In the following I’ll use left and right to be purely economical terms. That is, the more left a party is, the more it is for economical equality: everybody should earn the same despite ability and (the more left you get) willingness to work. At the same time, the more to the right you get, the more you are for everybody should earn their own money and pay their own expenses.
In order to make the area between the left (socialism) and right (capitalism) more nuanced, we’ll allow taxes, which provides redistribution: you pay a certain amount of your salary to a common kitty and the money is then redistributed according to some formula. Communism dictates that the state (or people) own everything and all are paid the same amount or the amount they need. Capitalism dictates that we pay nothing to the common kitty, and hence there is nothing to distribute; you basically want to get as much of the money you earn as you can. Most countries are somewhere in between nowadays: we pay part of our sallary, which is then used for healthcare, infrastructure, unemployment benefits and pensions.
Let’s assume that the more money, the more to the left you vote. This leads to a contradiction, however. The people earning nothing or next to nothing would never vote far to the right, as this would mean they earned almost nothing and got almost nothing from the state. These people would either perish or start making more money, moving them further to the left. But there are still people in this category, at least the ill and the people truly too handicapped to work, and the life expectancy is rising, so this group is, if nothing else growing.
If we assume no correspondence between salary and political persuasion, we can use the same argument: people with low salaries voting to the right would perish, which would tilt the balance towards a correspondence saying that the more you earn, the more to the right you vote.
Finally, what if the relationship between how much money you earn and how far to the left or right you vote? This would not make the left-voting people very solidary, now would it? It would mean that the people earning the more money would vote for keeping it, whereas the people earning little money would be for sharing all money. At some point, the amount of money you pay to the common kitty will be outweighed by the amount you receive. People more to the left would pay less and thus get more than they pay whereas people to the right would pay more than they get. This would mean that the more you are for “solidarity” the less you pay and the less “solidary” the more you pay. This would mean that the more (of mind) “solidary” are in reality less solidary and vice versa. Either this makes no sense at all or the “solidarity” has to be enforced with power. Not really that solidary either, if you ask me.
According to Information, a leftist danish paper, the relationship is that the more you make, the more to the right you vote. As such, this is sort of fine. Just don’t call it solidarity. Free us for that hypocrisy as you forcibly relieve people who don’t share your opinions of their money! Accept that people voting to the left are not the solidary ones, the solidary ones are the ones paying for the unemployed and public healthcare, not the ones insisting we must have those things! This is also evidenced by this study, showing that republicans donate a larger share of their incomes to charity.
I think your analysis misses one large aspect of capitalism. the richer ones donot earn the product of their work, but the product of the work other have done uses the capitalists tools (that is production means).
underthis, there is some kind of appropriation of ones output (the salary man) by the other the capitalist who gets way more than the product of his work. That is organic, not natural.
the whole opensource production system is the proof that ownership of the production mean (especially when the production mean is a software you developped) doesn’t necessarily entails any one to a revenue.
Thus, when the salarymen accept that a large portion of their work output is captured by the capital owner, that is a pure convention made in order for the capitalist to do his job : proper allocation of financial ressources, and management of the business
although I think this work is important an valuable. it does not necessarily mean that one should be overly well off.
Being smart, hard working and entreprenorial is a blessing most fruitfull in an advanced society. No one live alone. Solidarity has actually nothing to do with kindness and charity. it is one of the condition for an efficient society which provides the best living conditions to most of its members including capitalist and entrepreneurs. it is a production factor, yet another economic variable.