IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cog/poango/v7y2019i2p351-364.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Public Support for Higher Taxes on the Wealthy: California’s Proposition 30

Author

Listed:
  • Caroline J. Tolbert

    (Department of Political Science, University of Iowa, USA)

  • Christopher Witko

    (School of Public Policy, Pennsylvania State University, USA)

  • Cary Wolbers

    (Department of Political Science, University of Nebraska, USA)

Abstract

It has long been argued that growing inequality would lead to growing demands for redistribution, especially from less affluent individuals who would benefit most from redistribution. Yet, in many countries we have not seen tax increases and even when ballot initiatives allow individuals to directly vote to raise taxes on the wealthy they decline to do so. This raises the question of how economic self-interest shapes voting on tax proposals, and what factors may weaken the links between economic self-interest and tax policy preferences. In the U.S. context partisanship is a factor that has a major influence on attitudes about taxation. To explore how self-interest sometimes overcomes partisanship we take advantage of competing initiatives that were simultaneously on the ballot in California in 2012. California’s Proposition 30, a successful 2012 initiative, significantly increased taxes on the wealthy. By comparing voting on Proposition 30 to voting on Proposition 38, which would have raised taxes on nearly everyone, we observe that when tax hikes are focused only on the wealthy a substantial number of lower income Republicans (i.e., conservatives) defect from their party position opposing taxation. We identify these low-income Republicans as “populists.” Lower income Republicans are also less supportive of income tax increases on the lower and middle classes, and are more sensitive to income tax increases than sales tax increases. We argue that economic self-interest causes heterogeneity within the parties in terms of attitudes toward tax increases.

Suggested Citation

  • Caroline J. Tolbert & Christopher Witko & Cary Wolbers, 2019. "Public Support for Higher Taxes on the Wealthy: California’s Proposition 30," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 7(2), pages 351-364.
  • Handle: RePEc:cog:poango:v:7:y:2019:i:2:p:351-364
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cogitatiopress.com/politicsandgovernance/article/view/1915
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Tanja Hennighausen & Friedrich Heinemann, 2015. "Don't Tax Me? Determinants of Individual Attitudes Toward Progressive Taxation," German Economic Review, Verein für Socialpolitik, vol. 16(3), pages 255-289, August.
    2. Slemrod, Joel, 2006. "The Role of Misconceptions in Support for Regressive Tax Reform," National Tax Journal, National Tax Association;National Tax Journal, vol. 59(1), pages 57-75, March.
    3. Roland Benabou & Efe A. Ok, 2001. "Social Mobility and the Demand for Redistribution: The Poum Hypothesis," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 116(2), pages 447-487.
    4. Alberto Alesina & George-Marios Angeletos, 2005. "Fairness and Redistribution," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 95(4), pages 960-980, September.
    5. Hertel-Fernandez, Alexander & Mildenberger, Matto & Stokes, Leah C., 2019. "Legislative Staff and Representation in Congress," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 113(1), pages 1-18, February.
    6. Alberto Alesina & Stefanie Stantcheva & Edoardo Teso, 2018. "Intergenerational Mobility and Preferences for Redistribution," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 108(2), pages 521-554, February.
    7. Hertel-Fernandez, Alexander & Mildenberger, Matto & Stokes, Leah C., 2019. "Legislative Staff and Representation in Congress – ERRATUM," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 113(2), pages 621-621, May.
    8. Broockman, David E. & Skovron, Christopher, 2018. "Bias in Perceptions of Public Opinion among Political Elites," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 112(3), pages 542-563, August.
    9. Thomas Piketty, 1995. "Social Mobility and Redistributive Politics," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 110(3), pages 551-584.
    10. Meltzer, Allan H & Richard, Scott F, 1981. "A Rational Theory of the Size of Government," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 89(5), pages 914-927, October.
    11. -, 1986. "Agenda = Agenda," Series Históricas 8749, Naciones Unidas Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe (CEPAL).
    12. Lupia, Arthur, 1994. "Shortcuts Versus Encyclopedias: Information and Voting Behavior in California Insurance Reform Elections," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 88(1), pages 63-76, March.
    13. Sides, John & Citrin, Jack, 2007. "European Opinion About Immigration: The Role of Identities, Interests and Information," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 37(3), pages 477-504, July.
    14. David E. Broockman & Daniel M. Butler, 2017. "The Causal Effects of Elite Position‐Taking on Voter Attitudes: Field Experiments with Elite Communication," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 61(1), pages 208-221, January.
    15. Asatryan, Zareh & Baskaran, Thushyanthan & Heinemann, Friedrich, 2017. "The effect of direct democracy on the level and structure of local taxes," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 38-55.
    16. Nathan J. Kelly & Peter K. Enns, 2010. "Inequality and the Dynamics of Public Opinion: The Self‐Reinforcing Link Between Economic Inequality and Mass Preferences," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 54(4), pages 855-870, October.
    17. Kim-Lee Tuxhorn & John W. D'Attoma & Sven Steinmo, 2019. "Trust in institutions: Narrowing the ideological gap over the federal budget," Journal of Behavioral Public Administration, Center for Experimental and Behavioral Public Administration, vol. 2(1).
    18. Matsusaka, John G., 2004. "For the Many or the Few," University of Chicago Press Economics Books, University of Chicago Press, edition 1, number 9780226510811, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Agersnap, Ole & Bjørkheim, Julie Brun, 2024. "Tax Complexity as Price Discrimination," Discussion Papers 2024/4, Norwegian School of Economics, Department of Business and Management Science.
    2. Todd Donovan, 2019. "The Promise and Perils of Direct Democracy: An Introduction," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 7(2), pages 169-172.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Windsteiger, Lisa, 2022. "The redistributive consequences of segregation and misperceptions," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 144(C).
    2. Chirvi, Malte & Schneider, Cornelius, 2020. "Preferences for wealth taxation: Design, framing and the role of partisanship," arqus Discussion Papers in Quantitative Tax Research 260, arqus - Arbeitskreis Quantitative Steuerlehre.
    3. Chirvi, Malte & Schneider, Cornelius, 2019. "Stated preferences for capital taxation - tax design, misinformation and the role of partisanship," arqus Discussion Papers in Quantitative Tax Research 242, arqus - Arbeitskreis Quantitative Steuerlehre.
    4. Cruces, Guillermo & Perez-Truglia, Ricardo & Tetaz, Martin, 2013. "Biased perceptions of income distribution and preferences for redistribution: Evidence from a survey experiment," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 100-112.
    5. Laméris, Maite D. & Garretsen, Harry & Jong-A-Pin, Richard, 2020. "Political ideology and the intragenerational prospect of upward mobility," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C).
    6. Barton, Jared & Pan, Xiaofei, 2022. "Movin’ on up? A survey experiment on mobility enhancing policies," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).
    7. Roth, Christopher & Wohlfart, Johannes, 2018. "Experienced inequality and preferences for redistribution," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 251-262.
    8. Spencer Bastani & Daniel Waldenström, 2021. "Perceptions of Inherited Wealth and the Support for Inheritance Taxation," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 88(350), pages 532-569, April.
    9. Gustavo de Souza, 2022. "On Political and Economic Determinants of Redistribution: Economic Gains, Ideological Gains, or Institutions?," Working Paper Series WP 2022-47, Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago.
    10. Ilyana Kuziemko & Michael I. Norton & Emmanuel Saez & Stefanie Stantcheva, 2015. "How Elastic Are Preferences for Redistribution? Evidence from Randomized Survey Experiments," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 105(4), pages 1478-1508, April.
    11. Rafael Di Tella & Juan Dubra & Alejandro Luis Lagomarsino, 2016. "Meet the Oligarchs: Business Legitimacy, State Capacity and Taxation," NBER Working Papers 22934, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    12. Mu, Ren, 2022. "Perceived relative income, fairness, and the role of government: Evidence from a randomized survey experiment in China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 73(C).
    13. Andrea Fazio & Tommaso Reggiani, 2022. "Minimum wage and tolerance for inequality," MUNI ECON Working Papers 2022-07, Masaryk University, revised Feb 2023.
    14. Matías Strehl Pessina, 2022. "Sectores de altos ingresos y preferencias por redistribución," Documentos de Trabajo (working papers) 22-15, Instituto de Economía - IECON.
    15. Hoy, Christopher & Mager, Franziska, 2021. "American exceptionalism? Differences in the elasticity of preferences for redistribution between the United States and Western Europe," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 192(C), pages 518-540.
    16. Nina Weber, 2023. "Experience of Social Mobility and Support for Redistribution: Accepting or Blaming the System?," ifo Working Paper Series 397, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich.
    17. Andrea Fazio, 2021. "Beautiful inequality: Are beautiful people more willing to redistribute?," Working Papers in Public Economics 194, University of Rome La Sapienza, Department of Economics and Law.
    18. Kim, Duk Gyoo, 2019. "Positional concern and low demand for redistribution of the poor," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 27-38.
    19. Fetscher, Verena, 2020. "Equalizing Incomes in the Future : Why Structural Differences in Social Insurance Matter for Redistribution Preferences," CAGE Online Working Paper Series 463, Competitive Advantage in the Global Economy (CAGE).
    20. Kourtellos, Andros & Petrou, Kyriakos, 2022. "The role of social interactions in preferences for redistribution," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 200(C), pages 716-737.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cog:poango:v:7:y:2019:i:2:p:351-364. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: António Vieira (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cogitatiopress.com/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.