* I’ve been meaning to get to this for a while now, but for some reason kept putting it off. Researchers at Northwestern University and the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago polled some of the Chicago area’s wealthiest people. They only surveyed 104 of them, so it’s not totally scientific, but it’s a one of a kind look at who the so-called “1 percent” are and how they think. A working paper entitled “Wealthy Americans, Philanthropy, and the Common Good” looks at some of the results…
* Problems Facing the U.S.: Asked what they thought was the “most important problem facing the country today,” respondents cited budget deficits most frequently (32%), followed by unemployment (11%) and education (also 11%). Respondents were then asked to go through a list of 11 possible problems and rate them as very important, somewhat important, or not very important at all. Budget deficits again topped the list, with 87% calling them “very important,” followed closely by unemployment (84%), education (79%) and terrorism (74%).
* Political Activities: Wealthy Americans are far more active in politics than less affluent citizens. Nearly all respondents said they voted in the 2008 elections; half of the respondents said they had contacted at least one type of government official in the past year; 41% reported attending a campaign speech or event and 68% said they donated to a political cause or campaign in the past four years. Roughly one of five respondents said they “bundled” contributions from other people for a party or political cause; on average, respondents reported giving $4,633 to political campaigns and organizations in the past year.
* Political Attitudes: When asked to focus on how they would advance the common good, respondents often tended to argue for “getting government out of the way” in favor of free markets or private philanthropy. Of those respondents who considered deficits the most pressing problem, 65% mentioned only cutting spending as the way forward, compared to 35% who favored both spending cuts and revenue increases. No one mentioned only increasing revenue. Most respondents also favored cutting back most federal government programs, including Social Security and health care.
* Volunteer Activities and Charity: Nine in ten respondents said they had done volunteering work in the past year. Most respondents also reported giving money to a wide range of causes; the median respondent in the sample gave 4% of his or her annual income to charity. The authors estimate a household with $10 million in net worth tends to give roughly $40,000 annually to charity, or a little less than one half of 1 percent of its wealth.
The “median” household wealth for the survey group was $7.5 million.
* Nate Silver at 538 compares some of the findings to other polling. For instance, political participation…
In the Chicago sample, 99 percent reported voting in 2008; in the 2008 American National Election Study, only 78 percent of a nationally representative sample reported voting. Both numbers are probably inflated – nowhere near 78 percent of Americans actually voted in 2008 — but it seems unlikely that misleading survey responses would fully account for the gap between the 1 percent and Americans as a whole. Other measures of participation show even larger gaps. For example, 41 percent of the very wealthy reported attending a political meeting. Only 9 percent of Americans did so in 2008. And 68 percent of the very wealthy reported giving money to a political candidate, party, or cause in the last four years. In 2008–a year in which “small donors” were numerous–only 13 percent of Americans donated to a political candidate or party. Again, there are small differences in the wording of the questions between the two surveys, but they are not likely responsible for the 55-point gap.
* Deficits and the economy…
When asked to name the most important problem facing the country, 32 percent of respondents said the deficit and 11 percent said the economy. By contrast, in an April 2011 CBS News/New York Times poll, 49 percent of Americans said the economy or jobs and only 5 percent said the deficit.
* Spending cuts…
Among those who considered the deficit the most important problem, 65 percent favored spending cuts and 24 percent favored a combination of spending cuts and revenue increases. By contrast, a September 2011 New York Times/CBS News poll found that only 21 percent of respondents favored spending cuts exclusively. The majority (71 percent) favored spending cuts and tax increases.
* Northwestern offered up another comparison: Initiating contact with a federal official…
About half of the survey’s 104 respondents reported initiating contact with a member of Congress, White House official or federal regulatory agency official at least once in the last six months. In contrast, a 2008 public opinion survey by American National Election Studies found that only 25 percent of the general public had contacted any elected official in the past 12 months.
* In related news, this is from the Chicago Reporter…
Nationwide, white households are three times more likely to earn more than $200,000—the highest income bracket tracked by the U.S. Census Bureau—than black households. In Chicago, the disparity is even greater with white households being eight times more likely to be in the top bracket than their black counterparts, shows a Chicago Reporter analysis of census data.
For every 10,000 white households in the country, 475 make it into the top income bracket, but in Chicago, the number jumps to 868. For every 10,000 black households in the country, 113 make more than $200,000 compared with 96 in Chicago.
Richard E. Barrett, an associate professor of sociology at the University of Illinois at Chicago, said that Chicago, like other major cities, has a high concentration of wealth and many top-paid managerial jobs, but minority groups tend to represent a marginal group among the ranks.
Discuss.
LIVE session coverage...
- wordslinger - Friday, Jan 6, 12 @ 10:28 am:
–Of those respondents who considered deficits the most pressing problem, 65% mentioned only cutting spending as the way forward, compared to 35% who favored both spending cuts and revenue increases. No one mentioned only increasing revenue. Most respondents also favored cutting back most federal government programs, including Social Security and health care.–
So the great majority of those in the $7.5 million median household wealth group would rather cut others Social Security and health care than pay a little more in taxes.
Way to smash those stereotypes, gang.
Not a lot of Warren Buffetts in our 1%.
- Anonymous - Friday, Jan 6, 12 @ 10:33 am:
Perhaps the cuts to Social Security and Medicare that the 1%-ers would favor are to make the programs means tested, thereby eliminating their eligibility?
- PublicServant - Friday, Jan 6, 12 @ 10:35 am:
How did they miss interviewing me? Oh wait, “million”, sorry misread on my part.
- Left Out - Friday, Jan 6, 12 @ 10:41 am:
The survey of the rich just goes to show, yet again, that the rich are different from you and me.
- Wensicia - Friday, Jan 6, 12 @ 10:53 am:
Not surprising, the top 1% are most interested in protecting their wealth while also the most active in contacts and contributions to candidates/government officials. I wish there was a breakdown by party affiliation, or should we just assume they’re all Republicans?
- Anonymous - Friday, Jan 6, 12 @ 10:57 am:
When decisions are made in the public arena, it is based on “one man, one vote.” When made in the private market or private philanthropy area, they are “one dollar, one vote.” So it is not surprising that the one percenters believe in “getting government out of the way” in favor of free markets or private philanthropy. That would simply secure their total control over society. (Of course, Citizens United is well on it’s way to securing their total control over the public arena, too.)
- Montrose - Friday, Jan 6, 12 @ 11:00 am:
I am as dismayed by these survey results as the next person, but we should keep in mind the bigger point this survey is making - by and large, people look through the lens of their self-interest. Now, some folks may not really understand what is in their self-interest, but having your opinion on policy shaped by what you think will be best for you is not exclusive to the one percenters.
- It's easy to point your finger - Friday, Jan 6, 12 @ 11:32 am:
I always get a chuckle out of people getting flustered when people want to protect their own wealth. If you paid over $1 million in taxes per year your mind might change. Especially considering the spending habits of the Federal government and the state of Illinois.
They didn’t become wealthy by throwing money away, so why would they advocate giving more money to a government that does that exact practice. The wealthy would probably willingly pay more in taxes if the government was more responsible with their spending. But would they need to pay more taxes if that was the case? This is the more important and pressing question.
- Rich Miller - Friday, Jan 6, 12 @ 11:34 am:
===if the government was more responsible with their spending.===
That’s a subjective, not an objective reason. It can change with the person. So, it’s not all that valid.
- wordslinger - Friday, Jan 6, 12 @ 11:38 am:
It’s Easy to Point Your Finger, it’s also easy to speak in banal generalities about government “throwing money away” like its a physical law. That’s an attitude, not an argument.
- It's easy to point your finger - Friday, Jan 6, 12 @ 11:54 am:
Rich and Wordslinger- If you want “objective” examples of wasteful spending and poor decisions I can cite a laundry list and they won’t have to be “banal generalities” because I can be really specific if need be. But, I think that you know that it won’t be necessary because there are plenty of examples.
I know that I don’t want to pay anymore taxes, even if I can afford it, because I can do more good with my money than I observe our government doing. Charities do not run by deficit spending and remain more deserving of my money. That’s my opinion and the opinion of most who pay a majority of the taxes in this country. You can take it or leave it, although I assume you will do that latter.
- Wensicia - Friday, Jan 6, 12 @ 12:12 pm:
I’m also not surprised at the contempt the wealthier have for the government now they’re paying record low tax rates. Not to mention how they feel about us in the middle to lower classes when we dare to point out their excesses.
- Montrose - Friday, Jan 6, 12 @ 12:15 pm:
*Charities do not run by deficit spending and remain more deserving of my money.*
And charities cannot take on the role of government. The private sector, in the form of charities, has a very important role, but it cannot do everything. Any charity that is being honest will tell you that.
- Plutocrat03 - Friday, Jan 6, 12 @ 12:26 pm:
“should we just assume they’re all Republicans?”
Speaking of generalities, that one is a whopper!
Nationally the Dem politicians are richer than the Repubs, not likely different here.
Speaking to your Buffett fantasy, his NetJets company is in dispute with the taxman to the tune of hundreds of millions. No tax generosity seen there.
One investment the evil rich make is in the arena of tax free bonds. In exchange for lower than commercial yields and security, earnings are tax sheltered. Eliminate the tax protection and you collapse the municipal bond market. All public borrowing cost go up. Do you really want to pay higher borrowing costs?
- Rich Miller - Friday, Jan 6, 12 @ 12:33 pm:
===Charities do not run by deficit spending===
Yeah, they do. Lots of them do. Especially in Illinois, since the state is always so late in paying them for services.
- It's easy to point your finger - Friday, Jan 6, 12 @ 12:40 pm:
Good point Rich! I guess I should have said they try not to make it habit to operate under deficit spending.
Montrose- I agree with you. But that doesn’t make the government any more deserving of the taxpayer’s money.
- wordslinger - Friday, Jan 6, 12 @ 12:40 pm:
Pluto, Buffett has called for increasing the individual rate on the highest earners.
And I believe your the only one who has associated the word “evil” with “rich” (as in wealthy, I think, not Miller, but maybe both). I’m sure they invest in munis — both tax-exempt and taxable — because it’s in their interests, not as some charitable contribution.
- Plutocrat03 - Friday, Jan 6, 12 @ 1:21 pm:
Money is fungible. If you take away their tax benefits, their money will go elsewhere.
The issue with Buffet is that the bulk of his income is taxed at the capital gains rates. Thus he pays a lower rate than his ’secretary’ who pays the standard rate on income.
The meme has become to raise the income on wealthier taxpayers who may already be taxed at the maximum federal rate, rather than just those who pay lower rates based on how they are paid.
- Larry Mullholland - Friday, Jan 6, 12 @ 1:23 pm:
You might be surprised to realized you are a 1%’er.
The threshhold to achieve the notorious title of the elite 1% is not a very high bar! See this WSJ story below.
http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2011/11/15/the-1-who-dont-think-theyre-the-1/
- Rich Miller - Friday, Jan 6, 12 @ 1:38 pm:
===is not a very high bar! ===
$340K a year is a pretty high bar, man.
However, I agree. Most people making that kind of money didn’t crash the economy. It oughtta be 99.9 percent, but that doesn’t make for a great chant. lol
- Aldyth - Friday, Jan 6, 12 @ 2:30 pm:
Gosh, that private philanthropy will really help since they intend to give billions so that we no longer have to support widows, orphans, the elderly, and the disabled. When government gets out of the way, those wealthy folks will take right over.
Right. Or did they buy up all the ice floes so that they can dole them out?
- ZC - Friday, Jan 6, 12 @ 2:36 pm:
Agreed on the strange idea that $340,000 / year is not very rich, or “a very high bar.” But I think part of it is what Rich said, there’s a tremendous tall ladder just within that 1% of the distribution. If you are pulling down over 300K / yr, you’re getting invited to the parties of and maybe living near to the houses of the top .1%. One of my friends in sociology at Northwestern once did a survey of households in Kenilworth. As one resident expressed it, “You’ve got to understand, there’s Kennel here, and there’s =Worth=.”
I know one of the authors of this survey, however, and if they could have constructed a database just from the top .1%, they would have loved to. But this is a tricky group to locate and reach for the purpose of issuing questionnaires. Their secretaries can have secretaries.
- Angry Chicagoan - Friday, Jan 6, 12 @ 3:27 pm:
So the super rich are deeply conservative; fail to see the distinction between Social Security’s relative solvency and Medicare’s impending bankruptcy; want even more of “getting government out of the way” despite the fact we’ve been doing it for 30 years to no avail; are overwhelmingly in favor of spending cuts-only even though taxes are at an 80 year low; and are intensely politically active.
After reading that poll, I buy into Occupy’s 99 percent rhetoric ten times more than I did before.
By the way I think it’s appropriate to lump the various parts of the top one percent together. The upper-middle-class professionals at the 99th percentile think they’ve made it just as much as the trust fund babies of the 99.9th percentile, even though they’re actually nowhere near as financially secure.
- Rich Miller - Saturday, Jan 7, 12 @ 8:47 pm:
BTW, that dollar figure for the top one percent may not be accurate. WaPo write has it at $629,000. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/romney-plan-would-cut-taxes-on-top-01-percent-by-nearly-half-a-million-dollars/2012/01/05/gIQA8BWGdP_blog.html
- Larry Mullholland - Sunday, Jan 8, 12 @ 9:38 am:
http://money.cnn.com/2011/10/20/news/economy/occupy_wall_street_income/index.htm
Rich, it appears the $629,000+ number is the ‘average salary’ of the 1% in a given year but the $343,927 salary level appears to be correct threshold for ‘09. It’s a moving target as salaries rise and fall.
As an example shown in the link above, the 1% threshold was $424,313 in ‘07 and $232,581 in ‘86. The article cites IRS agi for its stats.