Many have wondered why poor and middle-class American's are so reluctant to tax the rich, or favor more progressive tax policies, that raise taxes on the rich. Some speculate that the poor believe that one day they may be rich. However, recent studies dispute this and suggest two alternvative theories.
One is last place aversion, where people near the bottom of the socio-economic ladder do not want those below them to pass them over. A second theory, is that "countries that are more ethnically or racially homogeneous are more comfortable with the state seeking to mitigate inequality by transferring some resources from richer to poorer people through the fiscal system." While diverse societies do not seem to favor wealth re-distribution as much.
An article in the Economists called Don’t look down: The poor like taxing the rich less than you would think reports on these theories.
America is far less inclined than many of its rich-world peers to use taxation and redistribution to reduce inequality. The OECD, a think-tank, reckons that taxation eats up a little less than 30% of the average American’s total compensation, compared with nearly 50% in Germany and France. America’s top federal income-tax rate of 35% is lower than in many other advanced economies (although most Americans also pay state taxes). Britain’s top tax rate is 50%. Swedes and Danes acquiesce to tax rates that would outrage many Americans: Sweden’s top rate is 57% and Denmark’s is 55%. Unsurprisingly, the American state is also less generous to the poor. Unemployment benefits in the United States replace a smaller share of income, and run out more quickly, than in most European countries.
Social cohesion also plays a role.
This may explain why Swedes complain less about high taxes than the inhabitants of a country of immigrants such as America. But it also suggests that even societies with a tradition of high taxes (such as those in Scandinavia) might find that their citizens would become less willing to finance generous welfare programmes were immigrants to make up a greater share of their populations. ... In general (though not always), those who identify with a group that benefits from redistribution seem to want more of it.
Economists have usually explained poor people’s counter-intuitive disdain for something that might make them better off by invoking income mobility. ... Instead of opposing redistribution because people expect to make it to the top of the economic ladder, the authors of the new paper argue that people don’t like to be at the bottom. One paradoxical consequence of this “last-place aversion” is that some poor people may be vociferously opposed to the kinds of policies that would actually raise their own income a bit but that might also push those who are poorer than them into comparable or higher positions. ...
This idea is backed up by survey data from America collected by Pew, a polling company: those who earned just a bit more than the minimum wage were the most resistant to increasing it.
Poverty may be miserable. But being able to feel a bit better-off than someone else makes it a bit more bearable.
Perhaps, this explains the general animus members of the TeaParty seem to have towards others, -- an "us against them" mentality.
Whereas, among Democrats we see more expressions of a "let's band together for our common good," mood.
Maybe this could explain why appeals to a "class struggle" theme do not play well, on the right, or in many working class areas, where we expect they should?
This thought provoking piece is worth a quick read.
Also, the sources look interesting as well.
Sources
" Group Loyalty and the taste for Redistribution", by Erzo F.P. Luttmer
Last Place Aversion: Evidence and Redistributive Implications", by Ilyana Kuziemko, Ryan Buell, Taly Reich and Michael I. Norton. NBER working paper 17234, July 2011
"Culture, Context and the Taste for Redistribution", by Erzo F.P. Luttmer and Monica Singhal. NBER working paper 14268, August 2008