It's possible that people view taxation as a solution to a coordination problem, i.e. they believe individually donating to charity will lower their personal utility while not helping others much, but if everyone does it then the trade-off will become worth it.
I have a theory that if you are smarter than you are rich, especially if your Dad is morally questionable but massively wealthy, those will engender liberal leading political preferences. Basically, it's a way to rewrite the rules of group survival in favour of morality over merit. It tidily allows one to compensate for guilt by trying to morally cleanse yourself.
Compare that to conservatives, who tend to be richer than they are smart, or who tend to be unapologetic about resource accumulation due to childhood want. This leads sometimes to moral corner cutting in favour of group survival and merit, which leads to the guilt in The children and pitchforks in general. One does not feel guilty for protecting your own, so the difference is in the definition of "your own".
No right way, but the richer than smart or smarter than rich does seem highly predictive. You can extend it too: people who are incredibly smart and poor tend to be the most liberal, where as people who are incredibly rich and stupid tend to be conservative. I say that as a classical liberal who is increasingly conservative.
