I would like to hear from rich liberals and poor conservatives why their political orientation is as such. Rich is defined as having a gross household income of over $250,001 or more.
Shoot, I forgot to add a poll. Moderators please delete this and let me start a new one.
Neither
I would like to hear from rich liberals and poor conservatives why their political orientation is as such. Rich is defined as having a gross household income of over $250,001 or more.
I’ve been a “rich liberal” by that definition some years, and not others. Why? Because I’m often “rich” by your provided definition, and I’m liberal.
The reasons why I’m liberal aren’t really affected by my income. I’m in favor of social and civil rights for everybody, the curtailing of religion in government and the curtailing of government interfering the in the religion of individuals, free speech, all that stuff.
I believe that “Big Government” is too often conflated with “Wasteful Government.” I want my government big: it’s the only organization of the scope necessary to provide health care to an entire country, provide services like schools, police, fire, infrastructure, etc. that have no “free market” way to fund themselves, and when unemployment is high, it can be the employer of last resort to do all those things.
I believe that the reason more people aren’t “successful” isn’t because of widespread laziness (and definitely don’t believe that “laziness” is caused by skin color or what papers you posses), but because there are so many obstacles that can completely devastate a poor person trying to rise, but are almost unnoticeable to rich folks–to the point where “we” forget these obstacles exist. The purpose of government should be–before anything else–to provide sufficient nets to allow anyone facing such obstacles to overcome them and return to productiveness. And frankly, I don’t care if that means a small percentage can live in borderline poverty without working. Why should I? They don’t add up to enough to matter.
Furthermore, I understand that these things take money, and that in the United States, that means that the wealthy (including me, if I’m “rich”) and corporations are going to have to be the ones to pay a high percentage of the costs. I’m really OK with that – too. The sorts of tax increases we’re talking about aren’t going to change the lifestyles of the ones we’re “taking” it from, but they’ll make a huge difference to the country.
I disagree with many liberals (and conservatives, for that matter) on a few things: I see unions as a necessary evil rather than a relatively universal force for good; I think the US should join the rest of the world and completely eliminate the tax on money earned outside the US (both for citizens and corporations. I want Apple’s money, for example, back in the US and being spent a LOT more than I want to double-or-triple-tax them on it.) I frankly don’t consider an American’s right to a job to be greater than that of someone in another country, and that we need to put a lot more effort into being citizens of the world than encouraging us-or-them policies.
I propose that policy should be set based on facts and evidence rather than religion, opinion, and discredited economic voodoo.
Little or none of this is based on my income level, though.
I used to be a poor conservative, but as I’ve progressed in my career, I can probably claim rich, and as the right has shifted further to the right, I’ve can probably claim liberal now.
So how are you defining ‘poor’? Under $250k/year? Isn’t that, like, most people? I mean, I make less than half that and feel like I’m doing pretty well. Especially in this part of the country.
I’m more of an upper middle class liberal. I pay my fair share of taxes. I could afford to pay more. I would like to see people that earn more than me pay even more as well. I would like to see the extra revenue go to help people that weren’t given the same opportunities that I was given to get to where I am. As an older white male, I know full well and good that I got an unfair head start in this country. I would like to see playing field leveled.
I assume from the question the OP is wondering about fiscal/tax policies. I’m not sure being rich matters much regarding my liberal views on civil rights, abortion, or the death penalty.
Anyway, I guess I’m rich (I pay more than $250,000 per year in taxes). I would favor 50 or 60% marginal tax rates, but I have no complaints about current rates or even a little higher. Perhaps I’m just a patriot. The “liberal” approach seems to work better for the economy and better protects those in need. I think the government should have enough revenue to do what it needs to do. I’m sure you could cut 20% from defense spending, but some would think that makes America less “great.”
I totally agree with you. Also, it’s refreshing to hear for once someone make the argument for big government. I’ve always been a fan of big government, but almost everyone seems to be an advocate of small government and that’s what’s being argued for most of the time I’ve noticed.
Poor conservatives make just less than $250k per year? That may entice a lot of people to switch philosophies.
Duplicate threads merged.
You mean you have more than $250,000 in taxable income, right? Because if not, I can reduce your tax burden considerably if you donate to the Church of RNATB Needs a Kitchen Remodel. 
$250,000.00 and under is what the Obama and Clinton campaigns described as “middle class.” But anything over $206,000.00 puts your household in the top 5% income-wise, so it’s not a very useful descriptor.
You’ll have to stand in line. My wife wants a kitchen remodel too.
I’ll do things she won’t. Though mostly it will be watching Formula 1 and giving you advice about work-related injuries. 
According to the OP’s standard, 96% of the people in the United States are poor. Maybe this explains his previously stated belief that the United States is a third world country.
To be more objective you should set the bar at around $55,000 a year. That way half of Americans are “rich” and half are “poor”.
If you’re paying the maximum tax rate, then your annual income is a little over $631,000.
The reason I set the bar at $250,000 is because fiscally liberal policies that advocate for increasing taxes usually aren’t applicable to households making less than that.
The definitions of “rich” and “poor” that I’m using in this context are different.
My income is well under $250K - not even half that - and in American terms you’d class me as a Liberal. I’ve experienced first-hand the need for a social safety net.
I voted rich (just barely) liberal. First, I’m using the USA standard of Democratic = liberal and Republican = conservative. I see the Republicans being wrong on most issues. Climate change is a big one, with the Republican position now seemingly that global warming isn’t even occurring getting more ridiculous than the previous position that maybe it is occurring but not due to human behavior. Civil rights is another. The conservative side (in the past this was the Democrats, but now it’s the Republicans) has always been the side against giving minorities equal rights. With regards to big government, I think Republicans are also only against it when they aren’t in charge. Take the issue of transgender rights. Conservatives complain about Obama forcing schools to allow transgender students to use the bathroom of there choice, saying this should be a local issue. Yet when the city of Charlotte passes such a law, it’s all fine and dandy when the state of North Carolina tells them they can’t. If Obama or Clinton is the president they’re all in favor of small government, but if it’s Bush or Trump, it’s all aboard let’s force the whole country to follow our conservative values.
I’ll also add that I agree with other posters that under 250K is hardly poor.