This depends on your state's economy. "In poor states, rich people are much more likely than poor people to vote for the Republican presidential candidate, but in rich states (such as Connecticut), income has a very low correlation with vote preference" [1].
[1] https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1010426
It is well-known that urban areas lean Democratic, and richer states are more urban. Thus the phenomenon may be reflecting urbanization rather than state wealth.
Have a look at the period 1950-1970. If we were to tax corporations at the same rate as they were in that golden period we would not have a national deficit.
>Where's the evidence that this solidarity ever existed?
https://web.stanford.edu/class/polisci120a/immigration/Feder...
1950, 1960 again.
However, in the present day, I don't think it is just the 1% who are against a corporate tax increase. That would hit IRAs, pensions, and investments for those who can afford such things.
As I said: I would happily pay 80% taxes if I knew that when I needed it most the welfare state would have my back, but I know that it won't. The rentiers have shown time and time again they would rather destroy the economy than allow everyone to have the luxury of stability.
The top 19% do not trust government because for the last 40 years government has been hijacked and made to work against the people.
A perfect example: would you support a 30% hike to pay for Trumps border wall? If not, why are you against tax increases?
Many Republicans have taken this to the logical extreme: they say government programs CANNOT work. In solidly red areas, they justify this by pointing at how their local school districts or whatever are failing badly. Why are they failing? In large part due to lack of funding.
So, low funding creates failure which is used to justify lower funding. It's circular. In cases where there is clear evidence that a socialized alternative can work, like healthcare, the evidence is simply ignored.
This is not to say that the government cannot waste money. Of course it can: walls, military spending, and so on. But your argument is dangerously close to the hypothetical Republican one. The only solution I can see is for taxpayers to BOTH be willing to pay taxes AND demand value for their money.
Problem with money is that it represents economic activity. If the government spends more you need to work more (with borrowing becomes slightly more complex, working more now, or working even more in the future).
And when it comes to that, your logic would change as well. Would you work (under a bad boss, etc ... ie. work, as in actual work, whatever it takes) to improve those schools ?
For a very large majority the answer is no.
Wealthier people skew Republican, and that's not just the 1%. OP's example of the school districts is another example. Still another is the fact that, if you look in any city in America, the wealthy (but not 1%er) areas have better roads, better parks, and better everything in terms of public infrastructure. I have a friend who works at the local power company who outright says that whenever there is a storm that takes out power, the wealthy areas come first for repairs, right after hospitals and police stations. Not, you know, the most populated areas or anything.
And it gets worse still, when the 20% try to redirect blame at the 1%. Because who are these 20%ers anyway? They're lawyers, managers, mid-level executives, financiers, maybe developers for banks, big ad firms, or VC-owned boondoggles. In short, they are the white-collar "hands" providing the services that allow the 1% to exert the level of control they do over the whole system.
To hear the 20% disclaim all responsibility for the state of inequality in the country is very similar to how the head of HR or IT tells you "well, I really can't do anything about anything, it's just Policy, set by our betters". But they are enabling all of it.