Completing your taxes can seem like an exceptionally intricate endeavor. Nonetheless, it may be less complicated than deciphering public perceptions regarding taxation.

A number of years back, MIT political scientist Andrea Campbell embarked on a comprehensive research initiative to grasp public sentiment about taxes. Her work has now culminated in a new publication revealing numerous intricacies about people’s attitudes towards taxation. Among these intricacies lies a significant contradiction: In the United States, the majority assert they endorse the concept of progressive taxation — where individuals with higher incomes contribute larger portions of their earnings. Yet, the public also expresses a preference for specific tax types that are regressive, disproportionately impacting lower- and middle-income individuals.

For example, state sales taxes are seen as regressive, since those with lower incomes allocate a greater percentage of their earnings to spending, causing sales taxes to consume a larger share of their income. However, a considerable segment of the population still regards them as equitable, partly due to the fact that the affluent cannot evade them.

“On an abstract or theoretical level, individuals claim to favor progressive tax structures over flat or regressive ones,” Campbell states. “However, when examining public perceptions about specific taxes, perspectives tend to invert. Citizens describe federal and state income taxes as unjust, but they deem sales taxes, which are quite regressive, as fair. Their opinions on individual taxes contrast their overarching beliefs.”

Currently, Campbell delves into these subjects thoroughly in her book, “Taxation and Resentment,” just released by Princeton University Press. Campbell is the Arthur and Ruth Sloan Professor of Political Science at MIT and has previously headed the MIT Department of Political Science.

Documenting the facts

Campbell initially intended “Taxation and Resentment” to be a purely historical examination of the topic. However, the lack of a single book that consolidates public-opinion data in this domain was striking. Consequently, she gathered data dating back to the end of World War II and even created and conducted several of her own public research surveys, which help bolster the data presented in the book.

“Political scientists produce a great deal of writing on public sentiments toward spending in the United States, but not as much concerning attitudes toward taxation,” Campbell observes. “The public-opinion record is notably sparse.”

The intricacies of U.S. public opinion on taxes are clearly tied to the existence of diverse types of taxes, including federal and state income taxes, sales taxes, payroll taxes, estate taxes, and capital gains taxes. The most recognized is undoubtedly the federal income tax, whose nuances and loopholes often frustrate citizens.

“That really captivates the public’s imagination,” Campbell remarks. “Focusing on federal income tax has proven to be an astute tactic for those advocating for cuts. People perceive it as unjust because they observe all the tax advantages the wealthy receive and think, ‘I don’t have access to those.’ Those advantages complicate the system, diminish people’s understanding, amplify their frustration, and ultimately exist to enable affluent individuals to pay less. Thus, a cycle ensues.”

Nevertheless, that same perception of unfairness does not extend to other types of taxation. Large majorities have favored reducing the estate tax, for example, even though the threshold for the federal estate tax — $13.5 million — only applies to a small number of families.

Additionally, the public appears to view sales taxes as equitable due to their straightforwardness and absence of loopholes — an understandable perspective, yet one that overlooks how state sales taxes, in contrast to state income taxes, impose a greater burden on middle-class and lower-income workers.

“A regressive tax like a sales tax is harder to grasp,” Campbell notes. “Everyone pays the same rate, giving it the appearance of a flat tax, but as income rises, the impact of that tax decreases. And that is quite tough for individuals to comprehend.”

Overall, as Campbell outlines, income levels hold minimal predictive power regarding tax sentiments. Party affiliation also exerts less influence than many might assume — Democrats and Republicans diverge on taxes, although not as drastically, in certain respects, as political independents, who often maintain the most anti-tax stances of all.

Meanwhile, Campbell has found that white Americans who harbor greater concerns regarding the distribution of public resources among various demographic groups exhibit higher resistance to taxes compared to those who do not share such concerns. Conversely, Black and Hispanic Americans, who may find themselves adversely affected by regressive policies, also display significantly anti-tax viewpoints, although they tend to show more support for the governmental functions financed by taxation.

“Numerous factors and elements shape public opinion on taxes,” Campbell states. “Various political and demographic groups possess unique reasons for opposing the current state of affairs.”

How significant is public opinion?

The research presented in “Taxation and Resentment” will be highly beneficial to a variety of academics. However, Campbell notes that political scientists lack a consensus on the extent to which public opinion sways policy. Some experts argue that donors and lobbyists fundamentally shape policy, often disregarding public sentiment. Yet Campbell disagrees with the notion that public opinion is inconsequential. She cites the vigorous and successful public advocacy to lower the estate tax in the early 2000s as an example.

“If public opinion is negligible, then why were there extensive PR initiatives aimed at persuading people that the estate tax was detrimental to small businesses, farmers, and other groups?” Campbell questions. “It’s evident that public opinion does hold weight. It’s considerably easier to implement these policies when the public is supportive rather than opposed. While public sentiment isn’t the sole factor in policymaking, it is a contributing element.”

Indeed, even within the shaping of public opinion, there exist complexities and nuances, as Campbell highlights in her book. A system of progressive taxation means those taxed at the highest tiers are often the most motivated to resist the system — and may significantly influence public sentiment from the top down.

Academics in the field have lauded “Taxation and Resentment.” Martin Gilens, chair of the Department of Public Policy at the University of California at Los Angeles, has referred to it as an “important and very welcome addition to the literature on public attitudes concerning public policies … featuring rich and often unexpected conclusions.” Vanessa Williamson, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, remarked that the book is “essential reading for anyone seeking to comprehend what Americans truly think about taxes. The breadth of data Campbell presents on this issue is unparalleled, and the thoroughness of her analysis of public opinion over time and across demographics is a monumental accomplishment.”

For her part, Campbell aspires for individuals across various sectors to engage with the book — including policymakers, scholars from diverse disciplines, and students. Undoubtedly, she believes that, after investigating the topic, more individuals have the potential to enhance their understanding of taxes.

“The tax system is intricate,” Campbell asserts, “and individuals do not always grasp their own interests. A veil often surrounds the topic of taxes.”