It is safe to say, that the economic theory a person subscribes to is highly related to their income.
Unless, of course, you're a politician, in which case it is related to vote count.
Unless, of course, you're a politician, in which case it is related to vote count.
This is an overly pessimistic view that ignores the philosophical aspects of economics. E.g. I lived on under $15k per year for a couple of years before I moved into software development, but during that time I still supported a very liberal approach to economics. This is because I hate violence (I can't even bring myself to crush spiders that wander into the house), and view redistributive economics as necessarily violent, as in a roundabout way it's forcing people to give goods/services/tokens of exchange to me that they may not want to give (since they're forced to give it via taxation lest they face imprisonment, I cannot assume it's voluntary). Other people may not care so much about this and take a more utilitarian approach, focusing on maximising some particular metrics (such as GDP or income equality), so they'll reach different conclusions.
Assuming people subscribe solely to the theories (economic or otherwise) that maximise the financial benefit to them is ironically a rather economics-style view of the world, and I'm fortunate enough to say that most of the people I'm close to don't fit this characterisation.
In terms of actual data, there's a correlation, but it's far from being the strongest factor: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/11/does-you...
Yes, it's quite a pessimistic view of things, I agree. I speak mostly from personal, anecdotal experience. That may of course vary.
How about we all try getting rich (or just keep our wealth out of violent neighboring hands) without violence or a government. Try to even significantly increase any meager income in that situation.
My point is that without taxes and the government they support, there is nothing but violence to support any type of venture. This has historical bearing with places that were lawless yet aplenty with resource for ventures (e.g. North American colonies, Wild West, etc...).
If in particular you meant a progressive tax policy that increases the percentage of taxation with your income level is what you're describing as violent then I can see your point a bit more clearly. Why punish the people who are being more productive, right?
Well the thing is that the owners of capital get the most extreme benefit from government. Never the other way around. It makes sense to me that the biggest recipients become the biggest supporters.
For a brief anecdote, poor people who earn wages get social programs to help sometimes, which are then largely obfuscated from public comprehension so you'll need a social worker just to get started. Rich people who own capital get business subsidies in the form of cash on the books. They are both paid from taxes and supported by the government. Who do you think benefits most from the government here? The business owner or the wage earner? Who is being stopped more readily from using violence with this support from government?
So taxes support all of this precarious balance in a capitalist society because the government is the only thing we have found to solve this problem of violence.
There's a pretty broad range of what you could call "government" in that discussion. The question of how to reign in would be aggressors isn't fully settled, but it certainly hasn't been proven that it takes the kind of government we have today. Especially given that the system we have today doesn't stop aggression, it just shuffles it around and renames it. See, for example, "civil forfeiture".
Please don't let your observation of present society confuse your ideas about a free society: The poor use the violence of the government to take money from others and give it to them via social programs. The business subsidies are a form of government privilege that is a corruption of free markets in which the rich use the violence of government against competitors.
Free market thinkers challenge the assumption that government should be granted a monopoly on force but rather there should be competition in all areas of society. As it stands, we see abuse of power in the courts, police, legislatures, and bureaucracy, all for the enrichment of those who have a legal monopoly on force.
This is true in pretty much the same sense that it is true that the primary relationship of a people to its government is the threat of violence by the former against the latter for failure to deliver on demands. (The extent to which either is actually truly the primary relationship in practice is pretty much precisely the extent to which the government has lost legitimacy.)
> Free market thinkers challenge the assumption that government should be granted a monopoly on force but rather there should be competition in all areas of society.
The government is simply whatever entity (including a collection of entities) in practice holds a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. You can question what the nature, scope, composition, and role of government should be, but questioning whether it should have a monopoly on the legitimate use of force is exactly like questioning the assumption that a triangle should be a three-sided polygon.