Taxing the Wealthy: It is Difficult – Econlib

After months of debate, and substantial modifications alongside the best way, this summer time Congress efficiently enacted a landmark bundle of tax and spending cuts, a key part of Donald Trump’s legislative agenda. Trump’s “big beautiful bill” (HR 1) will cut back taxes by round $4.5 trillion whereas additionally slicing roughly $1.5 trillion in federal spending. It is vitally possible an important invoice this Congress will take up, arguably an important invoice in many years. And whereas there are numerous provisions within the sprawling 1,000-page proposal, a lot of the dialogue is targeted on the tax discount.

Tax cuts are a perpetual debate in modern 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 giant tax discount bundle. The truth is, the “big beautiful bill” makes most 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 talk over taxes has tended to concentrate on a single problem: the coverage implications of decreasing taxes that may disproportionately go to high-income People.

For instance, conservative economists within the Eighties proposed that slicing the highest marginal tax charge (70% at the moment) would generate larger authorities income, not much less, as a result of elevated manufacturing and employment. George H.W. Bush known as this concept, often known as the Laffer Curve, “voodoo economics” when he ran towards Reagan within the 1980 GOP major (for an outline 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 essentially the most “pro-growth” and “pro-worker” legislation in American historical past (White Home 2025).

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

I need to sidestep these coverage debates and as an alternative concentrate on 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 rich” as a gaggle (Ragusa 2015, 2017). Merely put, whether or not one needs high-income People to pay roughly in taxes hinges on whether or not they view the wealthy in optimistic or damaging phrases.

What do People take into consideration taxing the wealthy?

Though lots relies on query wording, surveys constantly present that People need the wealthy to pay extra in taxes. For instance, the 2024 Cooperative Election Research (CES) requested if “taxes on individuals earning $400,000 should rise.” A large majority of 69% stated they help such a proposal. A latest ballot by the Hoover Establishment produced a virtually similar estimate regardless of variations in query wording—66% help having “high-income earners pay a larger share of federal income taxes.” Knowledge from Pew present majorities help elevating taxes on rich households as nicely. On a latest survey, 58% stated “tax rates on household income over $400,000 should be raised” whereas solely 19% stated these households ought to pay much less in taxes.

It needs to be famous that help for growing taxes on the wealthy is a comparatively latest phenomenon. Gallup knowledge from 1939, on the finish of the Nice Despair, confirmed that giant majorities opposed “redistributing wealth” by levying “heavy taxes on the rich.” 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 newest Gallup polls (in 2013, 2015, 2016 and 2022) present majorities help growing taxes on the wealthy to redistributive wealth.

However why achieve this many People at this time help elevating taxes on high-income households? On its face, this looks like a fairly easy query. Financial self-interest, ideology, and views on earnings inequality are all intuitive solutions. And but these explanations are both incomplete or improper.

A logical place to begin is to contemplate uncooked financial self-interest. It stands to motive that prime earnings 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 larger social companies). Though definitely logical, there may be blended proof on this speculation.

For instance, an often-cited evaluate essay by Sears and Funk (1990) aptly titled “the limited effect of economic 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 scale of the tax discount is considerably giant and apparent. Typically, self-interest is a average to poor predictor of People views on financial insurance policies, in keeping with Sears and Funk. I discovered an analogous lead to one among my papers on this topic—a measure of earnings was a poor predictor of whether or not People stated they needed taxes on the wealthy to go up or down (Ragusa 2015).

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

So far as why earnings is at greatest 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).

Current analysis helps this competition. For instance, a survey experiment by Ballard-Rossa, Martin and Scheve (2017) discovered that respondents who stated one’s financial success is defined extra by “hard work” fairly than “luck” had much less progressive views on taxation. A research by Hope, Limberg, and Weber (2023) discovered an analogous outcome—wealth obtained from an inheritance reduces help for tax cuts that profit the wealthy. Critically, nonetheless, within the Ballard-Rossa, Martin and Scheve research, even those that cited “hard work” because the supply of an individual’s financial success had progressive preferences on stability.

A second risk is that ideological issues supersede financial self-interest. Though counterintuitive, a considerable physique of labor reveals that People have “sociotropic,” or different centered, views that override their “pocketbook” motivations. In easy phrases, low-income conservatives could desire a much less progressive tax construction for ideological causes (e.g., restricted authorities and particular person liberty) whereas high-income liberals could desire 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 problem by offering crosstabs by each occasion and earnings. For Democrats, help for taxing the wealthy will increase with earnings. In different phrases, Democrats within the highest earnings bracket are essentially 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 possible rationalization for this counter intuitive discovering is the impact of schooling on tax coverage preferences.) Tutorial research present related ideological and partisan outcomes (Ballard-Rossa, Martin, and Scheve 2017).

An unresolved query stays, nonetheless: why achieve this many People help elevating taxes on the wealthy, together with many self-proclaimed conservatives? On the Cooperative Election Research (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 rationalization 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 do not possess within the first place (Converse 1964), however by a particular set of coverage aims. For instance, People usually say they’re involved in regards to the earnings hole between the wealthy and poor, so maybe many need to elevate taxes on the wealthy to alleviate inequality and enhance 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, tutorial analysis has tended to refute this speculation, nonetheless. A well-known research by Bartels (2005) concluded that many People have what he termed “unenlightened self-interest” (although see the Hope, Limberg and Weber 2023 research). 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 earnings inequality in Bartels’ research. For instance, those that stated they have been involved about inequality have been simply as more likely 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 some of the most important 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 (fairly complicated) views on taxing the wealthy. My analysis suggests one other issue performs a key function: 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 enthusiastic about a posh coverage matter. On this literature, deservingness stereotypes are discovered to be significantly highly effective. Briefly, the idea of deservingness captures whether or not one thinks the focused group has “earned” some helpful coverage final result from the federal government.

I examined this risk with survey knowledge that requested People to explain the wealthy in an open-ended format (Ragusa 2015). As you may think, the survey elicited a variety of responses—among the most frequent descriptions of the wealthy ere “highly educated,” “hard working,” “good job,” “arrogant,” “inheritance,” “luck,” “political influence,” and “drive expensive cars.”

My evaluation reveals that these stereotypes powerfully form views on taxing the wealthy (controlling for ideology, earnings, schooling, and a variety of different elements). From a statistical standpoint, the evaluation signifies that socioeconomic stereotypes have an analogous impact dimension as ideology. As you may anticipate, respondents who described the wealthy utilizing optimistic phrases have been more likely to say they need to pay much less in taxes whereas those that described the wealthy utilizing damaging 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 reducing 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 no less than one damaging stereotype in regards to the wealthy, whereas a comply with up research confirmed that trendy media framing has more and more centered on the wealthy as a gaggle (Ragusa 2017).

Not all stereotypes are the identical, nonetheless. Respondents who described the wealthy utilizing dispositional and prosocial phrases have been the most definitely to say taxes on them ought to go down. Within the literature “dispositional” refers as to whether a focused group is accountable for their circumstance (e.g. the wealthy turned rich due to onerous 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 e-book The Fable of the Rational Voter (2008) research this problem in far larger element and makes a convincing case as to People’ incapability to make sound financial selections. Briefly, Caplan argues {that a} draw back to consultant democracy is that voters usually get what they need—that’s, unenlightened coverage outcomes. It isn’t simply that persons are uninformed. Somewhat, Caplan paperwork that folks kind their coverage opinions on a mixture of ideology, emotion, and biased considering fairly than elementary financial ideas.

One piece of Caplan’s e-book that doesn’t appear to suit taxing the wealthy particularly is his suggestion that voters’ biased decision-making results in well-liked however economically unwise insurance policies that cross. In any case, slicing taxes on the wealthy is unpopular but was not too long ago enacted by Congress (identical 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. Difficulty salience is a key moderating variable. When the general public holds sturdy beliefs, the persons are extra more likely to get their most popular final result (even whether it is irrational or ailing knowledgeable). However when voters maintain weak beliefs, lawmakers have larger flexibility and people insurance policies are much less more likely to cross. Given every part cited above, I feel it’s truthful to say voters have extremely malleable and thus weak positions in the case of taxing the wealthy.

A second risk is that People really don’t need the wealthy to pay extra in taxes. The truth is, you may argue the other. Though well-liked when requested about within the summary, surveys that drive People to pick an acceptable degree of taxation usually present far much less help for elevating taxes on high-income people and households.

For instance, the Hoover Establishment knowledge cited earlier purported to point out 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 much less than what high-income earners at present pay. Ballard-Rosa, Martin and Scheve’s (2017) research discovered an analogous outcome— though individuals desire a extra progressive tax construction within the summary, when compelled 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 function that taxation performs in home politics, that is trigger for concern because it suggests the general public is ailing geared up to carry out one among their primary duties.

References

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

Bartels, L. M. 2005. “Homer Gets a Tax Cut: Inequality and Public Policy in the American Mind.” Views on Politics, 3, 15–31.

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

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

Cooperative Election Research. 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-Facet 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 increased 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 Assessment, 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 Must Know Concerning 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 Consequences of Major Tax Cuts for the Rich.” Socio-Financial Assessment, 20, 539-559.

Hope, D., Limberg, J. & Weber, N. 2023. “Why Do (Some) Ordinary Americans Support Tax Cuts for the Rich? Evidence from a Randomized Survey Experiment.” European Journal of Political Economic system, 78, 1-15.

Pew Analysis Middle. 2025. Most People Proceed to Favor Elevating Taxes on Company, Larger-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 Historical and International Perspective.” Journal of Financial Views, 31, 3-24.

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

Ragusa, J. M. 2017. “Do the Rich Deserve a Tax Cut? Public Images, Deservingness, and Americans’ Tax Policy 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 Growth.” The Political Quarterly, 86, 134-155.

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

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