If I say, "I support" and you say, "I support not X, and if you weren't so blind you'd think that too," that's being condescending because you are assuming that someone (a) has fundamentally the same values than you but is (b) too stupid to see it.
The reality is that people can value something different than you (less government intervention, less restrictions on speech, lower taxes) for fundamental reasons different than yours, not because they basically agree with you and are too stupid to understand. This is different than merely arguing truth claims, because fundamentally political choice is a choice. There is no One True Way(TM) to govern and people prefer different things.
You're right, but in the election run-up people living on minimum wage, who complained we needed a change because of the rich getting too rich, also were convinced that Labour's tax increases were a devastating blow to them personally; tax increases that a family of two well-paid professionals would be unlikely to even be affected by.
The reason they hate those taxes is not because they're bad for them, they would undoubtedly be benefited. Nor is it because they actually have a financial basis for a belief in lower taxes for the extraordinarily well off. It's a matter of advertising -- the private press splash an advert "Marxist Money Madness" or whatever and tell the people they're going to be hit by massive tax increases costing taxpayers 1000s.
Of course it's a carefully tailored half-truth. It does cost taxpayers _who_are_affected_ thousands but people on gross wages below £80k aren't. The message the minimum wage, or benefits only, households get is "if Labour get in we will have to pay thousands more tax" (which to them is a lot, despite the tax rises not actually applying to them). They also don't appear to realise taxes pay for running the country; things they benefit from (health, education, roads, trade relations, ...) or if they do that reducing taxes won't just make these things cheaper but mean they have to pay individually (and pay a profit to capitalists as part of that deal). If they do realise these things there's no rational reason for then to support them; really there isn't, not for the vast majority of the populous.
Many people can't do basic percentages, they genuinely just trust the headlines.
The BBC have failed in refusing to call out lies because that would be "targeted" at one particular party (apparently 80% of their Facebook posts were factually flawed) because they are the ones telling the lies.
And why? Well look at the headlines post-election many Tories made many hundreds of £millions. Everyone else is working on inputs to value creation and they're playing the system and walking away with all the value.
In short, yes, there are genuine differences in political opinion. But there is also a massive deficit of understanding too.
Specifically, if you promised that every year you'd take 5% of the money of everyone richer than me, that I'd get a healthy slice of it, the rest would be spent on programs I approve of, and that there is no possible future in which that new tax would apply to me, I'd still vote against it. I don't think it's because I'm too stupid or ill-informed to understand that it would be "good for me".
Rather than starting from "we should exercise our power to tax the rich as a reaction to their success and to promote fairness", I start from "What services must the government provide the people?" then "How much will it cost to provide those services?" then once that is determined, figure out how to raise the needed revenue.
Tax revenue should not be raised to punish or correct for market distortions, but rather because it's needed to pay for an essential government service.
I believe, with very few exceptions, that the creation of wealth, even the concentration of great wealth in a few hands, represents evidence of a market success not a market failure. Those wealth creators mostly got there by providing something that many other people wanted and wanted so much that they parted with their own hard-earned money in exchange for the goods and services the wealth creators had on offer.
Similarly, when considering the role of government (such as when weighing a new program), I think it's better for society overall if the decision is made on a basis of "this newly proposed program is so beneficial/essential that everyone would be willing to pay some part of the cost of it" rather than "I'm willing to support this program that benefits me because I know that only other people are going to be paying for it."
So, yes, I'd be opposed to a tax presented with strong supporting evidence that that tax was motivated by raising incremental revenue under the justification/cover of "improving fairness".
(As an aside, it is entirely fair to question your future tax rates under a politician promising to deliver massive social programs, even if they don't claim they'll raise taxes for the non-rich. Money has to come from somewhere and there's no guarantee that taxing "the rich" is going to be enough.
Also, saying "They also don't appear to realise taxes pay for running the country" is a strikingly dim-view to have of people.)
As another person said, the real interests are not always monetary. Someone may be willing to pay more in healthcare if the government is less involved in their life, even if they are poorer than most people. This is just one example.
Why do you assume we don't value those things? Isn't that _you_ being condescending now?
An assumption isn't necessarily condescending. I assumed I was talking to someone on the left side of politics and was giving examples for the sake of an argument. If those examples do not in fact work then I can just as well pick other ones.
> Why do you use the word "we"? I wasn't directing my comment to you.
Indeed this is a communication mystery.
> Why do you assume we don't value those things? Isn't that _you_ being condescending now?
If you assume people do share the values, or if you assume they do not, you are still assuming to know their values. Better to just ask the person and start the conversation from there rather than shut down debate with something along the lines of "You'd agree with me if you weren't misled by X".
While I cannot, at all, claim to know what's in someone's interests, let alone their best interests - it is possible to reasonably determine when someone is voting _against_ their interests - especially when there is evidence of emotional manipulation or misrepresentation of the facts. (Though I assume we won't enter into a "debate" over specific facts here on HN).
The best example are the rural, conservative, voters in states that didn't expand Medicaid, who voted for representatives who campaigned against the ACA - and who who various reasons (unemployment, hard luck, etc) are now left without any feasible options for healthcare coverage: it's demonstrable that they did not vote in their rational best interests, even the most staunch Libertarian can agree with that statement (though the Libertarian might argue it was still their free choice to make and that should be respected - which I can agree with because at least they're being honest about it).
Actually, it's not. You're reducing the whole spectrum of things that they may care about to the single axis of healthcare costs, and not performing any analysis of the opposition position.
It may be that the representative these people voted for aligns significantly better to their values than any other choice that was available.