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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.