One of many many difficulties that include making an attempt to make use of polling information to gauge “public opinion” (no matter meaning) is which you could get wildly totally different solutions by merely rephrasing a query. This comes into play with financial coverage as effectively – folks will reply very otherwise to a coverage primarily based on the way it’s phrased, even when the coverage itself is similar.
Not too long ago, J. D. Vance has discovered himself beneath scrutiny for saying households with children ought to pay decrease taxes than households with out children. On Twitter, this was phrased by one progressive account as a declare that Vance argued “childless adults should pay a higher tax rate than those with children.” After all, as others have already identified, the essential thought Vance is describing isn’t a name to vary the tax code – it’s already a part of the tax code. There’s already a baby tax credit score in impact, so it’s already the case that, to make use of Vance’s hypothetical, somebody who makes $100,000 a yr and has three children pays a decrease tax fee than somebody who makes the identical cash and is childless.
For now I’ll ignore the controversy about whether or not or not the kid tax credit score is an effective coverage. My curiosity right here is the best way the coverage is framed. When you ask folks, “Should childless adults pay higher taxes,” I think you’d discover many individuals oppose that coverage. However in the event you ask folks, “Should adults raising children get a tax credit,” I think that might transform fairly standard. Certainly, it is fairly standard. I’d wager that in the event you requested a thousand folks the primary query, then six months later requested them the second query, you’d discover a fairly large overlap of people that mentioned “no” to the primary however mentioned “yes” to the second. However saying “people with children should get a tax credit” and saying “people without children should pay higher taxes” quantities to saying the identical factor. Each insurance policies are equal. And certainly, many individuals on the left who’re pontificating about Vance’s feedback additionally strongly assist the kid tax credit score and push for it to be expanded. When you assume the kid tax credit score must be expanded, that’s tantamount to saying the prevailing tax fee hole between childless adults and people with kids isn’t sufficiently big.
So why do folks reply so otherwise to equivalent insurance policies in the event that they’re phrased otherwise? I feel the primary cause is folks aren’t actually responding to the content material of the coverage. What they’re actually reacting to is what they understand to be the intention of the particular person proposing the coverage. And Vance actually did his half to make undesirable intentions attributable to him – within the above talked about video, Vance makes use of the tax credit score for example of how the state ought to use tax coverage to “reward the things we think are good and punish the things we think are bad.”
So when somebody says “we should expand the tax credit to help support parents and children” they sound like a pleasant one that desires to assist struggling dad and mom, whereas Vance’s proposal sounded rooted in a perception that childless adults are “bad” and must be “punished.” The coverage proposals are the identical, however the first one sounds prefer it’s motivated by a superb intention and the second sounds prefer it’s motivated by a nasty intention, and many individuals are responding to not the specifics of the coverage, however on what they deem to be the nice or unhealthy motives of these proposing the coverage. That is maybe one other manifestation of what I’ve elsewhere known as “political noncognitivism” – the concept most individuals’s assist for insurance policies are a manner for them to specific their attitudes, and to not consider propositions or make factual claims about actuality.
Stepping outdoors of politics for a second, think about the case the place a number of months again there was some furor over experiences that the fast-food chain Wendy’s was contemplating adopting a “surge pricing” mannequin, the place costs would regulate primarily based on demand at particular instances of the day. Thus, menu objects can be dearer throughout the lunch rush, and cheaper at mid-afternoon.
This upset many individuals – however maybe a easy shift in framing would have modified folks’s opinions. The coverage was usually described as “you’ll get charged more for going when it’s busy,” which sounded unhealthy to most. However what if as a substitute it was merely rephrased as “you get a discount for coming when it’s slower”? Logically, the 2 insurance policies are equal, however the first one makes folks really feel like they’re being taken benefit of, whereas the second makes folks really feel like they’re getting a bonus.
There’s some cause to assume the second framing can be effectively obtained as a result of we already see it within the type of blissful hours. Many bars and eating places have blissful hours the place drinks and menu objects can be found at a considerable markdown – and blissful hour is sort of all the time the time that’s slowest for the bar, after lunch and earlier than dinner. As a result of blissful hour has all the time been framed as “you get a discount if you come in early” moderately than “you’ll pay more if you come in late,” no one will get indignant about it in the best way folks had been indignant about Wendy’s potential use of surge pricing, regardless of the logical equivalence of the insurance policies.
What do you assume, expensive reader? Are there any insurance policies you prefer that you simply assume can be higher supported if solely they had been framed differently in public discourse? Or are there any insurance policies you as soon as supported (or opposed), however modified your thoughts if you heard them framed differently?
