Wanting What Is Fair: How Party Cues and Information about Income Inequality Affect Public Support for Taxes
Abstract
Income inequality has risen dramatically in the United States, with potentially negative social, economic, and political consequences. Governments can use redistributive taxes to combat inequality, but doing so requires public support. When will voters support redistributive taxes? Using the dual-process framework, we make predictions about the conditions under which party cues and information about rising inequality affect support for redistributive taxes. We test these predictions by conducting survey experiments in a real-world electoral context. We find that although citizens are misinformed about the extent of inequality, information that corrects their misperceptions helps them express tax policy opinions that are consistent with their preferences for lower levels of inequality. We also find that citizens who are motivated to process inequality information systematically respond to it even when it conflicts with their party’s position. These results identify conditions under which efforts to inform the electorate about inequality can increase support for taxes.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
This intervention decreased attitude differences between Democrats and Republicans.
“This intervention also decreased attitude differences between Democrats and Republicans.”
From Factual belief polarization between Democrats and Republicans: source or epiphenomenon of ideological and affective polarization? (2024) · cites this paper as Boudreau and MacKenzie, 2018
In a survey experiment among Californians, Republicans increased their support for a progressive income tax after learning about the income inequality in their state.
“In a survey experiment among Californians, Republicans increased their support for a progressive income tax after learning about the income inequality in their state (Boudreau and MacKenzie, 2018).”
From Factual belief polarization between Democrats and Republicans: source or epiphenomenon of ideological and affective polarization? (2024) · cites this paper as Boudreau and MacKenzie, 2018
A survey among Californians found that Democrats and Republicans differ more in their factual beliefs about income differences than in their ideals about what a fair income distribution would look like.
“a survey among Californians found that Democrats and Republicans differ more in their factual beliefs about income differences than in their ideals about what a fair income distribution would look like (Boudreau and MacKenzie, 2018).”
From Factual belief polarization between Democrats and Republicans: source or epiphenomenon of ideological and affective polarization? (2024) · cites this paper as Boudreau and MacKenzie, 2018
Republicans assume a more egalitarian income distribution than Democrats.
“Likewise, Republicans assume a more egalitarian income distribution than Democrats (Boudreau and MacKenzie, 2018)”
From Factual belief polarization between Democrats and Republicans: source or epiphenomenon of ideological and affective polarization? (2024) · cites this paper as Boudreau and MacKenzie, 2018
Cites
Building a Better America—One Wealth Quintile at a Time
Norton, M. I., & Ariely, D. (2011) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/1745691610393524 · Cited by 1,119 · see citing works
Elite Influence on Public Opinion in an Informed Electorate
BULLOCK, J. G. (2011) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.1017/s0003055411000165 · Cited by 777 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Marino, M., Iacono, R., & Mollerstrom, J. (2024) · European Journal of Political Economy · doi:10.1016/j.ejpoleco.2024.102578 · Cited by 20 · see citing works
Rekker, R. (2024) · Frontiers in Political Science · doi:10.3389/fpos.2024.1254826 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
- Authors
- Boudreau, C., & MacKenzie, S. A.
- Affiliations
- University of California, Davis (US)
- Venue
- The Journal of Politics
- Publisher
- University of Chicago Press
- Published
- 2018-04
- Volume
- 80
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 367-381
- ISSN
- 0022-3816 (ISSN-L)
- 1468-2508
- OpenAlex
- W3122766455
- Cited by
- 86
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 3
- FWCI
- 31.55
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- The Journal of Politics (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Ohio State University
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Electoral Systems and Political Participation
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Social Policy and Reform Studies
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Politics, Economics, and Education Policy
- Keywords
- income inequality, redistributive taxation, party cues, information effects, dual-process models, voter attitudes, survey experiment
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
