IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/pubcho/v203y2025i1d10.1007_s11127-024-01187-9.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Fiscal illusion at the individual level

Author

Listed:
  • Kaetana Numa

    (King’s College London)

Abstract

This study uses a survey experiment to test for fiscal illusion—the idea that taxpayers systematically misperceive their tax liabilities and contributions to public services. To date, the voluminous literature on fiscal illusion has not analyzed how better information on personalized total tax liabilities and contributions to public services would influence fiscal preferences. This is the first study to inform participants of their individual fiscal balance sheets comprising all major taxes regularly paid by taxpayers and their allocation to public services, thus comprehensively covering both sides of the fiscal account. This aim is achieved by embedding a novel personalized fiscal calculator in an online survey experiment administered to a representative sample of UK employees. The experiment finds evidence of fiscal illusion: providing personalized fiscal information reduces support for higher taxes and spending and increases support for lower taxes and spending. These findings indicate that taxpayers underestimate both their tax liabilities and the costs of public services.

Suggested Citation

  • Kaetana Numa, 2025. "Fiscal illusion at the individual level," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 203(1), pages 105-137, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:kap:pubcho:v:203:y:2025:i:1:d:10.1007_s11127-024-01187-9
    DOI: 10.1007/s11127-024-01187-9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11127-024-01187-9
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11127-024-01187-9?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Benjamin M. Miller & Kevin J. Mumford, 2015. "The Salience of Complex Tax Changes: Evidence From the Child and Dependent Care Credit Expansion," National Tax Journal, National Tax Association;National Tax Journal, vol. 68(3), pages 477-510, September.
    2. Lergetporer, Philipp & Schwerdt, Guido & Werner, Katharina & West, Martin R. & Woessmann, Ludger, 2018. "How information affects support for education spending: Evidence from survey experiments in Germany and the United States," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 138-157.
    3. Roth, Christopher & Settele, Sonja & Wohlfart, Johannes, 2022. "Beliefs about public debt and the demand for government spending," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 231(1), pages 165-187.
    4. Mounir Karadja & Johanna Mollerstrom & David Seim, 2017. "Richer (and Holier) Than Thou? The Effect of Relative Income Improvements on Demand for Redistribution," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 99(2), pages 201-212, May.
    5. Eric Zwick, 2021. "The Costs of Corporate Tax Complexity," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 13(2), pages 467-500, May.
    6. Jochen Hundsdoerfer & Christina Sichtmann, 2009. "The importance of taxes in entrepreneurial decisions: an analysis of practicing physicians’ behavior," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 3(1), pages 19-40, March.
    7. 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.
    8. Naomi E. Feldman & Bradley J. Ruffle, 2015. "The Impact of Including, Adding, and Subtracting a Tax on Demand," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 7(1), pages 95-118, February.
    9. Johannes Abeler & Simon Jäger, 2015. "Complex Tax Incentives," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 7(3), pages 1-28, August.
    10. 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.
    11. Richard Wagner, 1976. "Revenue structure, fiscal illusion, and budgetary choice," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 25(1), pages 45-61, March.
    12. Raj Chetty & Adam Looney & Kory Kroft, 2009. "Salience and Taxation: Theory and Evidence," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 99(4), pages 1145-1177, September.
    13. Rupert Sausgruber & Jean-Robert Tyran, 2005. "Testing the Mill hypothesis of fiscal illusion," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 122(1), pages 39-68, January.
    14. Stefanie Stantcheva, 2021. "Understanding Tax Policy: How do People Reason?," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 136(4), pages 2309-2369.
    15. 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.
    16. Yu Shi & Jie Tao, 2018. "‘Faulty’ fiscal illusion: examining the relationship between revenue diversification and tax burden in major US cities across the economic cycle," Local Government Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 44(3), pages 416-435, May.
    17. Eriksen, Knut & Fallan, Lars, 1996. "Tax knowledge and attitudes towards taxation; A report on a quasi-experiment," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 17(3), pages 387-402, June.
    18. Alt, James & Lassen, David Dreyer & Wehner, Joachim, 2014. "It isn't just about Greece: domestic politics, transparency and fiscal gimmickry in Europe," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 57639, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    19. Fernández-Albertos, José & Kuo, Alexander, 2018. "Income Perception, Information, and Progressive Taxation: Evidence from a Survey Experiment," Political Science Research and Methods, Cambridge University Press, vol. 6(1), pages 83-110, January.
    20. Henrik Hammar & Sverker C. Jagers & Katarina Nordblom, 2008. "Attitudes towards Tax Levels: A Multi-Tax Comparison," Fiscal Studies, Institute for Fiscal Studies, vol. 29(4), pages 523-543, December.
    21. Andreas Bergh & Magnus Henrekson, 2011. "Government Size And Growth: A Survey And Interpretation Of The Evidence," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 25(5), pages 872-897, December.
    22. Acharya, Avidit & Blackwell, Matthew & Sen, Maya, 2018. "Analyzing Causal Mechanisms in Survey Experiments," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 26(4), pages 357-378, October.
    23. Kay Blaufus & Michael Milde, 2021. "Tax Misperceptions and the Effect of Informational Tax Nudges on Retirement Savings," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(8), pages 5011-5031, August.
    24. Alt, James & Lassen, David Dreyer & Wehner, Joachim, 2014. "It Isn't Just about Greece: Domestic Politics, Transparency and Fiscal Gimmickry in Europe," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 44(04), pages 707-716, October.
    25. Fochmann, Martin & Hemmerich, Kristina & Kiesewetter, Dirk, 2016. "Intrinsic and extrinsic effects on behavioral tax biases in risky investment decisions," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 218-231.
    26. Adam J. Berinsky & Michele F. Margolis & Michael W. Sances, 2014. "Separating the Shirkers from the Workers? Making Sure Respondents Pay Attention on Self‐Administered Surveys," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 58(3), pages 739-753, July.
    27. António Afonso & João Jalles, 2016. "Economic performance, government size, and institutional quality," Empirica, Springer;Austrian Institute for Economic Research;Austrian Economic Association, vol. 43(1), pages 83-109, February.
    28. Pontus Braunerhjelm & Johan E. Eklund & Per Thulin, 2021. "Taxes, the tax administrative burden and the entrepreneurial life cycle," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 56(2), pages 681-694, February.
    29. Charles L. Ballard & Sanjay Gupta, 2018. "Perceptions and Realities of Average Tax Rates in the Federal Income Tax: Evidence from Michigan," National Tax Journal, National Tax Association;National Tax Journal, vol. 71(2), pages 263-294, June.
    30. Congleton, Roger D, 2001. "Rational Ignorance, Rational Voter Expectations, and Public Policy: A Discrete Informational Foundation for Fiscal Illusion," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 107(1-2), pages 35-64, April.
    31. Peter Ordeshook, 1979. "Property tax consciousness," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 34(3), pages 285-295, September.
    32. Ronald C. Fisher & Robert W. Wassmer, 2017. "Does Perception of Gas Tax Paid Influence Support for Funding Highway Improvements?," Public Finance Review, , vol. 45(4), pages 511-537, July.
    33. Norman Gemmell & Oliver Morrissey & Abuzer Pinar, 2004. "Tax perceptions and preferences over tax structure in the united kingdom," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 114(493), pages 117-138, February.
    34. Kay Blaufus & Jonathan Bob & Jochen Hundsdoerfer & Christian Sielaff & Dirk Kiesewetter & Joachim Weimann, 2015. "Perception of income tax rates: evidence from Germany," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 40(3), pages 457-478, December.
    35. Kay Blaufus & Malte Chirvi & Hans-Peter Huber & Ralf Maiterth & Caren Sureth-Sloane, 2022. "Tax Misperception and its Effects on Decision Making – Literature Review and Behavioral Taxpayer Response Model," European Accounting Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 31(1), pages 111-144, January.
    36. Fujii, Edwin T & Hawley, Clifford B, 1988. "On the Accuracy of Tax Perceptions," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 70(2), pages 344-347, May.
    37. Becker, Elizabeth, 1996. "The Illusion of Fiscal Illusion: Unsticking the Flypaper Effect," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 86(1-2), pages 85-102, January.
    38. Roberto Dell’Anno & Jorge Martinez-Vazquez, 2019. "A problem with observational equivalence: Disentangling the renter illusion hypothesis," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 56(1), pages 193-209, January.
    39. Ross, Justin M. & Yan, Wenli, 2013. "Fiscal Illusion From Property Reassessment? An Empirical Test of the Residual View," National Tax Journal, National Tax Association;National Tax Journal, vol. 66(1), pages 7-32, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Marino, Maria & Iacono, Roberto & Mollerstrom, Johanna, 2024. "(Mis-)Perceptions, information, and political polarization: A survey and a systematic literature review," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    2. Zakharov, Alexei, 2024. "Overestimation of social security payments reduces preferences for spending on social policy," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    3. Stefanie Stantcheva, 2021. "Understanding Tax Policy: How do People Reason?," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 136(4), pages 2309-2369.
    4. Bertoli, Paola & Grembi, Veronica & Morelli, Massimo & Rosso, Anna Cecilia, 2023. "In medio stat virtus? Effective communication and preferences for redistribution in hard times," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 214(C), pages 105-147.
    5. Günther, Isabel & Martorano, Bruno, 2025. "Inequality, social mobility and redistributive preferences," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 229(C).
    6. Raymundo M. Campos-Vazquez & Samuel D. Restrepo-Oyola, 2025. "A randomized intervention to gauge preferred tax rates and progressivity," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 32(3), pages 782-804, June.
    7. Fehr Ernst & Epper Thomas & Senn Julien, 2020. "Social preferences and redistributive politics," ECON - Working Papers 339, Department of Economics - University of Zurich, revised Aug 2023.
    8. Henkel, Aljosha & Fehr, Ernst & Senn, Julien & Epper, Thomas, 2025. "Beliefs about inequality and the nature of support for redistribution," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 246(C).
    9. Hope, David & Limberg, Julian & Weber, Nina Sophie, 2021. "Why Do (Some) Ordinary Americans Support Tax Cuts for the Rich? Evidence From a Randomized Survey Experiment," SocArXiv chk9b, Center for Open Science.
    10. Ryan Cardwell & Chad Lawley, 2025. "What explains public support for Canada's supply management regime?," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 58(2), pages 580-608, May.
    11. McNamara, Trent & Mosquera, Roberto, 2024. "The political divide: The case of expectations and preferences," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 110(C).
    12. Hope, David & Limberg, Julian & Weber, Nina, 2023. "Why do (some) ordinary Americans support tax cuts for the rich? Evidence from a randomised survey experiment," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    13. repec:osf:socarx:chk9b_v1 is not listed on IDEAS
    14. Fochmann, Martin & Heinemann-Heile, Vanessa & Huber, Hans-Peter & Maiterth, Ralf & Sureth, Caren, 2022. "Firms' tax rate misperception: Measurement, drivers, and distortionary effects," arqus Discussion Papers in Quantitative Tax Research 275, arqus - Arbeitskreis Quantitative Steuerlehre.
    15. Ingar Haaland & Christopher Roth & Johannes Wohlfart, 2023. "Designing Information Provision Experiments," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 61(1), pages 3-40, March.
    16. Alex Rees-Jones & Dmitry Taubinsky, 2018. "Taxing Humans: Pitfalls of the Mechanism Design Approach and Potential Resolutions," Tax Policy and the Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 32(1), pages 107-133.
    17. Bellani, Luna & Berriochoa, Kattalina & Kapteina, Mark & Schwerdt, Guido, 2024. "Information Provision and Support for Inheritance Taxation: Evidence from a Representative Survey Experiment in Germany," IZA Discussion Papers 17099, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    18. Max Lobeck & Morten Nyborg Støstad, 2023. "The Consequences of Inequality: Beliefs and Redistributive Preferences," Working Papers halshs-04423608, HAL.
    19. Baumgart, Eike & Blaufus, Kay & Hechtner, Frank, 2023. "The tax treatment of commuting expenses and job-related mobility," arqus Discussion Papers in Quantitative Tax Research 280, arqus - Arbeitskreis Quantitative Steuerlehre.
    20. Starkov, Egor, 2023. "Only time will tell: Credible dynamic signaling," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    21. Busso, Matias & Ibáñez, Ana María & Messina, Julián & Quigua, Juliana, 2023. "Preferences for redistribution in Latin America," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 120687, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • H24 - Public Economics - - Taxation, Subsidies, and Revenue - - - Personal Income and Other Nonbusiness Taxes and Subsidies
    • H5 - Public Economics - - National Government Expenditures and Related Policies
    • C93 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Field Experiments
    • D83 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Search; Learning; Information and Knowledge; Communication; Belief; Unawareness
    • D72 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Political Processes: Rent-seeking, Lobbying, Elections, Legislatures, and Voting Behavior
    • P16 - Political Economy and Comparative Economic Systems - - Capitalist Economies - - - Capitalist Institutions; Welfare State

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:kap:pubcho:v:203:y:2025:i:1:d:10.1007_s11127-024-01187-9. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.