IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/fistud/v42y2021i3-4p431-455.html

Public attitudes to a wealth tax: the importance of ‘capacity to pay’

Author

Listed:
  • Karen Rowlingson
  • Amrita Sood
  • Trinh Tu

Abstract

In this paper, we present findings from the first ever study, to our knowledge, to focus in detail on public attitudes to an annual wealth tax. We start with a brief review of relevant recent studies before outlining the mixed methods used, which involved a nationally representative survey of 2,243 members of the general public and four focus groups conducted during the summer of 2020. The study aimed to measure, explore and explain the overall levels of support for a wealth tax compared with other taxes, the arguments for and against a wealth tax, and opinions on the particular design of such a tax. Key findings include high levels of public support for a wealth tax compared with other taxes, and support for the base of the tax to include financial investments and property wealth (after excluding the main home). The most popular rate/threshold combination is for the tax to be levied at a rate of at least 1 per cent over £500,000. Support for the tax appears to be driven by a combination of rational self‐interest and beliefs about fairness but, in particular, the public are keen for the tax to be focused on those with capacity to contribute the most.

Suggested Citation

  • Karen Rowlingson & Amrita Sood & Trinh Tu, 2021. "Public attitudes to a wealth tax: the importance of ‘capacity to pay’," Fiscal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 42(3-4), pages 431-455, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:fistud:v:42:y:2021:i:3-4:p:431-455
    DOI: 10.1111/1475-5890.12282
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-5890.12282
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/1475-5890.12282?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Bartels, Larry M., 2006. "A Tale of Two Tax Cuts, a Wage Squeeze, and a Tax Credit," National Tax Journal, National Tax Association;National Tax Journal, vol. 59(3), pages 403-423, September.
    3. Krupnikov, Yanna & Levine, Adam Seth & Lupia, Arthur & Prior, Markus, 2006. "Public Ignorance and Estate Tax Repeal: The Effect of Partisan Differences and Survey Incentives," National Tax Journal, National Tax Association;National Tax Journal, vol. 59(3), pages 425-437, September.
    4. Osterloh, Steffen & Debus, Marc, 2012. "Partisan politics in corporate taxation," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 28(2), pages 192-207.
    5. 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.
    6. Hills, John, 2002. "Following or leading public opinion? Social security policy and public attitudes since 1997," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 4193, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    7. 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.
    8. Scheve, Kenneth & Stasavage, David, 2012. "Democracy, War, and Wealth: Lessons from Two Centuries of Inheritance Taxation," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 106(1), pages 81-102, February.
    9. Scheve, Kenneth & Stasavage, David, 2010. "The Conscription of Wealth: Mass Warfare and the Demand for Progressive Taxation," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 64(4), pages 529-561, October.
    10. Åsa Lofgren & Katarina Nordblom, 2009. "Puzzling tax attitudes and labels," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(18), pages 1809-1812.
    11. Tania Burchardt & Abigail Davis & Ian Gough & Katharina Hecht & Donald Hirsch & Karen Rowlingson & Kate Summers, 2020. "Living on Different Incomes in London: Can public consensus identify a 'riches line'?," CASE Reports casereport127, Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion, LSE.
    12. 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.
    13. John Hills, 2002. "Following or Leading Public Opinion? Social Security Policy and Public Attitudes Since 1997," Fiscal Studies, Institute for Fiscal Studies, vol. 23(4), pages 539-558, December.
    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. Glen Loutzenhiser & Elizabeth Mann, 2021. "Liquidity issues: solutions for the asset rich, cash poor," Fiscal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 42(3-4), pages 651-675, September.
    2. José María Tubío-Sánchez & Santiago Lago-Peñas & Xoaquín Fernández-Leiceaga & María Cadaval-Sampedro, 2025. "Taxing wealth or capital income? The impact of political ideology on property tax policy in Spain: A quasi-experimental study," IDEAGOV Working Papers WP2502, IDEAGOV - International Center for Decentralization and Governance.
    3. Arun Advani & Helen Miller & Andy Summers, 2021. "Taxes on wealth: time for another look?," Fiscal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 42(3-4), pages 389-395, September.
    4. Ferreira, João V. & Ramoglou, Stratos & Savva, Foivos & Vlassopoulos, Michael, 2024. ""Should CEOs' Salaries Be Capped?" A Survey Experiment on Limitarian Preferences," IZA Discussion Papers 17171, IZA Network @ LISER.
    5. Adrien Fabre & Thomas Douenne & Linus Mattauch, 2023. "International Attitudes Toward Global Policies," Working Papers 2023.08, FAERE - French Association of Environmental and Resource Economists.
    6. Arun Advani & George Bangham & Jack Leslie, 2021. "The UK's wealth distribution and characteristics of high‐wealth households," Fiscal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 42(3-4), pages 397-430, September.
    7. Javier Olivera & Philippe Kerm, 2022. "Public support for tax policies in COVID-19 times: evidence from Luxembourg," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 29(6), pages 1395-1418, December.
    8. Stuart Adam & Helen Miller, 2021. "The economic arguments for and against a wealth tax," Fiscal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 42(3-4), pages 457-483, September.
    9. Summers, Andy, 2022. "Is it possible to tax the super-rich?," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 121990, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    10. Kongshøj, Kristian & Hedegaard, Troels Fage, 2025. "Limits to degrowth? Exploring patterns of support for and resistance against degrowth policies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 237(C).

    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, 2023. "(Mis-)perceptions, information, and political polarization," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 119268, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    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. Kaetana Numa, 2025. "Fiscal illusion at the individual level," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 203(1), pages 105-137, April.
    5. Marina Dodlova & Anna Gioblas, 2017. "Regime type, inequality, and redistributive transfers in developing countries," WIDER Working Paper Series wp-2017-30, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    6. Westberg, Nina Bruvik & Skjeflo, Sofie Waage & Kallbekken, Steffen, 2025. "The power of information: A survey experiment on public support for electricity price compensation schemes," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 206(C).
    7. 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, IZA Network @ LISER.
    8. Lukas Haffert, 2019. "War mobilization or war destruction? The unequal rise of progressive taxation revisited," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 14(1), pages 59-82, March.
    9. Mijs, Jonathan Jan Benjamin, 2019. "The Paradox of Inequality: Income Inequality and Belief in Meritocracy go Hand in Hand," SocArXiv dcr9b, Center for Open Science.
    10. Stanley L. Winer, 2016. "The Political Economy of Taxation: Power, Structure, Redistribution," Carleton Economic Papers 16-15, Carleton University, Department of Economics.
    11. Roel Beetsma & Alex Cukierman & Massimo Giuliodori, 2016. "Political Economy of Redistribution in the United States in the Aftermath of World War II--Evidence and Theory," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 1-40, November.
    12. Jannis Bischof & Joachim Gassen & Anna Rohlfing-Bastian & Davud Rostam-Afschar & Caren Sureth-Sloane, 2024. "Accounting for Transparency: a Framework and Three Applications in Tax, Managerial, and Financial Accounting," Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research, Springer, vol. 76(4), pages 573-611, December.
    13. Micheletto, Luca & Moore, Dylan T. & Reck, Daniel & Slemrod, Joel, 2025. "An inverse-Ramsey tax rule," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 251(C).
    14. Lin Yang, 2018. "The relationship between poverty and inequality: Resource constraint mechanisms," CASE Papers /212, Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion, LSE.
    15. Zakharov, Alexei & Chapkovski, Philipp, 2025. "The effect of war on redistribution preferences," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 241(C).
    16. Gordon Anderson & Alessio Farcomeni & Grazia Pittau & Roberto Zelli, 2014. "A new approach to measuring and studying the characteristics of class membership: The progress of poverty, inequality and polarization of income classes in urban China," Working Papers tecipa-521, University of Toronto, Department of Economics.
    17. Alberto Alesina & Bryony Reich & Alessandro Riboni, 2017. "Nation-Building, Nationalism, and Wars," Working Papers 2017-80, Center for Research in Economics and Statistics.
    18. Ardanaz, Martín & Hübscher, Evelyne & Keefer, Philip & Sattler, Thomas, 2022. "Policy Misperceptions, Information, and the Demand for Redistributive Tax Reform: Experimental Evidence from Latin American Countries," IDB Publications (Working Papers) 12607, Inter-American Development Bank.
    19. Jakobsson, Niklas, 2009. "Why do you want lower taxes? Preferences regarding municipal income tax rates," Working Papers in Economics 345, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.
    20. repec:aia:aiaswp:wp50 is not listed on IDEAS
    21. Wright, Reilly & Aldama, Abraham, 2023. "Not all luck is created equal: Sources of income inequality and willingness to redistribute," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).

    More about this item

    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:wly:fistud:v:42:y:2021:i:3-4:p:431-455. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1475-5890 .

    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.