Taxing the Rich: It’s Complicated

After months of debate, and substantial adjustments alongside the best way, this summer season Congress efficiently enacted a landmark bundle of tax and spending cuts, a key part of Donald Trump’s legislative agenda. Trump’s “large stunning invoice” (HR 1) will scale back taxes by round $4.5 trillion whereas additionally chopping roughly $1.5 trillion in federal spending. It is extremely seemingly crucial invoice this Congress will take up, arguably crucial invoice in many years. And whereas there are a lot of provisions within the sprawling 1,000-page proposal, a lot of the dialogue is concentrated on the tax discount.

Tax cuts are a perpetual debate in up to date American politics. Final time the GOP managed each chambers and the White Home throughout Trump’s first time period, they succeeded in enacting a equally massive tax discount bundle. In actual fact, the “large stunning invoice” makes lots of the 2017 tax cuts everlasting. Earlier than Trump’s election in 2016, a unified Republican Congress handed two rounds of tax cuts—in 2001 and 2003—throughout George W. Bush’s administration. Going again even additional, Ronald Reagan achieved the identical feat in each 1981 and 1986 when Republicans managed the Senate for six years.

Over this 45-year time span, the controversy over taxes has tended to give attention to a single concern: the coverage implications of lowering taxes that can disproportionately go to high-income People.

For instance, conservative economists within the Nineteen Eighties proposed that chopping the highest marginal tax charge (70% at the moment) would generate better authorities income, not much less, because of elevated manufacturing and employment. George H.W. Bush known as this idea, often known as the Laffer Curve, “voodoo economics” when he ran in opposition to Reagan within the 1980 GOP major (for an summary see Domitrovic 2021 on the emergence of supply-side economics). So far as the not too long ago enacted laws, Trump echoes these arguments, calling it probably the most “pro-growth” and “pro-worker” regulation in American historical past (White Home 2025).

Critics of those claims abound, largely amongst left-leaning economists. For instance, Joseph Stiglitz has argued that the post-World Struggle II experiment with “trickled-down economics” failed to realize its major coverage goals (Stiglitz 2015). Others argue that the sharp discount within the prime marginal tax charge has led to better revenue inequality quite than a common “rising tide” (Piketty and Saez 2007). A more moderen article by David Hope and Julian Limberg (2022) helps these two claims—throughout eighteen OECD nations during the last fifty years, diminished tax progressivity has prompted better revenue inequality whereas having no discernable impact on financial development or employment.

I wish to sidestep these coverage debates and as an alternative give attention to a uncared for a part of the dialogue: what the American public thinks about tax cuts. Particularly, why do People help or oppose tax cuts that primarily go to the rich on a per greenback foundation? If there may be one core argument on this piece, it’s that the American public has complicated and sometimes contradictory views about progressive taxation. A key side of this declare is my analysis displaying that People’ preferences for elevating or decrease taxes on the wealthy are largely knowledgeable stereotypes about “the wealthy” as a bunch (Ragusa 2015, 2017). Merely put, whether or not one needs high-income People to pay kind of in taxes hinges on whether or not they view the wealthy in constructive or destructive phrases.

What do People take into consideration taxing the wealthy?

Though lots will depend on query wording, surveys constantly present that People need the wealthy to pay extra in taxes. For instance, the 2024 Cooperative Election Examine (CES) requested if “taxes on people incomes $400,000 ought to rise.” A large majority of 69% mentioned they help such a proposal. A current ballot by the Hoover Establishment produced an almost an identical estimate regardless of variations in query wording—66% help having “high-income earners pay a bigger share of federal revenue taxes.” Knowledge from Pew present majorities help elevating taxes on rich households as nicely. On a current survey, 58% mentioned “tax charges on family revenue over $400,000 ought to be raised” whereas solely 19% mentioned these households ought to pay much less in taxes.

It ought to be famous that help for rising taxes on the wealthy is a comparatively current phenomenon. Gallup information from 1939, on the finish of the Nice Despair, confirmed that giant majorities opposed “redistributing wealth” by levying “heavy taxes on the wealthy.” Sixty years later in 1998 when Gallup requested the identical query, a majority of People continued to oppose such a proposal, albeit considerably narrowly (51% to 45%). Nevertheless, the latest Gallup polls (in 2013, 2015, 2016 and 2022) present majorities help rising taxes on the wealthy to redistributive wealth.

However why accomplish that many People at the moment help elevating taxes on high-income households? On its face, this looks as if a quite easy query. Financial self-interest, ideology, and views on revenue inequality are all intuitive solutions. And but these explanations are both incomplete or unsuitable.

A logical place to begin is to contemplate uncooked financial self-interest. It stands to motive that prime revenue People, who represent a small share of the general public, need their taxes to lower, whereas low- and middle-income People need taxes on the wealthy to go up (presumably to pay for better social companies). Though actually logical, there may be blended proof on this speculation.

For instance, an often-cited assessment essay by Sears and Funk (1990) aptly titled “the restricted impact of financial self-interest on the political attitudes of the mass public” discovered that attitudes in direction of taxation are formed by financial self-interest solely when the dimensions of the tax discount is considerably massive and apparent. Generally, self-interest is a average to poor predictor of People views on financial insurance policies, in line with Sears and Funk. I discovered the same end in certainly one of my papers on this topic—a measure of revenue was a poor predictor of whether or not People mentioned they needed taxes on the wealthy to go up or down (Ragusa 2015).

Digging deeper into the CES information cited above, just one revenue bracket in 2024—these making over $500,000 per 12 months—opposed a hypothetical plan to extend taxes on people incomes over $400,000 per 12 months. For respondents within the second highest revenue bracket—People incomes between $350,000 and $499,999 per 12 months—a majority supported a tax improve on high-income earners regardless that many of those respondents would see their taxes improve. Conversely, there are a lot of within the lowest CES revenue brackets that say they need high-income earners to pay much less in taxes.

So far as why revenue is at finest a modest correlate of views on taxing the wealthy, one reply is {that a} complicated set intersecting beliefs mute the impact of financial self-interest. In comparison with residents in lots of European nations, People report a stronger dedication to beliefs like particular person liberty, upward mobility, and equality of alternative (Hochschild 1981).

Latest analysis helps this rivalry. For instance, a survey experiment by Ballard-Rossa, Martin and Scheve (2017) discovered that respondents who mentioned one’s financial success is defined extra by “exhausting work” quite than “luck” had much less progressive views on taxation. A examine by Hope, Limberg, and Weber (2023) discovered the same consequence—wealth obtained from an inheritance reduces help for tax cuts that profit the wealthy. Critically, nevertheless, within the Ballard-Rossa, Martin and Scheve examine, even those that cited “exhausting work” because the supply of an individual’s financial success had progressive preferences on steadiness.

A second risk is that ideological issues supersede financial self-interest. Though counterintuitive, a considerable physique of labor exhibits that People have “sociotropic,” or different targeted, views that override their “pocketbook” motivations. In easy phrases, low-income conservatives might choose a much less progressive tax construction for ideological causes (e.g., restricted authorities and particular person liberty) whereas high-income liberals might choose a extra progressive tax construction (e.g., to advertise equality).

Public opinion polling confirms that People have ideologically motivated tax coverage attitudes. For instance, the Pew survey digs into this concern by offering crosstabs by each celebration and revenue. For Democrats, help for taxing the wealthy will increase with revenue. In different phrases, Democrats within the highest revenue bracket are probably the most supportive of elevating taxes on rich households. For Republicans it’s the reverse—low-income Republicans are among the many most against taxing the wealthy. (A probable clarification for this counter intuitive discovering is the impact of training on tax coverage preferences.) Tutorial research present comparable ideological and partisan outcomes (Ballard-Rossa, Martin, and Scheve 2017).

An unresolved query stays, nevertheless: why accomplish that many People help elevating taxes on the wealthy, together with many self-proclaimed conservatives? On the Cooperative Election Examine (CES) survey, a whopping 44% of self-described “conservative” and 34% of self-described “very conservative” respondents say they help elevating taxes on the wealthy. Merely put, ideology, by itself, is a robust however imperfect clarification for People tax coverage preferences.

A 3rd risk is that opinions on taxing the wealthy aren’t defined by an overarching ideology, which many People don’t possess within the first place (Converse 1964), however by a selected set of coverage goals. For instance, People typically say they’re involved in regards to the revenue hole between the wealthy and poor, so maybe many wish to increase taxes on the wealthy to alleviate inequality and improve authorities spending (whereas those that are unconcerned about inequality need the wealthy to pay much less in taxes).

Though there may be disagreement within the literature, educational analysis has tended to refute this speculation, nevertheless. A well-known examine by Bartels (2005) concluded that many People have what he termed “unenlightened self-interest” (although see the Hope, Limberg and Weber 2023 examine). Though Bartels discovered that there was a relationship between help for the 2 Bush period tax cuts and one’s perceived tax burden, attitudes have been unrelated to broader views on revenue inequality in Bartels’ examine. For instance, those that mentioned they have been involved about inequality have been simply as prone to say they supported the repeal of the property tax, which elevated the wealth hole. Bartels concluded that public attitudes have been “ill-informed [and] incentive to among the most vital implications of the tax cuts” (web page 15).

What about socioeconomic stereotypes?

In abstract, financial self-interest and one’s coverage views are imperfect explanations of People (quite complicated) views on taxing the wealthy. My analysis suggests one other issue performs a key position: socioeconomic stereotypes. A prolonged literature paperwork that stereotypes about teams affected by a coverage powerfully form how residents take into consideration that coverage. Within the financial realm, research have proven that stereotypes about focused teams form attitudes towards welfare (see Fox, 2004 and Gilens, 1996, 1999) and social safety (see Winter 2006) for instance.

From a theoretical standpoint, stereotypes function as heuristics that simplify one’s fascinated by a posh coverage matter. On this literature, deservingness stereotypes are discovered to be significantly highly effective. In short, the idea of deservingness captures whether or not one thinks the focused group has “earned” some useful coverage consequence from the federal government.

I examined this risk with survey information that requested People to explain the wealthy in an open-ended format (Ragusa 2015). As you may think, the survey elicited a spread of responses—among the most frequent descriptions of the wealthy ere “extremely educated,” “exhausting working,” “good job,” “conceited,” “inheritance,” “luck,” “political affect,” and “drive costly automobiles.”

My evaluation exhibits that these stereotypes powerfully form views on taxing the wealthy (controlling for ideology, revenue, training, and a spread of different elements). From a statistical standpoint, the evaluation signifies that socioeconomic stereotypes have the same impact dimension as ideology. As you would possibly anticipate, respondents who described the wealthy utilizing constructive phrases have been more likely to say they need to pay much less in taxes whereas those that described the wealthy utilizing destructive phrases needed the wealthy ought to pay extra in taxes.

All in all, People stereotype the wealthy—like different teams in society—and these stereotypes assist reconcile seemingly contradictory views in regards to the deserves of elevating or decreasing taxes on high-income People (e.g. why help is so excessive within the summary and why many self-described conservatives need taxes on the wealthy to go up). Certainly, the survey confirmed that most individuals have at the very least one destructive stereotype in regards to the wealthy, whereas a observe up examine confirmed that fashionable media framing has more and more targeted on the wealthy as a bunch (Ragusa 2017).

Not all stereotypes are the identical, nevertheless. Respondents who described the wealthy utilizing dispositional and prosocial phrases have been the most probably to say taxes on them ought to go down. Within the literature “dispositional” refers as to whether a focused group is answerable for their circumstance (e.g. the wealthy turned rich due to exhausting work) whereas the time period “prosocial” is about whether or not the group is a web profit to society (e.g. the wealthy are job creators). Conversely, People with situational and delinquent views of the wealthy (e.g., the wealthy turned rich because of inherited wealth and are egocentric) are these most in favor of getting the wealthy pay extra in taxes.

Implications

An overarching conclusion that emerges from the above is that People have a mixture of complicated, irrational and sometimes ill-informed views on tax coverage. Bryan Caplan’s wonderful ebook The Fantasy of the Rational Voter (2008) research this concern in far better element and makes a convincing case as to People’ lack of ability to make sound financial selections. In short, Caplan argues {that a} draw back to consultant democracy is that voters typically get what they need—that’s, unenlightened coverage outcomes. It isn’t simply that individuals are uninformed. Somewhat, Caplan paperwork that folks type their coverage opinions on a mixture of ideology, emotion, and biased considering quite than basic financial ideas.

One piece of Caplan’s ebook that doesn’t appear to suit taxing the wealthy particularly is his suggestion that voters’ biased decision-making results in widespread however economically unwise insurance policies that move. In any case, chopping taxes on the wealthy is unpopular but was not too long ago enacted by Congress (similar to the final time Trump was president in 2017). How can we reconcile this obvious inconsistency? I feel there are two solutions.

First, Caplan argues there isn’t an ideal “1-1” relationship between what the general public needs and what the general public will get. Challenge salience is a key moderating variable. When the general public holds sturdy beliefs, the individuals are extra prone to get their most well-liked consequence (even whether it is irrational or sick knowledgeable). However when voters maintain weak beliefs, lawmakers have better flexibility and people insurance policies are much less prone to move. Given every little thing cited above, I feel it’s truthful to say voters have extremely malleable and thus weak positions relating to taxing the wealthy.

A second risk is that People really don’t need the wealthy to pay extra in taxes. In actual fact, you would argue the alternative. Though widespread when requested about within the summary, surveys that pressure People to pick an applicable stage of taxation typically present far much less help for elevating taxes on high-income people and households.

For instance, the Hoover Establishment information cited earlier purported to indicate that 66% need high-income People to pay a bigger share of federal incomes taxes. And but a follow-up query revealed that 73% need a prime tax charge that was lower than what high-income earners at present pay. Ballard-Rosa, Martin and Scheve’s (2017) examine discovered the same consequence— though folks choose a extra progressive tax construction within the summary, when pressured to set hypnotical tax charges, People’ solutions don’t differ very a lot from present tax charges.

In conclusion, People opinions on taxing high-income earners are complicated and sometimes contradictory, regardless of the sturdy opinions on the aspect of elevating taxes on the wealthy within the summary. Given the central position that taxation performs in home politics, that is trigger for concern because it suggests the general public is sick outfitted to carry out certainly one of their fundamental duties.

References

Ballard-Rossa, C, Martin, L., & Scheve, Ok. 2017. “The Construction of American Revenue Tax Coverage Preferences.” The Journal of Politics, 79, 1-16.

Bartels, L. M. 2005. “Homer Will get a Tax Reduce: Inequality and Public Coverage within the American Thoughts.” Views on Politics, 3, 15–31.

Caplan, B. (2008). The Fantasy of the Rational Voter: Why Democracies Select Unhealthy Insurance policies. Pinceton, NJ: Princeton College Press.

Converse, P. E. 1964. The Nature of Perception Programs in Mass Publics. In D. E. Apter (Ed.), Ideology and Discontent, London: Free Press of Glencoe.

Cooperative Election Examine. 2025. CES 2024 Knowledge. Accessed July 2, 2025: https://tischcollege.tufts.edu/research-faculty/research-centers/cooperative-election-study

Domitrovic, B. 2021. The Emergence of Arthur Laffer: The Foundations of Provide-Aspect Economics in Chicago and Washington, 1966-1976. London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

Fox, C. 2004. The Altering Coloration of Welfare? How Whites’ Attitudes Towards Latinos

Affect Assist for Welfare. American Journal of Sociology, 110, 580-625.

Gallup. 2022. Common American Stays OK With larger Taxes on Wealthy. Accessed July 2, 2025: https://information.gallup.com/opinion/polling-matters/396737/average-american-remains-higher-taxes-rich.aspx

Gilens, M. 1996. Race Coding and White Opposition to Welfare. American Political Science Overview, 90, 593-604.

Gilens, M. 1999. Why People Hate Welfare: Race, Media, and the Politics of Antipoverty Coverage. Chicago, IL: The College of Chicago Press.

Hochschild, J.L. 1981. What’s Honest? American Beliefs About Distributive Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard College Press.

Hoover Establishment. 2025. New Ballot: What People Have to Know In regards to the Trump Tax Cuts. Accessed July 2, 2025: https://www.hoover.org/information/new-poll-what-americans-need-know-about-trump-tax-cuts

Hope, D. & Limberg, J. 2022. “The Economics Penalties of Main Tax Cuts for the Wealthy.” Socio-Financial Overview, 20, 539-559.

Hope, D., Limberg, J. & Weber, N. 2023. “Why Do (Some) Atypical People Assist Tax Cuts for the Wealthy? Proof from a Randomized Survey Experiment.” European Journal of Political Economic system, 78, 1-15.

Pew Analysis Heart. 2025. Most People Proceed to Favor Elevating Taxes on Company, Increased-Revenue Households. Accessed July 2, 2025: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/03/19/most-americans-continue-to-favor-raising-taxes-on-corporations-higher-income-households/

Piketty, T. & Saez, E. 2007. “How Progressive is the U.S. Federal Tax System? A Historic and Worldwide Perspective.” Journal of Financial Views, 31, 3-24.

Ragusa, J. M. 2015. “Socioeconomic Stereotypes: Explaining Variation in Preferences for Taxing the Wealthy.” American Politics Analysis, 43, 327-59.

Ragusa, J. M. 2017. “Do the Wealthy Deserve a Tax Reduce? Public Photos, Deservingness, and People’ Tax Coverage Preferences.” In Bart Meuleman, Femke Roosma, Tim Reeskens, and Wim van Oorschot (Eds.), The Social Legitimacy of Focused Welfare, London: Edward Elgar Press.

Stiglitz, J. E. 2015. “Inequality and Development.” The Political Quarterly, 86, 134-155.

Sears, D. O., & Funk, C. L. 1990. “The Restricted Impact of Self-Curiosity on the Political Attitdues of the Mass Public.” Journal of Behavioral Economics, 19, 247-271.

White Home. 2025. Fantasy vs. Truth: the One Massive Stunning Invoice. Accessed July 2, 2025: https://www.whitehouse.gov/articles/2025/06/myth-vs-fact-the-one-big-beautiful-bill/.