Tax proceeds provide the funding base for the welfare state. However, little is known about how taxes affect public support for welfare programs. We contend that the design features of the tax sources of welfare programs can affect Americans’ welfare preferences. Moreover, these effects may vary depending on citizens’ ideological beliefs and income levels. Through conducting a conjoint experiment, we explore how people of different political ideologies and income levels respond to welfare programs’ tax sources. Our analysis suggests that tax salience considerably affects welfare attitudes. We also find that information about progressive taxes funding welfare programs has a more pronounced negative impact on welfare support among high-income citizens, while details about regressive tax sources have a more substantial dampening impact on low-income individuals. However, political ideology does not significantly shape citizens’ welfare preferences when they receive information about federal or state taxes that fund welfare programs.
AshokV. L.HuberG. A. (2020). Do means of program delivery and distributional consequences affect policy support? Experimental evidence about the sources of citizens’ policy opinions. Political Behavior, 42(4), 1097–1118. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-019-09534-z
2.
AuslenM.PhillipsJ. H. (2024). Divided by income? Policy preferences of the rich and poor within the Democratic and Republican parties. Political Behavior, 46(4), 2473–2495. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-024-09927-9
3.
AvdagicS.SavageL. (2024). Does the framing of immigration induce welfare chauvinism? The effects of negativity bias and motivated reasoning. Political Behavior, 46(4), 2169–2189. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-024-09913-1
4.
Ballard-RosaC.MartinL.ScheveK. (2017). The structure of American income tax policy preferences. The Journal of Politics, 79(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1086/687324
5.
BansakK.HainmuellerJ.HopkinsD. J.YamamotoT. (2023). Using conjoint experiments to analyze election outcomes: The essential role of the average marginal component effect. Political Analysis, 31(4), 500–518. https://doi.org/10.1017/pan.2022.16
6.
BarabasJ.JeritJ. (2009). Estimating the causal effects of media coverage on policy-specific knowledge. American Journal of Political Science, 53(1), 73–89. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2008.00358.x
7.
BarnesL.BlumenauJ.LauderdaleB. E. (2022). Measuring attitudes toward public spending using a multivariate tax summary experiment. American Journal of Political Science, 66(1), 205–221. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12643
8.
BerensS.GelepithisM. (2019). Welfare state structure, inequality, and public attitudes towards progressive taxation. Socio-Economic Review, 17(4), 823–850. https://doi.org/10.1093/ser/mwx063
9.
BerinskyA. J.MargolisM. F.SancesM. W.WarshawC. (2021). Using screeners to measure respondent attention on self-administered surveys: Which items and how many?Political Science Research and Methods, 9(2), 430–437. https://doi.org/10.1017/psrm.2019.53
10.
BoittinM. L.FisherR. S.MoC. H. (2024). Evidence of caste-class discrimination from a conjoint analysis of law enforcement officers. American Political Science Review, 118(1), 504–511. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055422001496
11.
BrownleeW. E. (2016). Federal taxation in America: A history. Cambridge University Press.
12.
CallaghanT.OlsonA. (2017). Unearthing the hidden welfare state: Race, political attitudes, and unforeseen consequences. The Journal of Race, Ethnicity, and Politics, 2(1), 63–87. https://doi.org/10.1017/rep.2016.26
13.
CampbellA. L. (2011). Policy feedbacks and the impact of policy designs on public opinion. Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law, 36(6), 961–973. https://doi.org/10.1215/03616878-1460542
ConlanT.DinanJ. (2007). Federalism, the Bush Administration, and the transformation of American conservatism. Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 37(3), 279–303. https://doi.org/10.1093/publius/pjm009
16.
CookF. L.JacobsL. R.KimD. (2010). Trusting what you know: Information, knowledge, and confidence in social security. The Journal of Politics, 72(2), 397–412. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022381610000034
17.
CrepazM. M. L. (2008). Trust beyond borders: Immigration, the welfare state, and identity in modern societies. University of Michigan Press.
18.
De La CuestaB.MartinL.MilnerH. V.NielsonD. L. (2023). Do indirect taxes bite? How hiding taxes erases accountability demands from citizens. The Journal of Politics, 85(4), 1305–1320. https://doi.org/10.1086/724962
19.
DimickM.RuedaD.StegmuellerD. (2017). The altruistic rich? Inequality and other-regarding preferences for redistribution. Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 11(4), 385–439. https://doi.org/10.1561/100.00015099
20.
FaricyC.EllisC. (2014). Public attitudes toward social spending in the United States: The differences between direct spending and tax expenditures. Political Behavior, 36(1), 53–76. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-013-9225-5
21.
FeldmanS.HuddyL.MarcusG. E. (2015). Going to war in Iraq: When citizens and the press matter. The University of Chicago Press.
22.
FeldmanS.ZallerJ. (1992). The political culture of ambivalence: Ideological responses to the welfare state. American Journal of Political Science, 36(1), 268–307. https://doi.org/10.2307/2111433
23.
GanghofS. (2006). Tax mixes and the size of the welfare state: Causal mechanisms and policy implications. Journal of European Social Policy, 16(4), 360–373. https://doi.org/10.1177/0958928706068274
24.
GilensM. (1999). Why Americans hate welfare: Race, media, and the politics of antipoverty policy. University of Chicago Press.
25.
GilensM. (2001). Political ignorance and collective policy preferences. American Political Science Review, 95(2), 379–396. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055401002222
26.
GraftonC.PermaloffA. (2005). Liberal and conservative dissensus in areas of domestic public policy other than business and economics. Policy Sciences, 38(1), 45–67. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-005-1811-x
GuardinoM.MettlerS. (2020). Revealing the “hidden welfare state”: How policy information influences public attitudes about tax expenditures. Journal of Behavioral Public Administration, 3(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.30636/jbpa.31.108
29.
HainmuellerJ.HangartnerD.YamamotoT. (2015). Validating vignette and conjoint survey experiments against real-world behavior. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(8), 2395–2400. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1416587112
30.
HainmuellerJ.HopkinsD. J.YamamotoT. (2014). Causal inference in conjoint analysis: Understanding multidimensional choices via stated preference experiments. Political Analysis, 22(1), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/mpt024
HansenK. J. (2023). Greed, envy, and admiration: The distinct nature of public opinion about redistribution from the rich. American Political Science Review, 117(1), 217–234. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055422000582
33.
HaselswerdtJ.BartelsB. L. (2015). Public opinion, policy tools, and the status quo: Evidence from a survey experiment. Political Research Quarterly, 68(3), 607–621. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912915591217
34.
Heide-JørgensenT. (2022). Payday and public opinion toward taxation. Public Opinion Quarterly, 86(2), 317–342. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfac003
35.
HowardC. (1997). The hidden welfare state: Tax expenditures and social policy in the United States. Princeton University Press.
36.
KatoJ. (2003). Regressive taxation and the welfare state: Path dependence and policy diffusion. Cambridge University Press.
37.
LeeperT. J.HoboltS. B.TilleyJ. (2020). Measuring subgroup preferences in conjoint experiments. Political Analysis, 28(2), 207–221. https://doi.org/10.1017/pan.2019.30
38.
LiebermanR. C. (2011). Shaping race policy: The United States in comparative perspective. Princeton University Press.
39.
LiversM. J. (2018). Conducting sound tax policy: Investigating public opinion and public knowledge of property tax in California. [Doctoral dissertation]. California State University.
MettlerS. (2011). The submerged state: How invisible government policies undermine American democracy. University of Chicago Press.
42.
MettlerS. (2012). Reconstituting the submerged state. In JacobsL.KingD. (Eds.), Obama at the crossroads: Politics, markets, and the battle for America’s future (1st ed., pp. 71–114). Oxford University Press.
43.
MichelmoreM. (2012). Tax and spend: The welfare state, tax politics, and the limits of American liberalism. University of Pennsylvania Press.
44.
PatashnikE.ZelizerJ. (2001). Paying for medicare: Benefits, budgets, and Wilbur Mills's policy legacy. Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law, 26(1), 7–36. https://doi.org/10.1215/03616878-26-1-7
45.
PetersenM. B. (2012). Social welfare as small-scale help: Evolutionary psychology and the deservingness heuristic. American Journal of Political Science, 56(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2011.00545.x
46.
QiH. (2025a). Immigration, government type, and social welfare spending. Policy Studies Journal, 53(2), 349–364. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.70015
47.
QiH. (2025b). Understanding public attitudes toward redistribution: Analysis by ideological subgroups. Public Opinion Quarterly, 89(3), 902–914. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfaf046
48.
QiH. (2026). Replication Data for: Tax Burden, Tax Types, and Public Support for Social Welfare Programs. https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/9N6PBH, Harvard Dataverse.
49.
QiH.HaselswerdtJ. (2024). Ideology, information, and social welfare preferences. American Politics Research, 52(1), 41–51. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X231206151
50.
RobinsonT. S.DuchR. M. (2024). How to detect heterogeneity in conjoint experiments. The Journal of Politics, 86(2), 412–427. https://doi.org/10.1086/727597
51.
SachwehP.EicherD. (2025). Deserving more? A vignette study on the role of self-interest and deservingness opinions for popular support for wealth taxation in Germany. Journal of Social Policy, 54(1), 141–159. https://doi.org/10.1017/S004727942200099X
SuminoT. (2016). Level or concentration? A cross-national analysis of public attitudes towards taxation policies. Social Indicators Research, 129(3), 1115–1134. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-015-1169-1
57.
TaubinskyD.Rees-JonesA. (2018). Attention variation and welfare: Theory and evidence from a tax salience experiment. The Review of Economic Studies, 85(4), 2462–2496. https://doi.org/10.1093/restud/rdx069
58.
TregerC. (2025). Changing the lens: The contingency of results from conjoint experiments on the outcome variable and the estimand. Research & Politics, 12(2), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1177/20531680251351238
59.
Van OorschotW. (2000). Who should get what, and why? On deservingness criteria and the conditionality of solidarity among the public. Policy & Politics, 28(1), 33–48. https://doi.org/10.1332/0305573002500811
60.
WangH. Y. (2024). Information, equal treatment, and support for regressive taxation: Experimental evidence from the United States. Political Behavior, 46(3), 1609–1632. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-023-09886-7
61.
WangS.JohnsonI.GroganJ.JainL.RudraA.HuntK.JosephK. (2025). Identifying subgroup and context effects in conjoint experiments. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2510.02123
62.
WilliamsonV. (2017a). Read my lips: Why Americans are proud to pay taxes. Princeton University Press.
WilliamsonV. (2025). The price of democracy: The revolutionary power of taxation in American history. Hachette Book Group.
66.
ZallerJ. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. Cambridge University Press.
67.
ZelizerJ. (2010). Rethinking the history of American conservatism. Reviews in American History, 38(2), 367–392. https://doi.org/10.1353/rah.0.0217
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.
