But not surprisingly, redistributive policies become less popular as more details about them become known

There's a lot more insight here than I think is registering with the reporters. From Are You Rich? This Income-
Rank Quiz Might Change How You See Yourself by Kevin Quealy, Robert Gebeloff, and Rumsey Taylor.

Americans generally like the idea of taxing other people to provide benefits for people like themselves.

But not surprisingly, redistributive policies become less popular as more details about them become known — one reason some Democrats are worried that initial public support for proposals like “Medicare for all” and guaranteed free tuition to public two- and four-year colleges will eventually wane.

In the Swedish experiment, when survey respondents learned they were higher on the income spectrum than they thought they were, they became less generous in their attitudes toward policies that would distribute money away from people like them. That logic works in the other direction, too: Redistributive policies might be more popular if lower-earning households who perceive themselves as higher on the income ladder knew where they truly stood.

A real-world example occurred after the 2015 State of the Union address, in which President Obama proposed ending tax benefits for college savings accounts (most of the balances in such accounts were held by families making at least $200,000 a year). More than 90 percent of American married couples made less than that, but Mr. Obama abandoned the proposal within a week under political pressure from both parties.

Writing about the episode for The New York Times, Josh Barro offered this summary: “The first rule of modern tax policy is raise taxes only on the rich. The second rule is that your family isn’t rich, even if you make a lot of money.”

Everyone wants a free lunch to be provided by someone else. This has always been the Achille's heel of democracy - the capacity for the simple majority to vote to themselves the property of a minority. Left to its own dynamic, every pure democracy following the above pattern collapses. That was certainly the well-known history at the time of our Founding Fathers' radical exercise in freedom and why expectations were so low for the American Experiment.

You have to either structure a lot of checks-and-balances to make it unlikely that the average income majority will steal the rich minority's goods, or you need some strong religious/cultural injunction that discourages people from taking that which they have not earned, or there needs to be a real conviction among everyone that they might one day be rich. Or al three.

Deficit spending is just another form of theft. Instead of stealing from the rich today, it is theft from everyone in the future.

Self identified communists, socialists, and deficit-spending establishment parties are all a threat to the nation. Not all their ideas are necessarily bad. Indeed some of them are inspirational and desirable. But all of them rely on someone else having to pay for them. All of them aggravate the weakest aspect of democracy - the inclination to steal from others in order to pay for things you want.

Eternal vigilance is needed to tamp down that inclination and ensure that we live within our means and ensure that our success is from real improvements in ability and productivity and not from simple theft from others. Social justice achieved by coercive theft from others has no moral foundation.