Democrats Are Richer Than Republicans

by A Blinkin on November 21, 2011

If I were rich, I’d be a Republican. If I were poor, I would be a Democrat.

Does this make me crazy?

If I were rich, I would want to protect my assets. One way of doing this would be to vote for anything that reduces taxes. I would hate to work so hard only to see a large portion of my money given away to those that don’t work as hard as I do.

If I were poor, I would greatly appreciate government services. I would strongly believe in the redistribution of wealth – and I would want everyone to be taken care of. Even though I wasn’t born into a generous situation, I would like to have the same opportunities as others.

This is how my mind thinks. I would expect people to vote for things that directly benefit themselves.

Does this make me crazy?

According to my own research, it does.

A few weeks ago, I stumbled upon a feature on Credit Karma which showed the average credit score of each state (also showed average FICO of certain email users [aol, gmail, etc.] which was awesome). I took this information and went a step further. I decided to see which of those states are considered Republican and Democratic – based on the last election.

Results:

  • Average Republican Credit Score: 658.36
  • Average Democratic Credit Score: 671.39

My independent research results surprised me. In my mind I was thinking: how could Republicans have worse credit than Democrats?
Republicans are rich and rich people pay their bills. Right?

Not exactly. I, again, decided to dive in a bit deeper. I looked up the average salary of each state and matched that up to whether that state voted Republican or Democrat – and was, again, surprised.

Me – excelling.

Results:

  • Average Republican Salary: $38,855
  • Average Democratic Salary: $44,934

There were a few different reasons I could think of as to why this was true. Example: Celebrities are liberal – and rich. The South is conservative – and poor. But I didn’t think this was enough to skew the results.

Astonished – I immediately Googled my findings to see if anyone had this discovery before me. My Christopher Columbus moment was short lived as I stumbled upon many interesting articles – which I’m going to recommend to you all.

Seven of the Top Ten Wealthiest Members of Congress Are Democrats

Are you all surprised to see that Democrats are “richer” than Republicans – and the “rich” are asking to be taxed?

***I don’t have a political agenda. I don’t actually side with Republicans or Democrats, but Libertarians. And I don’t actually believe Democrats are wealthier than Republicans, but it doesn’t make my “research” any less interesting. I would not accept my research as fact.

Written by A Blinkin

A Blinkin

Hunter Kern, aka A. Blinkin, is the blogger behind Funancials. His experience in banking, lending, payments and investments has earned him the title of “Personal Finance Guru.” In addition to helping people with their finances, Hunter enjoys crunchy tacos, spending time with his wife and puppy, and writing in third person.

  • http://myuniversitymoney.com/ My University Money

    I’m definitely a little surprised by this! I think politics in the USA has become less about class interests (at least for the majority of Republicans), and more about social issues. I find it interesting that people that advocate for “low government involvement” are all for having the government install certain religious and ethnic-based regulations (especially concerning WASP standards).

    • Anonymous

      Not I – low government involvement is my dream. Everything they touch turns inefficient.

      • Adan Starr

        Yes, if the federal government builds something it always cost about three times as much as if a private company built it. That’s even with the private company having to pay the taxes so the government can compete against its own citizens. Most people don’t that 25% of every dollar now goes to the government. The bigger the government the less free the citizens become.

    • http://moneymamba.com JT

      As a little-R republican, I couldn’t ever support the social issues that most Republicans do. It’s a function of the 90s “Republican Revolution,” which courted Evangelicals at the cost of freedom.

    • daized79

      So first you have to separate local, state, and federal government. Federal government should have almost no existence outside of judiciary and foreign affairs. Obviously there needs to be some interstate stuff, but really much, much smaller than what’s built up over the past 100 years (and especially the past 80 years). States are the real sovereigns and they are allowed to make many more laws. Then we can see which state is doing it best and vote with our feet. Maybe one state will have the WASP culture, another will have MyUniversityMoney’s culture. As long as they don’t violate basic constitutional rights (freedom of religion, speech). I assume that you are talking about abortion only because everyone does — so that is a state issue, like murder, which has no federal law. And then localities can be even more draconian because they are the easiest to move out of. You have them checking your grass length, your car, your outside lights… And you can vote them out or move so that people who like that can move in. but it’s important not to have all the state be the same ruled by a federal government so that we can have diversity of politics and culture while still sharing the same basic rights and calssical liberal political traditions.

  • Little House

    I’m a bit surprised as well. I had always assumed that the wealthy were republicans, not democrats. I wonder if there’s a correlation, or if it’s just a coincidence.

    • Anonymous

      I always say I shouldn’t assume but I do it anyways! If there is a correlation, I’m going to find it.

  • http://moneymamba.com JT

    I’m thinking it’s geography. Republican base is probably more midwestern, where earnings are lower. On the coasts, Democrats find their base, where earnings power is greater.

    • Anonymous

      Didn’t even consider this. Smarter people stick to the coasts…

      • JT

        Smarter people are unfortunately too smart, thinking they can design an economy.

      • daized79

        Brainwashed, indoctrinat6ed people…. I’m in L.A., by the way. I promise you the people here are not smarter even though they are all Leftist.

  • Hunter

    I like your perspective here. Perhaps Republicans are better at showing that they earn less?

    • Anonymous

      OR – republicans are people who think they are wealthier than they are? I’m going to do some more digging.

      • daized79

        We are wealthier. Wealth isn’t about money always. Everyone has their basic needs taken care of in this country. But do you ever feel that you are doing well (even if you have ambition) or do you just look around and feel jealousy at everyone wealthier than yourself? Wealth is books to read, sights to see, conversations to have. I will always try to gain more financial wealth for my family, but I also know it could all come crashing down like a house of cards because of the enormous debt we have (or any other reason, of course) — life is precarious and it’s a state of mind. Republicans generally don’t think that money is the goal in life, or that politics are (the latter is a Leftists viewpoint), but that liberty and freedom to pursue individual happiness (decided by the individual) are more important. The nice thing is that the same liberty and freedom also leads to the most wealth-creation for the average person, so it’s a win-win. But really, that’s not what Republicans are voting for. We used to call them principles. (Disclaimer: I work for the state and am lower middle class in L.A.)

  • http://cashflowmantra.com Cash Flow Mantra

    I am not surprised. What better way to remain in power and maintain wealth than to be concerned about the poor and create a system that fosters an intergenerational dependence upon social programs. Give up a little bit in taxes now in order to maintain the status quo and life will be so much better in the decades to come. Twelve Democratic Senators voted for the 2001 Bush tax cuts as did 28 Democratic Congressmen.

    • Anonymous

      Interesting..didn’t know this.

  • Anonymous

    I am not surprised. Most “republicans” are people who are poor or not rich who have the illusion of being rich. Most poor people vote against what will help them now because they think one day they will be walmart family rich. They are dillusional

  • http://twitter.com/101centavos 101 Centavos

    Count me in as not surprised, but I would have been some time ago. I wrote a blog post a while back on Sen. Herb Kohl, perhaps the richest democrat in the senate after John Kerry, and the back reading to it led me to the same information. But it doesn’t mean that Democrats are any more or less repellent than Republicans. It’s all a OneParty of elected nobility.

  • http://twitter.com/prairieecothrif Miss T

    Very interesting. I wouldn’t have even thought of looking this up. Kudos to you. I guess I can say I am not too surprised either. It has always seemed that the Democratic party has gotten more support.

    • Anonymous

      I accept your kudos.

  • Pingback: Goals Update and Weekly Round-up #44 « Life And My FinancesLife And My Finances

  • Pingback: The Proud Tradition of Innovation – Blog Review | Financially Consumed

  • http://www.dqydj.net PKamp3

    It’s actually somewhat of a newer phenomenon – just a generation ago the rich were openly hostile to the Democratic Party. Of course – holding together a coalition of such different interests will likely prove difficult…

    • Funancials

      When do you presume this shift occurred?

      • daized79

        I don’t know a year, but I presume it is a result of the slow Leftist takeover of universities (that really started in the 1920′s and 30′s, I think). So now people with a university education are more likely to vote Democrat because of years of indoctrination that starts in elementary school for most kids. You can think this is good or bad dependending on your point of view, but I don’t believe it to be in serious dispute.

  • Adan Starr

    so we are 75% free. When the healthcare bill goes into full effect we will be 45% free.

  • RockIt

    You seem to have not corrected for the cost of living in liberal states like NY and CA. The cost of living in mountain and southern states is much less.

    You don’t do good economics research.

    • Funancials

      True. But it doesn’t make what I found any less interesting.

  • Diane Savereide

    It’s not surprising at all. Liberalism is not just social welfare. It’s also about education (which equals opportunity), concern for the environment, civil rights and so on. While many conservatives vote religion not economic policies.

    Some people try to make it big government vs small government but both sides are big spending the question is what they want to spend money on..

    • Funancials

      I like what you said here…voting republican or democrat isn’t going to reduce the size/control of the government.

    • daized79

      Not some people — they’re called conservatives. Not every Republican is a conservative of course. That’s what the Tea Party was about. Unfortunately those who would be conservative but aren’t strong ideologues think that conservative ideas are not politically expedient and that the only way to have any power is to go along with big government. I can’t prove them wrong, but I believe in letting the voters decide. But as it is, you need to decide in the primaries which type of Republican you want.

    • cal3301

      I am an Independent and you are wrong in your thinking. Liberalism is social welfare because it is Leftist thinking.
      left·ism
      left·ism [léf tìzzəm]
      or Left·ism [léf tìzzəm] n

      support for political and social change: the advocating of liberal, socialist, or communist political and social change or reform

      -left·ist, , adj n

      Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2005 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

      Since the Democrats have moved to a socialistic form of thinking. They want to indoctrinate their thinking into young children the way Hitler did to the youth of Germany. They were never for Civil Rights, the Republicans were.

      FYI, the Democrats started the KKK—-

      Democrats fought to expand slavery while Republicans fought to end it.

      Democrats passed those discriminatory Black Codes and Jim Crow laws.

      Democrats supported and passed the Missouri Compromise to protect slavery.

      Democrats supported and passed the Kansas Nebraska Act to expand slavery.

      Democrats supported and backed the Dred Scott Decision.

      Democrats opposed educating blacks and murdered their teachers.

      Democrats fought against anti-lynching laws.

      Democrat Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia, is well known for having been a “Kleagle” in the Ku Klux Klan.

      Democrat Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia, personally filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for 14 straight hours to keep it from passage.

      “I shall never fight in the armed forces with a Negro by my side …
      Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the
      dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become
      degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the
      wilds.”

      Robert C. Byrd, (DEMOCRAT) in a letter to Sen. Theodore Bilbo (DEMOCRAT).

  • Marywidman

    Will you email me your spreadsheet? marywidman@hotmail.com

    • Funancials

      I’ll send it your way. Thanks for visiting.

  • R3ickb

    Unless you consider $64000 to be less than $46000 (according to Pew poll in 2008), I’d say you have Republican vs. Democrat income levels reversed.

  • Pingback: Partisan Politics and Salaries #GOP2012 | The Cynical Girl

  • Pingback: August Blog Update

  • http://www.facebook.com/darius.grimes.39 Darius Grimes

    This is why the tea party is so important, they are promoting fiscally conservative candidates regardless of party

  • Pingback: Are Republicans or Democrats Better at Reducing Unemployment?

  • Black_Diaspora2

    I like your conclusions, but “not surprisingly” the conservative, Republican minds evidenced here still adjusted your findings to suit their erroneous conclusions that Democrats in office benefit disproportionally as a result of “social programs.”

    • daized79

      I’m not sure what you mean, but Democrats stay in office by sending hoe pork to their constituents. That’s usually “social programs.” Many politicians do this, but it is corrupt and we need to root them out.

  • SilentMajority95636

    Funny thing, my mom (very-R) and I (mostly-D) were getting into it over politics a month ago. I usually try to avoid this, but something set me off. Her final comment to me was “I would think you would be a Republican. Look what you’ve done for yourself and how far you’ve come.” I scratch my head at this. Because I DID use social programs in the beginning, when I was a trying to finish college as a single mother of a newborn child. I will ALWAYS defend aide to struggling families because I would be the worst kind of hypocrite to turn against it now. But my parents struggle quite a bit these days. Dad’s in “Post-retirement,” working as a security guard for the local hospital so that they can keep the bills paid. God knows if Mom will ever get to “retire” from her own home business that she’s been working for over 30 years. Just a few week ago my mom told me, with some excitement, that she just got her first Medicare card.

    Yet they’re asking me why I’m not a Republican like them.

  • Sxeptomaniac

    Ahem. I know this is an old post, but you’ve got a slight statistical error here. States are far from uniform in voting patterns, so to generalize a state’s voting to individual statistics is a fallacy. For a more detailed look, see this article:
    http://news.wustl.edu/news/Pages/6885.aspx

  • Pingback: Politics: Who earns more on average? Democrats or Republicans? - Quora

  • bob

    That’s ridiculous. States don’t vote. Individuals do and based on the stats, you are incredibly wrong.

  • Josh

    This is the worst stretch of statistics ever put on paper. Obama won Florida, but he lost the three wealthiest counties by a landslide. Your an idiot

    • Funancials

      It’d be “you’re” an idiot, right? Idiot?

      • Annoyed

        I love when idiots attempt to make someone look like an ass.

  • leonardo

    One simple explanation for the credit scoresuprise, is republicans tend to be the members of society who take more risks.

  • brandon

    that is not true. 6000 dollars between each is way to much and other polls have put repubs way higher

  • Pingback: Black Republicans - Page 4 - RapMusic.com

  • Pingback: Second Presidential debate - Page 7

  • rdean

    On Mitt Romney’s website, he details his plan to bring immigrants here with degrees. It’s much less expensive than investing in education in this country. Rick Santorum called the president a “snob” for wanting education available for all Americans. Republicans won’t rest until every one has a minimum wage job and a boss with an accent. They seem to think Romney, who has millions and millions invested in China will stand up to China. They even cheered when Santorum said the Republican Party has no smart people. When I was a kid, Republicans were the “Party of Ideas” that founded NASA. Now, education is for snobs and they cheer being called stupid. What happened?

    • daized79

      Wow, there is so much wrong here… A few points: (1) I don’t know what standing up to China means, but nobody knows how to do it. Obama has not mentioned a single human rights violation to the Chinese since he took office. It’s off the radar. Bush was much better there. I don’t know if Romney would have been better — I can only surmise because he is a good man who knows about religious discrimination and cares about torture — but I don’t think that was a major part of his platform. (2) Our colleges don’t produce enough people with engineering, math, applied sciences degrees. Instead, the students are volunteering to take classes like Feminist X-men Studies (you really can’t do better than the actual course catalogs and concentrations offered — take a look sometime). This is fueled by our idiotic student loan policy that we will loan money for students to take any course in college no matter how unlikely it will be to help the country or the individual economically. So that is why, you racist bastard, we need educated imports (as opposed to mass flow from the south without regard to immigrants from other countries). (3) When people speak against6 those who are “smart” or who are “educated” — they do not mean real intelligence or education. They mean what passes for it in liberal circles today. The “smart” people think they are smarter than everyone else (a sure sign of stupidity) and the “educated” know a lot about critical race studies and Marxist constructions but little about the real world or the classical foundations of our civilization. There are plenty of exceptions, but this is what our universities are good at producing nowadays (due to the takeover of professorships by the Left). And regardless, this is what Republicans are referring to — nothing against NASA and its applied sciences, but see (2) above (except to the extent that it is probably a waste of taxpayer money at this point).

  • Rat farts for Spalding

    First of all, your research is incredibly flawed. It does not account for anything with weight. What makes a state “republican” or “democrat”? The simple answer is, election results/polling. So, one could argue that perhaps registered, voting democrats are wealthier than registered, voting republicans. However that is the only valid claim that can be made by the methodology of this “research”. Also after reading your two cited sources of a similar argument, I found that the second no longer exists and the first cites some interesting statistics. But my favorite line of the article is below and it sums up my brief point: “Among those who actually got their money by earning it, Republicans were in the slight majority.”

    • Funancials

      I can’t argue with anything you say. My research is extremely skewed. While I was still surprised by the results, these figures were never meant to represent The Average Republican Income or the Average Democratic Income. This was the easiest way for me to get close to this number (understanding that it’s flawed).

      I was surprised to find how highly I ranked in the search engines AND how the majority of readers are accepting my figures as factual.

  • Pingback: The Razor » Blog Archive » The Day After Election 2012 – Lessons Learned

  • Ken

    I’m researching this topic and I think a lot of people are drawing the wrong conclusion. You’re assuming state average incomes map to a uniform distribution of political affiliation. Within blue states you have red districts. Red states have blue. Higher income states tend to have larger urban populations around large cities. I have yet to see a map that shows an inner city voting district that’s Red. You see where I’m going? We could have a very rich suburban red district that is outvoted by a poorer blue district. The end result is a state that shows up blue with a higher average income.
    Anyone else have any numbers to support/discredit my hypothesis?

    • Funancials

      I admit to the research being flawed. I couldn’t find a fully accurate statistic that showed whether Republicans or Democrats were “richer” so I went this route. Although the #’s are skewed for the reasons you mentioned, it’s still interesting.

    • cal3301

      Your “poorer blue districts” in cities are Union run polls that promote ballot stuffing. There are just as many poor in the suburbs.

  • daized79

    No, Mr. Blinkin, it doesn’t make you “crazy,” it makes you deeply narcissistic and a dangerous voter. People should vote for what thety think is best for the country at large, even if it hurts them. I just bought a house for the first time. but you know what? The mortgage tax credit is evil and is government’s way of manipulating people to buy instead of rent and pays for me to get a house on the backs of those less well-off than me. I still believe that even though I will know be saving loads of money because of it.

  • Pingback: 2013 Federal Income Tax Rates / Calculating Your Effective Tax Rate |

  • Mirza
  • http://bannedsorcery.com/ Bryce Anderson

    You, sir, could not successfully analyze statistics involving wet paper bags.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/2012-exit-polls/table.html

    Now you have data that actually links specific individuals’ voting behavior to income. None of this reading tea leaves based on statewide credit scores and incomes. People making under $50K went 60-38% for Obama, while people making over $100K went 54-44 for Romney.

    • Neal

      Thank you (coming from someone who is legitimately trained in statistical analysis – ie.PHD)… Seach my post, I’m sure you will appreciate it

  • Neal

    People always try to compare the AVERAGE – which is an unreliable number which is highly skewed by outlier (extreme values). If you want a more accurate comparison, consider the MEDIAN values – which measure the 50 percentile and is not impacted by extreme values.

    I suspect that the results will be consistent for multiple reasons – as you mentioned the South and parts of Midwest are very conservative and also very poor. Also – high income earners tend to live in large cities or highly populated areas (LA, NYC, Chicago, etc), and the vast majority of large cities vote democratic.

    I would be more interested in seeing the hours worked by political affiliation – those farmers in the Midwest may be broke and conservative, but they put in longer/harder hours than almost anyone else in the country! And we all know those lazy welfare recipients are all hardcore liberals!!

  • Peter

    According to the last U.S. census data, red states get more Federal Aid per capita than blue states.

  • Yvette

    I enjoyed reading your article, skewed or not. I thought it was funny and original.

  • Pingback: Republicans Worst Nightmare - Page 14

  • cal3301

    This was published in Forbes magazine.

    DEMOCRATS

    D-Bill Gates 56 Billion

    D- Warren Buffet $50.0 billion:

    D- Lawrence Ellison $39.5 billion

    D- Jim Walton 20.1 billion

    D- Alice Walton 20 billion

    D- S, Robson Walton 20 billion

    I- Michael Bloomberg 18 billion (was a D for 20 yrs)

    D- Larry Page – Google – 15 billion

    D- Sergy Brin – Google – 15 million

    D to R – Sheldon Adelson – 14.7 billion is now 23 billion

    D- George”Spooky Dude” Soros – Crime Inc,.14.2 billion

    D- Mark Zuckerberg $13.5 billion

    D- Dustin Moskovitz $2.7 billion

    D- Sean Parker $1.6 billion

    D- Peter Thiel $1.6 billion

    D- Yuri Milner $1 billion

    D- Eduardo Saverin $1.6 billion

    REPUBLICAN

    R- Michael Dell 14 billion

    R- Charles Koch 21.5 billion

    R- David Koch 21.5 bllion

    For those that are always hearing the Democrats harping on the Koch brothers political donations, they rank 59th….”Ah, the Koch brothers. Wicked Tea Party illuminati visionaries hell bent on buying their way to a changed, conservative world. Rich oil scions who wield their money as a chainsaw, cutting a path of propagandist influence through the center of the Nation’s heartland. Omniscient power players unfurling a grand agenda for a sinister new world order through carefully-controlled media makeovers and behind-the-scenes candidate puppetry. David and Charles, the 59th-biggest donors to political causes in the whole United States.

    Wait, what?
    Yeah, 59th. According to OpenSecrets.org, the two wealthy Kansans are nowhere near the top of the list of the Nation’s most active and profligate campaign donors for Federal elections – though it’s a favored pastime of progressivist media to vilify their world-shaping ambition, which supposedly is carried out via unfairly exorbitant buyouts of political influence.
    In the color-coded legend that accompanies OpenSecrets’ list of top, politically-tilted all-time donors, little blue donkeys dominate the top 50. Little red elephants are rare. Koch Industries, at No. 59, donated almost $18.1 million to political causes, with 90 percent of the money going to Republicans. They get the red elephants.
    But no red elephants grace the top 16 all-time donors on the list. Twelve of them get donkeys, and four get little fence icons, which indicate donors that give relatively equal money to candidates from both parties.
    While we’re talking about colors, let’s mention ActBlue. The 10 year-old political action committee has, since 2004, climbed to no. 1 on OpenSecrets’ donor list. ActBlue has donated $97,192,340 in its short lifespan, with at least 99 percent of that amount going to Democratic candidates and causes.
    What other donors round out the top 10? Unions. Here’s a well-phrased breakdown, from The Washington Times:
    So who occupies the 58 spots ahead of the Evil Koch Bros? Six of the top 10 are … wait for it … unions. They gave more than $278 million, with most of it going to Democrats.
    These are familiar names: AFSCME ($60.6 million), NEA ($53.5 million), IBEW ($44.4 million), UAW ($41.6 million), Carpenters & Joiners ($39.2 million) and SEIU ($38.3 million).
    In other words, the six biggest union donors in American politics gave 15 times more to mostly Democrats than the Evil Koch Bros.”

    Next we come to giving of charity. Of course when Democrats talk about helping the poor, they don’t mean with their own money. This can be found at……..

    http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/012712-599290-democrats-like-giving-money-from-others.htm
    and
    http://www.democraticunderground.com/1018414674

  • Pingback: Flooding The Zone | Two Pikers And A Blog…

Previous post:

Next post: