically the NYC urban core) than you might expect. A majority of partners at my big law firm live in Manhattan (Westchester is the second-highest, but it's about 55% Manhattan, 30% Westchester, 15% other), and I think we're fairly typical. Associates will obviously be even more urban.

I think this is an area where NYC is the exception to the rule. In most cities, you may have some rich people in the middle of the city, but most are going to be in the suburbs. I suspect that the degree to which this is true correlates with how "average" and unprestigious a city is, but most Americans aren't living in particularly glamorous cities.

Yes, this only really applies in the NE.  Elsewhere, $400K+ households can get a borderline mansion with a 1/2 hour commute into town and generally do.

Also I would suggest the proper comparison given cost of living would be to compare people making $400K in small cities to people making $800K in average large cities to people making like $1.2M in NYC/SF/Boston.  I would guess all are Lean R.  Or to compare people making $400K in NYC/SF/Boston to people making $200K in average large cities to people making $135K in small cities.  I would imagine all are Lean D except maybe the last group.

To some extent it also applies to the Bay Area, but yeah, otherwise it's very much an Acela Corridor phenomenon.

As for the cost of living thing, I think sometimes people overdo it when adjusting for COL. I'm well aware that some places are much more expensive than others, but $400k a year is still quadruple the median household income in Manhattan.

[Tintrlvr]

If you mean rich people in Manhattan or Silicon Valley, they overwhelmingly vote D.

If you mean rich people in the Park Cities or the Memorial Villages, then they overwhelmingly vote R.

I think this dichotomy leaves out the large portion of "suburbanites of high COL deep blue cities" who tend to be older and probably compromise the most significant portion of 400k+ earners, given correlations of age and income.

The VPs, directors, and other senior management at big law, Wall Street, big tech, insurance firms, etc. are probably tilt or lean D as a whole (solid D for tech), but most of them live in the suburbs of these high COL blue cities (Westchester, Morris, etc.). And of these non city-dwellers, their politics is definitely very mixed and more R-friendly (in the anti-Trump style). We have our resident representative Jaichind here on the forum who is much more radical in some weird libertarian ways, but my point being the vast majority of highest income (400k+) earners at NYC firms are not 30-something DINK progressive Manhattanites.

If you're setting the threshold at $400k, you're definitely capturing a lot more 30-somethings than you might expect, and even some 20-somethings. At a big law firm, for example, there are probably as many or more associates making >$400k than partners (the partners of course make a lot more money total). Even more so if you are talking households.

See, e.g.: https://www.biglawinvestor.com/biglaw-salary-scale/

The same will be true in finance and tech.

Also, a larger portion of very high income professional workers live in urban cores (specifically the NYC urban core) than you might expect. A majority of partners at my big law firm live in Manhattan (Westchester is the second-highest, but it's about 55% Manhattan, 30% Westchester, 15% other), and I think we're fairly typical. Associates will obviously be even more urban.

I think this is an area where NYC is the exception to the rule. In most cities, you may have some rich people in the middle of the city, but most are going to be in the suburbs. I suspect that the degree to which this is true correlates with how "average" and unprestigious a city is, but most Americans aren't living in particularly glamorous cities.

I don’t disagree, but there are way fewer $400k+ earners as a percentage of the population living in “unprestigious” metros. Yes everyone making $400k+ in the Detroit metro lives in the suburbs, but that’s maybe 0.2% of the Detroit metro population vs. 2% of the NYC metro pop (making up numbers but you get the idea). In every metro where $400k+ earners are overrepresented as a portion of the population (NYC, Boston, SF, Seattle, Chicago, DC, LA, Miami, etc.), they will also be disproportionately more likely to live in the urban core.

Someone else commented that maybe 400k in the NYC metro and 400k in the Detroit metro isn’t an apples-to-apples comparison, but the whole premise is “people with incomes in a range where Biden doesn’t promise not to raise their taxes,” which is the same threshold everywhere.

[NorCalifornio]

If you mean rich people in Manhattan or Silicon Valley, they overwhelmingly vote D.

If you mean rich people in the Park Cities or the Memorial Villages, then they overwhelmingly vote R.

I think this dichotomy leaves out the large portion of "suburbanites of high COL deep blue cities" who tend to be older and probably compromise the most significant portion of 400k+ earners, given correlations of age and income.

The VPs, directors, and other senior management at big law, Wall Street, big tech, insurance firms, etc. are probably tilt or lean D as a whole (solid D for tech), but most of them live in the suburbs of these high COL blue cities (Westchester, Morris, etc.). And of these non city-dwellers, their politics is definitely very mixed and more R-friendly (in the anti-Trump style). We have our resident representative Jaichind here on the forum who is much more radical in some weird libertarian ways, but my point being the vast majority of highest income (400k+) earners at NYC firms are not 30-something DINK progressive Manhattanites.

If you're setting the threshold at $400k, you're definitely capturing a lot more 30-somethings than you might expect, and even some 20-somethings. At a big law firm, for example, there are probably as many or more associates making >$400k than partners (the partners of course make a lot more money total). Even more so if you are talking households.

See, e.g.: https://www.biglawinvestor.com/biglaw-salary-scale/

The same will be true in finance and tech.

Also, a larger portion of very high income professional workers live in urban cores (specifically the NYC urban core) than you might expect. A majority of partners at my big law firm live in Manhattan (Westchester is the second-highest, but it's about 55% Manhattan, 30% Westchester, 15% other), and I think we're fairly typical. Associates will obviously be even more urban.

I think this is an area where NYC is the exception to the rule. In most cities, you may have some rich people in the middle of the city, but most are going to be in the suburbs. I suspect that the degree to which this is true correlates with how "average" and unprestigious a city is, but most Americans aren't living in particularly glamorous cities.

I don’t disagree, but there are way fewer $400k+ earners as a percentage of the population living in “unprestigious” metros. Yes everyone making $400k+ in the Detroit metro lives in the suburbs, but that’s maybe 0.2% of the Detroit metro population vs. 2% of the NYC metro pop (making up numbers but you get the idea). In every metro where $400k+ earners are overrepresented as a portion of the population (NYC, Boston, SF, Seattle, Chicago, DC, LA, Miami, etc.), they will also be disproportionately more likely to live in the urban core.

LA and Chicago are very much not like NYC/SF/DC in this regard. Not quite like Detroit either, but the difference between the income levels in urban LA and San Francisco is quite stark.

[SevenEleven]

Fun sidenote; pretty sure multiple studies have shown gay men couples on average earn more than their straight peers and are disproportionately likely to be wealthy - really interesting consider the group has only recently gained widespread social acceptance.

I'd be more interested in a study comparing DINK households along these lines.

[Skill and Chance]

Fun sidenote; pretty sure multiple studies have shown gay men couples on average earn more than their straight peers and are disproportionately likely to be wealthy - really interesting consider the group has only recently gained widespread social acceptance.

I'd be more interested in a study comparing DINK households along these lines.

Yeah, this isn't surprising.  Until like the day before yesterday, they were legally prohibited from raising kids (if out of the closet), and raising kids is just about the most expensive thing you can do.

[Tintrlvr]

If you mean rich people in Manhattan or Silicon Valley, they overwhelmingly vote D.

If you mean rich people in the Park Cities or the Memorial Villages, then they overwhelmingly vote R.

I think this dichotomy leaves out the large portion of "suburbanites of high COL deep blue cities" who tend to be older and probably compromise the most significant portion of 400k+ earners, given correlations of age and income.

The VPs, directors, and other senior management at big law, Wall Street, big tech, insurance firms, etc. are probably tilt or lean D as a whole (solid D for tech), but most of them live in the suburbs of these high COL blue cities (Westchester, Morris, etc.). And of these non city-dwellers, their politics is definitely very mixed and more R-friendly (in the anti-Trump style). We have our resident representative Jaichind here on the forum who is much more radical in some weird libertarian ways, but my point being the vast majority of highest income (400k+) earners at NYC firms are not 30-something DINK progressive Manhattanites.

If you're setting the threshold at $400k, you're definitely capturing a lot more 30-somethings than you might expect, and even some 20-somethings. At a big law firm, for example, there are probably as many or more associates making >$400k than partners (the partners of course make a lot more money total). Even more so if you are talking households.

See, e.g.: https://www.biglawinvestor.com/biglaw-salary-scale/

The same will be true in finance and tech.

Also, a larger portion of very high income professional workers live in urban cores (specifically the NYC urban core) than you might expect. A majority of partners at my big law firm live in Manhattan (Westchester is the second-highest, but it's about 55% Manhattan, 30% Westchester, 15% other), and I think we're fairly typical. Associates will obviously be even more urban.

I think this is an area where NYC is the exception to the rule. In most cities, you may have some rich people in the middle of the city, but most are going to be in the suburbs. I suspect that the degree to which this is true correlates with how "average" and unprestigious a city is, but most Americans aren't living in particularly glamorous cities.

I don’t disagree, but there are way fewer $400k+ earners as a percentage of the population living in “unprestigious” metros. Yes everyone making $400k+ in the Detroit metro lives in the suburbs, but that’s maybe 0.2% of the Detroit metro population vs. 2% of the NYC metro pop (making up numbers but you get the idea). In every metro where $400k+ earners are overrepresented as a portion of the population (NYC, Boston, SF, Seattle, Chicago, DC, LA, Miami, etc.), they will also be disproportionately more likely to live in the urban core.

LA and Chicago are very much not like NYC/SF/DC in this regard. Not quite like Detroit either, but the difference between the income levels in urban LA and San Francisco is quite stark.

I suppose what “urban core” means can vary, but the biggest concentration of wealth in Chicagoland is very obviously the North Side, and in LA the Hollywood Hills out to Beverly Hills, both very close to the city center relative to the size of the metro overall and (mostly, for LA) within city lines.

[Del Tachi]

Obama's cutoff was 250k

Okay?

It's just interesting that the Democrats' cut-off for what makes somebody rich enough to pay more taxes went from $250k to $400k in the past 10 years.  It couldn't be because high-earning professionals are now mostly a Democratic constituency, could it?

[OSR stands with Israel]

Obama's cutoff was 250k

Okay?

It's just interesting that the Democrats' cut-off for what makes somebody rich enough to pay more taxes went from $250k to $400k in the past 10 years.  It couldn't be because high-earning professionals are now mostly a Democratic constituency, could it?

I mean 250k in 2012 is worth around 338k today and housing wasn’t anywhere near as expensive in those days

[Skill and Chance]

Obama's cutoff was 250k

Okay?

It's just interesting that the Democrats' cut-off for what makes somebody rich enough to pay more taxes went from $250k to $400k in the past 10 years.  It couldn't be because high-earning professionals are now mostly a Democratic constituency, could it?

I mean 250k in 2012 is worth around 338k today and housing wasn’t anywhere near as expensive in those days

Yes, it's basically a fit after inflation adjusting.  In terms of housing prices, $400K today is probably worth less than $250K in 2012 LOL.

[Del Tachi]

Obama's cutoff was 250k

Okay?

It's just interesting that the Democrats' cut-off for what makes somebody rich enough to pay more taxes went from $250k to $400k in the past 10 years.  It couldn't be because high-earning professionals are now mostly a Democratic constituency, could it?

I mean 250k in 2012 is worth around 338k today and housing wasn’t anywhere near as expensive in those days

A family making $250k/yr is in the 92nd percentile of households in the U.S.  If you can't afford a mortgage on that salary, it's not housing prices that are your problem. 

[Gass3268]

Probably largely depends on their education and age.