Influential economic models predict that as inequality increases, the public will demand greater redistribution. However, there is limited research into the determinants of support for redistributive tax increases because such proposals have been so rare in America in recent decades. We use Washington State’s Proposition 1098 to examine how economic self-interest, concerns about inequality, and partisanship influence support for redistributive taxation. The results show that all of these factors influenced support, with strong support among the lower income, indicating that when the distributional implications of policies are clear, citizens can translate their self-interest and broad attitudes into congruent redistributive preferences.
BartelsLarry M.2005. “Homer Gets a Tax Cut: Inequality and Public Policy in the American Mind.” Perspectives on Politics3 (1): 15–31.
2.
BartelsLarry M.2008. Unequal Democracy: The Political Economy of the New Gilded Age. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
3.
BenabouRoland. 2000. “Unequal Societies: Income Distribution and the Social Contract.” American Economic Review90 (1): 96–129.
4.
BerinskyAdam J.2007. “Assuming the Costs of War: Events, Elites and American Support For Military Conflict.” The Journal of Politics69 (4): 975–97.
5.
BowlerShaunDonovanTodd. 1994. “Economic Conditions and Voting On Ballot Propositions.” American Politics Research22 (1): 27–40.
6.
BowlerShaunDonovanTodd. 1998. Demanding Choices: Opinion, Voting, and Direct Democracy. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
7.
BowlerShaunDonovanToddTolbertCaroline J. eds. 1998. Citizens as Legislators: Direct Democracy in the United States. Columbus: Ohio State University Press.
8.
BrantonRegina P.2003. “Examining Individual-Level Voting Behavior on State Ballot Propositions.” Political Research Quarterly56 (3): 367–77.
9.
CampbellAngusConversePhilip E.MillerWarren E.StrokesDonald E.1960. The American Voter. New York: Wiley.
10.
ChongDennisCitrinJackConleyPatricia. 2001. “When Self-Interest Matters.” Political Psychology22 (3): 541–70.
11.
ChongDennisDruckmanJames N.2007a. “A Theory of Framing and Opinion Formation in Competitive Elite Environments.” Journal of Communication57 (1): 99–118.
12.
ChongDennisDruckmanJames N.2007b. “Framing Public Opinion in Competitive Democracies.” American Political Science Review101 (4): 637–55.
13.
CitrinJackGreenDonald P.MusteChristopherWongCara. 1997. “Public Opinion toward Immigration Reform: The Role of Economic Motivations.” The Journal of Politics59 (3): 858–81.
14.
DohertyDanielGerberAlan S.GreenDonald P.2006. “Personal Income and Attitudes toward Redistribution: A Study of Lottery Winners.” Political Psychology27 (3): 441–58.
15.
DonovanToddTolbertCaroline J.SmithDaniel A.2008. “Priming Presidential Votes by Direct Democracy.” The Journal of Politics70 (04): 1217–31.
16.
DruckmanJames N.2001. “The Implications of Framing Effects for Citizen Competence.” Political Behavior23 (3): 225–56.
17.
DruckmanJames N.2004. “Political Preference Formation: Competition, Deliberation, and the (Ir)relevance of Framing Effects.” American Political Science Review98 (4): 671–86.
18.
FreemanRichard B.RogersJoel. 2007. “The Promise of Progressive Federalism.”In Remaking America: Democracy and Public Policy in an Age of Inequality, edited by SossJoeHackerJacob S.MettlerSuzanne, 205–27. New York: Russell Sage.
19.
GarandJames C.2010. “Income Inequality, Party Polarization and Roll Call Voting in the US Senate.” The Journal of Politics72 (4): 1109–28.
GelmanAndrewParkDavidShorBorisBafumiJosephCortinaJeronimo. 2008. Red State, Blue State, Rich State, Poor State: Why Americans Vote the Way They Do. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
22.
GerberElisabeth R.1999. The Populist Paradox: Interest Group Influence and the Promise of Direct Legislation. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
23.
GilensMartin. 2009. “Preference Gaps and Inequality in Representation.” Political Science and Politics42 (2): 335–41.
24.
HackerJacob S.PiersonPaul. 2005. “Abandoning the Middle: The Bush Tax Cuts and the Limits of Democratic Control.” Perspectives on Politics3 (1): 33–53.
25.
HackerJacob S.PiersonPaul. 2010. Winner-Take-All Politics: How Washington Made the Rich Richer—And Turned Its Back on the Middle Class. New York: Simon & Schuster.
26.
KawachiIchiroKennedyBruce P.LochnerKimberlyProthrow-StithDeborah. 1997. “Social Capital, Income Inequality, and Mortality.” American Journal of Public Health87 (9): 1491–8.
27.
KellyNathan J.2009. The Politics of Income Inequality in the United States. New York: Cambridge University Press.
28.
KellyNathan J.EnnsPeter K.2010. “Inequality and the Dynamics of Public Opinion: The Self-reinforcing Link between Economic Inequality and Mass Preferences.” The American Journal of Political Science54 (4): 855–70.
29.
KellyNathan J.WitkoChristopher. 2012. “Federalism and American Inequality.” 2010. The Journal of Politics74 (2): 414–26.
30.
KrosnickJon A.KinderDonald R.1990. “Altering the Foundations of Support for the President through Priming.” American Political Science Review84 (2): 497–512.
LauRichard R.RedlawskDavid P. 2006. How Voters Decide: Information Processing during an Election Campaign. New York: Cambridge University Press.
33.
LauRichard R.SmithRichard A.FiskeSusan T.1991. “Political Beliefs, Policy Interpretations, and Political Persuasion.” The Journal of Politics53 (3): 646–75.
34.
LenzGabriel. 2009. “Learning and Opinion Change, Not Priming: Reconsidering the Priming Hypothesis.” American Journal of Political Science53 (4): 821–37.
35.
LupiaAurthur. 1994. “Shortcuts Versus Encyclopedias: Information and Voting Behavior in California Insurance Reform Elections.” American Political Science Review88 (1): 63–76.
36.
LupiaAurthurLevineAdam SethMenningJesse O.SinGisela. 2007. “Were Bush Tax Cut Supporters ‘Simply Ignorant?’ A Second Look at Conservatives and Liberals in ‘Homer Gets a Tax Cut.’”Perspectives on Politics5 (4): 773–84.
37.
MannThomas E.OrnsteinNorman. 2012. It’s Even Worse Than It Looks: How the American Constitutional System Collided with the New Politics of Extremism. New York: Basic Books.
38.
MarkusGregory B.1988. “The Impact of Personal and National Economic Conditions on the Presidential Vote: A Pooled Cross-Sectional Analysis.” American Journal of Political Science32 (1): 137–54.
McCallLeslieKenworthyLane. 2009. “Americans’ Social Policy Preferences in the Era of Rising Inequality.” Perspectives on Politics7 (3): 459–84.
41.
McCartyNolanPooleKeith T.RosenthalHoward. 2008. Polarized America: The Dance of Unequal Riches. Cambridge: MIT Press.
42.
MeltzerAllen H.RichardScott F.1981. “A Rational Theory of the Size of Government.” Journal of Political Economy89 (5): 914–27.
43.
MutzDiana C.2007. “Effects of ‘In-Your-Face’ Television Discourse on Perceptions of a Legitimate Opposition.” American Political Science Review101 (04): 621–35.
44.
NelsonThomas E.ClawsonRosalee AOxleyZoe M.1997. “Media Framing of a Civil Liberties Conflict and Its Effect on Tolerance.” American Political Science Review91 (3): 567–83.
45.
NelsonThomas E.KinderDonald R.1996. “Issue Frames and Group-Centrism in American Public Opinion.” Journal of Politics58 (4): 1055–78.
46.
NicholsonStephen P.2005. Voting the Agenda: Candidates, Elections, and Ballot Propositions. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
47.
PageBenjamin I.JacobsLawrence R.2009. Class War? What Americans Really Think about Economic Inequality. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.]
SchattschneiderElmer E.1975. The Semi-Sovereign People: A Realist’s View of Democracy in America. New York: Wadsworth.
51.
SchneiderSaundra K.JacobyWilliam G.2005. “Elite Discourse and American Public Opinion: The Case of Welfare Spending.” Political Research Quarterly58 (3): 367–79.
52.
SearsDavid O.LauRichard R.TylerTom R.HarrisHarris M. AllenJr.1980. “Self-Interest vs. Symbolic Politics in Policy Attitudes and Presidential Voting.” The American Political Science Review74 (3): 670–84.
53.
SmithDaniel A.TolbertCaroline. 2001. “The Initiative to Party: Partisanship and Ballot Initiatives in California.” Party Politics7 (6): 739–57.
54.
SmithDaniel A.TolbertCaroline. 2004. Educated by Initiative: The Effects of Direct Democracy on Citizens and Political Organizations in the American States. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
55.
SmithDaniel A.TolbertCaroline. 2010. “Direct Democracy, Public Opinion, and Candidate Choice.” Public Opinion Quarterly74 (1): 85–108.
56.
TolbertCarolineBowenDaniel C.DonovanTodd. 2009. “Initiative Campaigns: Direct Democracy and Voter Mobilization.” American Politics Research37 (1): 155–92.
57.
VavreckLynn. 2007. “The Exaggerated Effects of Advertising on Turnout: The Dangers of Self-Reports.” Quarterly Journal of Political Science2 (4): 325–43.
58.
WitkoChristopher. 2003. “Cold War Belligerence and U.S. Public Opinion toward Defense Spending.” American Politics Research31 (4): 379–403.
59.
WitkoChristopherNewmarkAdam J.2005. “Business Mobilization and Public Policy in the U.S. States.” Social Science Quarterly86 (2): 356–67.
