This paper examines attitudes toward taxes on the rich and middle class in the United States with emphasis on the impacts of political ideology and party identification. Using the 2016 General Social Survey, we estimate bivariate ordered probit models for a full cross-sectional sample, and subsamples stratified by party. Results suggest that proposals to reduce income and wealth inequalities and/or fund large federal expenditure increases by raising taxes on the rich will have difficulty in gaining the political traction necessary for success. Any proposal to raise taxes on both the rich and middle class has almost no chance of passage. Findings also indicate that party affiliation moderates ideological impacts on opinions of taxes on the rich and middle class, in some cases substantially.
AlesinaA.StantchevaS.TesoE.. 2018. “Intergenerational Mobility and Preferences for Redistribution.” American Economic Review108: 521–54. DOI: 10.1257/aer.20162015.
2.
Ballard-RosaC.MartinL.ScheveK.. 2017. “The Structure of American Income Tax Policy Preferences.” The Journal of Politics79: 1–16. DOI: 10.1086/687324.
3.
BarnesL.2015. “The Size and Shape of Government: Preferences Over Redistributive Tax Policy.” Socio-Economic Review13: 55–78. DOI: 10.1093/ser/mwu007.
4.
BenabouR. B.OkE. A.. 2001. “Social Mobility and the Demand for Redistribution: The Poum Hypothesis.” Quarterly Journal of Economics116: 447–87. DOI: 10.1162/00335530151144078.
5.
BenabouR. B.TiroleJ.. 2006. “Belief in a Just World and Redistributive Politics.” Quarterly Journal of Economics121: 699–746. DOI: 10.1162/qjec.2006.121.2.699.
6.
BivensJ.2019. “Thinking Seriously About What ‘Fiscal Responsibility’ Should Mean.” Economic Policy Institute, September 26.
7.
CanenN. J.KendallC.TrebbiF.. 2021. “Political Parties as Drivers of U.S. Polarization 1927–2018.” National Bureau of Economics Research. Working Paper 28296. Available fromhttp://www.nber.org/papers/w28296.
8.
CarminesE. G.EnsleyM. J.WagnerM. W.. 2012. “Political Ideology in American Politics: One, Two, or None?” The Forum10: 1–18. DOI: 10.1515/1540-8884.1526.
9.
CohenG. L.2003. “Party Over Policy: The Dominating Impact of Group Influence on Political Beliefs.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology85: 808–82. DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.85.5.808.
DiemerM. A.VoightA. M.MarchandA. D.BañalesJ.. 2019. “Political Identification, Political Ideology, and Critical Social Analysis of Inequality Among Marginalized Youth.” Developmental Psychology55: 538–49. DOI: 10.1037/dev0000559.
12.
DouthatR.2019. “One Cheer for the Green New Deal: At Least Our Future Socialist Overlords Aren’t Thinking Small.” New York Times, February 9.
13.
DruckmanJ. N.PetersonE.SlothuusR.. 2013. “How Elite Partisan Polarization Affects Public Opinion Formation.” American Political Science Review107: 57–79. DOI:10.1017/S0003055412000500.
14.
FrankoW.TolbertC. J.WitkoC.. 2013. “Inequality, Self-Interest, and Public Support for “Robin Hood” Tax Policies.” Political Research Quarterly66: 923–37. DOI: 10.1177/1065912913485441.
15.
GreeneW. H.HensherD. A.. 2010. Modeling Ordered Choices: A Primer. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
HeinemannF.HennighausenT.. 2010. “Don't Tax Me? Determinants of Individual Attitudes Toward Progressive Taxation.” ZEW Discussion Papers, No. 10-017, Zentrum für Europäische Wirtschaftsforschung (ZEW), Mannheim.
18.
HenningsenA.ToometO.. 2011. “MaxLik: A Package for Maximum Likelihood Estimation in R.” Computational Statistics26: 443–58. DOI: 10.1007/s00180-010-0217-1.
19.
HiltzikM.2019. “Memo to Conservatives: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Understands Taxes Better Than You Do.” Los Angeles Times, January 7.
20.
HowardM. C.2021. “Are Face Masks a Partisan Issue During the COVID-19 Pandemic? Differentiating Political Ideology and Political Party Affiliation.” International Journal of Psychology57: 153–60. DOI: 10.1002/ijop.12809.
21.
JenningsM. K.1992. “Ideological Thinking Among Mass Publics and Political Elites.” Public Opinion Quarterly56: 419–41. DOI: 10.1086/269335.
22.
JostJ. T.FredericoC. M.NapierJ. L.. 2009. “Political Ideology: Its Structure, Functions, and Elective Affinities.” Annual Review of Psychology60: 307–37. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163600.
23.
KannanV. D.VeazieP. J.. 2018. “Political Orientation, Political Environment, and Health Behaviors in the United States.” Preventive Medicine114: 95–101. DOI: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2018.06.011.
24.
KrugmanP.2019. “The Economics of Soaking The Rich: What Does Alexandria Ocasio Cortez Know About Tax Policy? A Lot.” New York Times, January 5.
25.
MalkaA.LelkesY.. 2010. “More Than Ideology: Conservative-Liberal Identity and Receptivity to Political Cues.” Social Justice Research23: 156–88. DOI: 10.1007/s11211-010-0114-3.
SaezE.ZucmanG.. 2019a. “Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Tax Hike Idea Is Not About Soaking the Rich: It’s About Curtailing Inequality and Saving Democracy.” New York Times, January 22.
34.
SaezE.ZucmanG.. 2019b. “How to Tax Our Way Back to Justice.” New York Times, October 11.
35.
SmithT. W.MarsdenP. V.HoutM.. 2019. “General Social Surveys, 1972–2018.” [machine readable data file].” edited by Principal Investigator, SmithTom W.; Co-Principal Investigators, MarsdenP.V.HoutM., NORC. Chicago: National Opinion Research Center, 2019. 1 data file (64,814 logical records) and 1 codebook (3,758 pp).
36.
StephensB.2019. “Yes, Venezuela Is A Socialist Catastrophe: In The Age of A.O.C., The Lesson Must Be Learned Again.” New York Times, January 25.
37.
SwedlowB.2008. “Beyond Liberal and Conservative: Two-Dimensional Conceptions of Ideology and the Structure of Political Attitudes and Values.” Journal of Political Ideologies13: 157–80. DOI: 10.1080/13569310802075969.
38.
TerzaJ. V.2018. “Two-Stage Residual Inclusion Estimation in Health Services Research and Health Economics.” Health Services Research53: 1890–99. DOI: 10.1111%2F1475-6773.12714.
39.
TreierS.HillygusD. S.. 2009. “The Nature of Political Ideology in the Contemporary Electorate.” Public Opinion Quarterly73: 679–703.
40.
WilliamsR.2016. “Understanding and Interpreting Generalized Ordered Logit Models.” Journal of Mathmatical Sociology40: 7–20. DOI: 10.1080/0022250X.2015.1112384.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
