Q&A: Why do poor Americans vote for Trump?

Hi there guys, I thought I'd revisit the American elections - there's a sense of 'where do I even begin' when I look at the current news from America, there's just so much to talk about. Hence I would just like to focus on one small issue for this post which I found interesting. I was having a conversation with my friend Jean (who for the record is British and not American) - so Jean asked me if the Republicans were so against socialism, then surely they would get the support of all the richest Americans who want to pay less taxes to subsidizes the poor, whilst the poor would be all for socialism because they would be the ones who stand to gain the most from this redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor? Not so, I had to point out to Jean - the poorest states in America tend to be the ones that are the most fervent Republic supporters whilst the richest states are mostly democrat. So before we go any further, let's look at some data: we shall look at the ten poorest states and the ten richest states in America and see how they voted in the 2020 elections in terms of their choice of president. The difference between the poorest and the richest is really stark, hence we're talking about a median household income of just $44,097 in West Virginia vs $85,203 in Washington D.C. - that's nearly double. 

The ten poorest states in America (starting with the poorest of them all) 

1. West Virginia (68.6% Trump) 
2. Mississippi (57.6% Trump) 
3. Arkansas (62.4% Trump)
4. New Mexico (54.3% Biden)
5. Louisiana (58.5% Trump)
6. Alabama (62.3% Trump)
7. Kentucky (62.1% Trump) 
8. Oklahoma (53.3% Trump) 
9. South Carolina (55.1% Trump)
10. Tennessee (60.7% Trump)

The ten richest states in America (starting with the richest of them all)

1. Washington D.C. (93% Biden) 
2. Maryland (65.7% Biden)
3. New Jersey (57.3% Biden) 
4. Hawaii (63.7% Biden)
5. Massachusetts (65.7% Biden) 
6. Connecticut (59.3% Biden) 
7. California (63.6% Biden) 
8. New Hampshire 52.9% Biden) 
9. Alaska (53.1% Trump) 
10. Washington (58.4% Biden)

9 out of 10 in each category voted the same way

In nine out of ten cases in both list, they all voted the same way and I can account for the anomalies in New Mexico and Alaska. Firstly, New Mexico may be poor but it is also very ethnically diverse, non-Hispanic white people account for just 28% of the population there so if you're white then you're in the minority there. This is a state that is mostly Hispanic (55.4%) along with a substantial native American (11.3%) population. Trump tends to be less popular with Hispanics and Native Americans compared to Biden and on top of that, New Mexico has been hit very hard by the Covid-19 pandemic, thus they have reason to blame Trump for the poor handling on the pandemic. Thus it isn't hard to see why New Mexico voted for Biden despite the fact that it is poor - it doesn't have that much in common with the other nine states on the list. If we look at the 11th poorest state in America on that list North Carolina - they voted for Trump as well (50.1%). As for Alaska, it is not as rich as one might think - wages in Alaska are high because prices are high in Alaska. If you walk into a supermarket in Alaska to buy fruit and vegetables, they are substantially higher than in a supermarket in California or Texas because hardly anything grows in the cold Alaskan climate, the food must be imported from far away, that raises the cost of food; the same thing applies to all other non-food items in a supermarket. Furthermore Alaska is extremely cold for most of the year that means you'll spend a lot on your heating bills than someone in Arizona. That means that even if your average teacher in Anchorage earns more than your teacher in Miami, teachers in Anchorage have to spend much more on groceries and heating thus they are no better off despite earning more because of the cost of living in Alaska. Therefore wages have to be substantially higher in Alaska to attract workers to even contemplate moving there to take up those jobs - if we look at the 11th richest state on the list Virginia, they voted for Biden (54.4%).

This pattern has left Jean rather confused.

When I shared those statistics with Jean, she was surprised - why wouldn't the poorer American states vote for a more socialist party that would deliver more left-wing programmes like Obamacare (aka the Affordable Health Care Act) which would greatly benefit the poorest in American society? Why are they instead voting for Trump who has tried everything he could to dismantle Obamacare? Likewise, what about the richest states in America - why would they vote for the Democrats who would probably increase the amount of taxes they pay in order to redistribute that wealth to help the poor? "It makes no sense at all, I am confused. It seems like the poorest states like Mississippi and West Virginia are turkeys voting for Christmas by voting for Trump. Why would they do that? Did they think a billionaire like Trump would actually have any empathy for the poor in a place like Alabama?" Okay challenge accepted Jean, this is not an easy question to answer but I shall try. Firstly, I did start off by trying to prove that there is a strong correlation between a state's wealth and their political identity - that's probably somewhat misleading to assume that way people vote is entirely or mostly determined by their wealth or poverty. Jean was working with the assumption that people would vote for that party that would increase their wealth by either a) reducing their taxes (in the case of the rich) or b) redistributing the wealth from the rich to the poor via taxation (in the case of the poor). There are in fact many factors that can determine the way one leans politically, be it towards the left or the right of the political spectrum and let's not forget about the large number (including myself) who believe in a centrist approach that would consist of a compromise between the left and the right - so we could find a workable compromise between both parties that will be acceptable to as many as possible. 

What's the best way to increase one's wealth? 

Before I even write this next part, I know my reader Sandra is going to jump in and disagree with me about this following point here. But let me start with why rich people are not that fussed about voting for the party that would tax them the least, they are focused on the other end of the equation. So for example, I am self-employed and work in sales - the amount I earn each month is determined mostly by how successful I am as a salesman and how much I reap in commissions. I'm in my mid-40s, I am a multi-millionaire with a sizable property portfolio and many would assume that I would vote for a right wing party that will enable me to pay less taxes, so I can keep more of my earnings, right? Not exactly - that actually misrepresents the situation. Rather than focus on how much taxes I have to pay, I focus on how much I can earn. Most of that doesn't depend on what the government is doing but it depends on my company giving me more good products to sell - if I have a product that's popular, then I have a much easier time making those salse and I can't knock up those invoices for each sale I make fast enough. I am a capitalist intent on getting richer but in order to increase my wealth, I am primarily focused on how I can earn more money by becoming even better that my job and make more sales, rather than trying to minimize my tax bill. I have this 'que sera sera' attitude when it comes to taxes - I know I can't dodge it, I know I have to pay it and when I get my tax bill, I just pay it knowing that I really don't have a say in the matter. It's not like I'm in a bazaar in Morocco haggling over the price of some souvenirs. When I submit my tax return online, the programme automatically tells me how much I have to pay and I just pay the tax bill, so it's that simple. 

The fine art of fiduciary

Most people never come across the word as they don't need fiduciary services. It is an area of tax planning which is often used by the rich to reduce their tax burden in the form of trustees, making themselves one-removed from the earnings so they are not personally liable for the taxes. So for example: I live in the UK and I am subjected to very high income taxes, I would not channel all my earnings through my personal income tax as I would be hit with a lot of taxes that way - so I can then set up an offshore company in a tax-free jurisdiction like the British Virgin Islands, so the offshore company in the BVI owns my business (even if I ultimately own that offshore company), it is that BVI company that earns the millions and enjoys the tax-free status in the BVI. The money is then stuck in a BVI bank account tax-free and if I wanted to bring that money into the UK, it would then be subjected to British taxes. But if I did spend the money elsewhere, say if I bought my sister an apartment in Singapore, then that money was spent in Singapore (not earned there) and thus would not be subject to Singapore income tax. So that money is effectively earned and spent without being subjected to any income tax because I have channeled it via the BVI rather than through my personal income tax and all this is of course 100% legal. It is a tax loophole and it is not tax evasion. But my point is simple: truly rich people don't wait for the government to lower their taxes, they just pick up the phone and speak to their fiduciary experts and tax planners to use these legal loopholes. So if a very left-wing government decides to increase the income tax for the rich, you're just going to see more rich people move their money offshore to legally evade these taxes - in short, the rich people will always be two steps ahead of the government because of these fiduciary experts. The poor however, simply don't have that luxury.

How do rich people react to poor people struggling with poverty? 

I have this memory from when I was in Morocco - many of the locals just assume that because I look East Asian, I can't understand them when they talk but I actually speak French fluently and understand basic Arabic, sometimes enough to follow a conversation reasonably well. So I was in a shop to buy some bottled water (as it is not safe to drink tap water in North Africa) when I witnessed this mother and her son talking. The boy wanted his mother to buy a cake and his mother told him that she didn't have enough money for it, if she bought the cake, then they wouldn't have enough money to buy the meat for dinner. The mother then said to her son, you have to choose: either you can have the cake or you can have meat for dinner, you can't have both - I don't have enough money. She had that look of frustration on her face and I took a look at the price of the cake that the boy wanted, it was about 12 dirhams (about £1, US$1.33 or S$1.80) - quite spontaneously, I felt rather sorry for that woman so I told the shopkeeper that I would buy the cake for them but the Moroccan woman simply refused to accept it. Perhaps it was a cultural thing for a Moroccan woman not to accept gifts from strange men she didn't know, perhaps she was embarrassed that I had understood the conversation she had with her son when she told him that she was broke. I can imagine my mother having that exactly conversation with me around the year 1982, that was why I offered to buy the cake for them because I could afford it. I reacted with compassion and kindness, I tried to help because I could - sure it would have made me £1 poorer but it would have brought me a lot of joy to be able to help them out and that joy would be worth more than £1. Rich people are not all selfish and evil when it comes to money, alright perhaps some rich people are, but many rich people are happy enough to share their wealth: be it by directly intervening like I did in that shop in Morocco, or indirectly through the tax system by paying their fair share. 

So given that rich people are not motivated by taxes, what guides their political beliefs then? 

Once we put aside the issue of taxation, that does open up the conversation to consider so many other factors that could be important to each voter. One of the benefits of being financially secure is no longer being able to worry about money - imagine if the Moroccan woman had the choice between two politicians, one of which may raise her taxes, which one do you think she is more likely to vote for if she is counting every dirham she has? Thus poor people have fewer choices in life because they are always limited by their budget but for rich people, we are free to do what we want without worrying about money. One of the organizations that I support financially (via direct debit) isn't a charity per se, but is an organization that promotes the use of the Welsh language and helps new learners embrace the language. As a proud Welsh speaker, I am willing to use my money to support a cause that means a lot to me personally. Am I going to personally see any benefit from this? No, I am not but that is part of the joy of being rich - to have the luxury to do something like that in much the same way I offered to buy that cake for that Moroccan mother and child. By the same token, if there was a political party that would promote and expand the use of the Welsh language in the UK, then I would support them, even if this wouldn't benefit me financially. I can imagine that some people may judge me and think that I should be contributing that money to a charity that is helping those who are most in need, living in dire conditions like the refugees fleeing a war stuck in a refugee camp but that's the luxury of being rich, I get to use my money to support any cause I like. So rich people have a much wider array of motivations and interests that guide their political beliefs, unlike those living in abject poverty, whose daily fight for survival and to put enough food on the table dominates their agenda. 

So what about the poor in America then?

Actually, the poor in America aren't as poor and destitute as those living in a country like Mozambique, Haiti or Yemen. The poor people in America would complain that they don't have the latest mobile phones whilst the poor in Mozambique don't have mobile phones. Indeed, those in Mozambique would be extremely envious of the standard of living that even the very poorest in America have, but everything is relative of course. Those in Huntington, West Virginia are a lot poorer than those in Beverley Hills, California but they are still so much richer than those in Beira, Mozambique. Even within the poorest states in America, not everyone is poor - the image of destitute, homeless people living in tents under a bridge begging for money represents only a tiny fraction of the people in states like Mississippi and West Virginia. So Jean's impression of "poor" voters in such states at the bottom of the list, totally desperate for any kind of socialist intervention to improve their lives is an unfair stereotype to say the least - let's take Mississippi for example: the GDP per capita in Mississippi is $31,881 - whilst that is significantly lower than the American average of $50,557 and much lower than that of Massachusetts at $65,545, it is not that poor compared to other countries. At $31,881 it would be comparable to a country like Estonia ($31,500), Lithuania ($31,900) and making it even richer than Portugal ($30,300) and Greece ($27,800). Having visited both Portugal and Greece on holiday earlier this year before the Covid-19 pandemic hit hard, neither countries are 'poor' at all, they are very pleasant European countries with a reasonably high standard of living, especially in the bigger cities. Likewise, even in the richer states like California and New York, there are still plenty of poor people as well. So the rich states are probably not as rich as you think and the poor states are not as poor as you think - everything is relative of course. There is the politics of envy: poor Americans feeling jealous of those much richer than them - so they feel like it is unfair, that they are not getting a good deal but that doesn't mean that they are starving. 

Poor people who want to 打肿脸充胖子 

These people are not as desperate for help as Jean may imagine - allow me to reference this friend of mine whom we shall call Mr Loser or ML for short. He is now 43, single and still living with his parents because he simply can't afford to move out as he is earning very little. Yes he has been featured in a few of my previous posts before, so how poor is ML? He has a roof over his head, he isn't going hungry and you wouldn't even notice that he is poor - he goes to great lengths to hide his financial situation from his friends and really only his close friends know what is really going on. I'm not here to judge ML but what does take me by surprise is the fact that ML is actually very right-wing. Now you might wonder, why the hell is someone like ML right wing when he should be the very kind of poor person that would be asking the government for subsidies and handouts? The answer is simple: ML is in a permanent state of denial about his failures, on social media he tries his best to portray an image of someone who is successful and happy. Regardless of his bank balance, he chooses to behave as if he is rich, as if he enjoys his job: in short, he is masquerading as someone he wishes he was. After all, pride is all he has left since he doesn't have money or status and when pride is all you have, you tend to make a big deal about it. Perhaps ML is quietly receiving subsidies and handouts, but he would never admit to it publicly - instead, he goes as far as to make his right wing views quite public so people who don't know him well would assume that he wants to pay less taxes on all that money he is earning. I do know how little he earns, poor people like him barely pay any income tax - yet he rants about the tax system as if he is a multi-millionaire who is being hit hard at the highest rate tax band. The phrase in Chinese 打肿脸充胖子 ('pretending to be something you're not') comes to mind. 

Case study: Why a poor student would say no to free money.

Is ML's behaviour irrational? Perhaps, but allow me to use another example to show you how this kind of behaviour can start very early in life. Way back in the 1990s, I had a cousin who was even poorer than me and there was a scheme in Singapore then for students from really poor backgrounds - it allowed them to receive free textbooks and a little bit of money for things like school uniforms. It wasn't much but it would've helped. My cousin had a kind teacher in her secondary school who understood just how difficult my cousin's situation was and gave her the form to apply for this scheme. My cousin hid the form and didn't fill it in, despite the fact that her teacher kept asking her to do it. Then my cousin lied that she lost the form, when the teacher gave her another copy, my cousin then refused to take it - first she claimed that she didn't want anybody's charity, then she said that if the other students found out that she filled up that form, it would be 很丢脸 ('a great loss of face' or very embarrassing). In the end, despite her very best efforts, there was simply nothing the teacher could do - my cousin was willing to walk away from free money being offered to her because of her pride. Oh I could give you so many more examples of my cousin's irrational behaviour but she was genuinely more scared of people bullying her or looking down on her for being poor than actually being poor. So she went to great lengths to cover up the fact that she was poor, even lying about her family and where she lived to give a false impression to her friends at school Thus my cousin's behaviour totally contradicts Jean's stereotype that poor people are shamelessly, greedily and constantly asking for handouts with an outstretched hand. Poor people like ML and my cousin do exist and whilst they are undoubtedly desperately poor - their behaviour and odd choices would surprise you at times. 

A false dilemma between two dichotomies

People like ML and my cousin don't want charity in the forms of free textbooks or token amounts of money, at the end of the day, they too dream of true social mobility, to break out of poverty by getting a well-paid job and become rich. Those on the right can offer a very compelling argument about how socialism is trying to create equality, which is an unnatural state of affairs - when the free market economy is left on its own to function, it will create competition whereby some people will do better than others. So this inequality whereby some people make more money than others is a result of this competition and it has been marketed to the poor as a good thing: this is their ticket out of poverty. This then gets simplified into a false dilemma: if you choose socialism, then you're waiting for the government to tax the rich and build more social housing before they can offer you a slightly better apartment to rent, the government might build a new local school or hospital in the next five years, the government might renovate the local leisure center and park - but none of this is going to happen any time soon and you will have to wait an awfully long time for the government manage that wealth redistribution process from rich to poor to improve your life, that is a slow process could take many years. Whereas if you embrace capitalism, people tend to focus on the success stories of those who dropped out of school at 16 with no formal qualifications but somehow became very street smart in the world of business and by the time they turned 25, they have become multi-millionaires and running a successful business empire. Sure people like that do exist, but what are the chances of your average poor person in Mississippi becoming that successful? It is very low, but people like ML and my cousin prefer to hold on to that dream of striking it rich than to wait for the government to help them out. 

Case study: socialism in Sweden, the best case scenario

The another difference between the two dichotomies in this false dilemma besides the time scale is the result: under socialism, you can at best hope for a kind of socialist utopia that is seen in Sweden, the country with world's highest rate of income tax but let's be clear: the poor in Sweden aren't exactly drinking champagne in their beautiful penthouses in Stockholm and sailing in their huge yachts around the Baltic sea - no they have slightly better social housing and get more free stuff from the state, but they're still a lot poorer than the highly skilled Swedish professionals with good jobs (who are paying those very high rates of taxes). The top rate of income tax in Sweden is 76% - there's only so far you can raise incomes taxes before you slay the goose that lays the golden eggs, hence even with the best socialist ideals, the Swedish model of socialism delivers limited results for the very poorest in Swedish society whilst those who do have jobs and are working hard see a large chunk of their earnings disappear when they are taxed heavily. Even so, some of the poorer neighhourhoods in Swedish cities are positively grim, with a lot of problems like drugs, alcoholism and gangs. It gets even worse in the north of Sweden - poor people can be offered housing in small towns in the far north of Sweden which have bitterly cold, long winters and few decent employment opportunities. Hence even the poor people in Mississippi are not going to be satisfied with being as poor as the poorest in Swedish society and that's the best case scenario that socialism can offer. No, instead they have dreams of becoming rich, establishing a successful career and then living like the Kardashians. When you are born into poverty and faced with such a choice - many people like ML actually choose to believe the dream that is sold to them by those on the right, promising that a free economy that encourages competition is their best hope for true social mobility whilst even the best case scenario that the left can offer is the Swedish model, which is a far cry from the Kardashians' lifestyle. Of course this is a false dilemma, but it is clear why they would believe that the right wing route is the best option for them to escape poverty and have a brighter future. 

Which path would work better for poor people then?

We cannot treat all poor people like a monolithic entity. A lot of that depends on the individual and there is no one size fits all approach to this. I did well with the capitalism route: despite coming from a poor, working class family, I studied hard, got a scholarship to university, went into banking and attained true social mobility. The system served me well but that was contingent on me being intelligent, talent and having good social skills. I recently did a post about a friend 'Vera' (not her real name) who was in her mid-30s and poor - she woke up one morning and realized she only had about £3,000 to her name, that she couldn't go on living like this as she was sick and tired of being so poor. Vera was desperate to escape poverty and attain social mobility, so she talked to me about getting a law degree to try to change her fate in life. In my piece, I discussed the very few realistic options that someone like Vera has because (if I may be blunt), she isn't intelligent to begin with - she can't do the kinds of jobs that smart, talented people do. For want of a better word, Vera is stupid. What shocked me though was the number of utterly ridiculous suggestions left in the comments section - one idiot actually suggested that Vera can become a personal trainer to become rich and I was like, Vera is already so poor because she is earning peanuts as a personal trainer. The problem isn't that Vera can't get work as a personal trainer - the problem is that even after working full time as a personal trainer, she is still barely scraping by, making just enough to pay her bills and rent but not able to save any money at all. This is the reason why she is very poor and she doesn't want to remain poor for the rest of her life, but the person who left the comment suggesting that she work as a personal trainer doesn't realize just how little personal trainers earn and how hard it is to accumulate wealth working in a poorly-paid job. 

Vera needs all the help she can get. Seriously. 

So for someone in my position who has the intellect, skills and luck (yes, I can't in good conscience ignore that part of the equation) then sure, capitalism is pretty awesome but in the case of Vera, she needs a lot more help  in order to become more financially secure. So I would benefit from living in a country like Singapore where I pay very little income tax and I'm allowed to prosper as a result of my hard work whilst Vera would benefit from living in a country like Sweden where she receives a lot of subsidies and handouts from the welfare state as a result of the Swedish government's socialist policies. So if we have Sweden on one end of the spectrum (very socialist) and Singapore on the other end of the spectrum (very capitalist), then America is somewhere in the middle but closer to the capitalist half of the spectrum. Income tax in America is much lower than in European countries like France, Germany, Finland and the UK but not as low as in Singapore. But at the end of the day, Vera is somewhat in denial of the fact that she is in the category of low-skilled workers who will never become rich no matter how hard she tries. I didn't want to be cruel and tell her not to bother with a law degree because she is never going to get into a prestigious law school, she would get a law degree from some university at the bottom of the league tables and it wouldn't change her fate in life. It sounds cruel, but for people like her, she doesn't have the ability to help herself so she would be reliant on the state to help her improve the quality of her life. Capitalism hasn't served Vera well, she needs all the help she can get from a socialistic government however she is totally oblivious to that  - hence there is definitely an element of the Dunning-Kruger effect going on here. 

But Vera isn't aware just how awful her odds are. 

There's a saying from poker which I have used many times before - it is possible to win with a bad hand, but it is much harder to lose with a good hand. Our odds in playing this game of capitalism is mostly determined by factors out of our control. Your odds are improved if you either win the genetic lottery and are blessed with above average intelligence and social skills or if you can get a lot of help from your parents to get a well paid job - sorry to be blunt, but Vera did poorly in the genetic lottery and her parents split up when she was very young, she hasn't seen her father for over two decades and her mother is an alcoholic. So let's put it this way, imagine if I invite you to a game of poker and I tell you in advance the cards you're going to be dealt - I am about to give you a bad hand, terrible cards and the other people at the table are going to be given much better cards. Would you still want to play that game after I had given you that information? Any rational person would refuse to play but Vera is doing the exact opposite - she knows the odds are against her but she is willing to gamble nonetheless because the alternative is to settle for a life of poverty doing low-paid work for the rest of her life. People like Vera crave hope and that's exactly what the right wing politicians are selling her: "don't let those left wing socialists tell you that you need handouts and favours, you're a strong independent woman capable of so much and all you need are opportunities, not pity." It's a vision that is sold to people like that over and over again not just in America, but in so many countries. They are selling hope to people who have already been dealt a bad hand in in life and it may seem cruel, it's verging on a con, but people like Vera and ML listen to people telling them what they want to hear. 

So what about the other factors? 

Of course, a lot of people do pick their political parties based on one issue and ignore everything else. So for someone who has very strong opinion about abortions would base their choice purely on that issue whilst ignoring all other factors like taxation or the economy. The states that vote Democrat tend to be generally a lot more progressive on issues like gay rights, women's rights, embracing diversity and multiculturalism, minority rights and of course, they support the Black Lives Matter movement whilst the states that vote Republican tend to be more conservative on those same issues and they tend to oppose the Black Lives Matter issue. So a voter in Mississippi may vote for Republicans because she has strong feelings about abortion and she feels that the Republicans best represent her point of view on that topic, so she ignores the fact that she will be economically worse off under a Republican government and goes ahead and votes for them anyway. Such people are known as single-issue voters and they're not the most rational voters, often delivering 'turkeys voting for Christmas' results because they suffer from a bad case of tunnel vision. But we already knew people like that exist, I thought it would be far more interesting to analyze the mindset of people like ML and Vera to see how poor people like them cling on to right wing ideology out of a desperate need for hope when the left really doesn't have that much to offer them. So that's it from me on this issue, what do you think? Why do poor people in America support the Republican party then? Why would any poor person want to support a right wing government? Are they just falling for the lie that scapegoats foreigners and exploits their xenophobia or is there more going on there? Which model would offer the best hope for social mobility: capitalism or socialism? Leave a comment below please, many thanks for reading.