Subscribe
The latest psychology and neuroscience discoveries.
My Account
  • Mental Health
  • Social Psychology
  • Cognitive Science
  • Psychopharmacology
  • Neuroscience
  • About
No Result
View All Result
PsyPost
PsyPost
No Result
View All Result
Home Exclusive Social Psychology Political Psychology

Americans support economic redistribution when the wealthy pay or the costs are hidden

by Eric W. Dolan
April 3, 2025
in Political Psychology
[Adobe Stock]

[Adobe Stock]

Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
Follow PsyPost on Google News

A new study published in Political Research Quarterly sheds light on a longstanding puzzle in American politics: why voters often express strong support for government programs but hesitate when those programs come with visible costs. The findings indicate that Americans broadly support redistributive economic policies—but only when the costs are hidden or shifted to a small, wealthy minority. Support drops significantly when the burden of paying for these policies becomes more visible or widely shared.

Most prior surveys have asked people if they support increased government spending or if they favor higher taxes. But these questions are usually asked in isolation, without linking the benefits of a program to the costs of funding it. In real-world policymaking, however, spending decisions almost always involve trade-offs. Yale University political scientist Sam Zacher wanted to understand how Americans respond when those trade-offs are made explicit—when a policy benefit is directly tied to who would pay for it.

To do this, Zacher designed a survey that went beyond standard public opinion polls. The survey, fielded in late 2022 and early 2023, included 1,201 participants, with an intentional oversample of high-income respondents. About 382 of the participants had household incomes above $200,000. The survey was designed to measure support for a wide range of economic policy proposals, both in isolation and when paired with specific tax increases. Participants were asked to rate their support on a scale from 0 to 100, with labels indicating levels of support or opposition.

Each respondent was randomly assigned to one of two groups of policy “benefits,” such as increased funding for K–12 education, public pre-kindergarten, housing, health care, and renewable energy. Some proposals were more moderate (like raising the minimum wage to $11), while others were more ambitious (like transitioning to single-payer health care). All respondents saw the same set of “cost” options: five types of tax increases, including higher income taxes on those earning over $200,000 or $1 million, increased capital gains taxes, and an across-the-board tax increase on all incomes. Each policy benefit was also paired with a specific tax cost, forming a “bundle.” For example, one bundled proposal asked whether participants supported raising taxes on households earning over $1 million to fund public K–12 schools.

Zacher’s findings reveal just how sensitive Americans are to these policy trade-offs. Across the board, support for policy benefits was much higher when the cost was not mentioned. But when a tax increase was included—especially one affecting a broad swath of the public—support fell sharply. For example, a majority of Americans expressed support for public pre-kindergarten programs when asked in isolation. But when the proposal required raising taxes on all income levels, support dropped by nearly 30 percentage points.

The public was most supportive of redistributive policy bundles that placed the financial burden on the very wealthy. Proposals that paired tax hikes on incomes above $1 million with increased spending on popular services like renewable energy or public education consistently received majority or even supermajority support. On the other hand, proposals that required tax increases on all income levels—regardless of the benefit—never crossed the 50% support threshold.

Interestingly, support for raising taxes on the wealthy was sometimes even higher than support for the policy bundle itself. This suggests that while Americans may support “soaking the rich,” they can become more skeptical when the tax increase is linked to a particular government program. This effect may reflect general hesitation about complex policy changes or a lack of trust in government implementation.

Zacher also found that Americans’ preferences are shaped not just by their overall ideology or partisan identity, but also by their economic self-interest. Affluent respondents were much more sensitive to the potential costs of redistribution. When a policy proposal would impose direct tax increases on high-income households, support among affluent participants dropped significantly, even when the benefit was widely popular.

This pattern held even within political parties. Among Republicans, the gap between low-income and high-income voters was especially large. Wealthier Republicans were far more likely to oppose redistributive policy bundles than their less affluent counterparts. Among Democrats, the divisions were smaller but still present, especially when policy bundles included progressive tax increases.

The study also explored whether political donors—who often have outsize influence in the policy process—differed in their preferences. Among Democrats, donors and non-donors held similar views overall, though there were some differences on specific policies. For Republicans, donor preferences appeared more moderate than expected, though the small sample size made it difficult to draw firm conclusions.

But as with any study, there are limitations to consider. Zacher’s survey included a specific set of policy combinations, meaning that not all possible trade-offs were tested. The study also focused primarily on economic policies and did not explore issues like immigration or social policy, which can also have redistributive effects. Additionally, because the survey was conducted online, it may have excluded some populations who are less likely to participate in web-based surveys.

The study, “What Forms of Redistribution Do Americans Want? Understanding Preferences for Policy Benefit-Cost Tradeoffs,” was published online on June 14, 2024.

TweetSendScanShareSendPinShareShareShareShareShare

RELATED

Fascinating study reveals how Trump’s moral rhetoric diverges from common Republican language
Donald Trump

Viral AI-images highlight how Trump engages in “victimcould,” scholar argues

July 6, 2025

How can one of the world's most powerful men also be its biggest victim? A new paper argues it’s a political strategy based on hypothetical, not actual, harm—a concept the author calls “victimcould” used to justify present-day aggression.

Read moreDetails
New study suggests Donald Trump’s “fake news” attacks are backfiring
Political Psychology

Scientists are uncovering more and more unsettling facts about our politics

July 5, 2025

Why has politics become so personal? The answers may lie in our minds. These 13 studies from the new science of political behavior reveal the hidden psychological forces—from personality to primal fear—that are driving us further apart.

Read moreDetails
These common sounds can impair your learning, according to new psychology research
Political Psychology

Despite political tensions, belief in an impending U.S. civil war remains low

July 4, 2025

A new national survey finds that only a small fraction of Americans believe civil war is likely or necessary.

Read moreDetails
Racial and religious differences help explain why unmarried voters lean Democrat
Political Psychology

Student loan debt doesn’t deter civic engagement — it may actually drive it, new research suggests

July 3, 2025

Americans with student loan debt are more likely to vote and engage in political activities than those without debt, likely because they see government as responsible and capable of addressing their financial burden through policy change.

Read moreDetails
Scientists just uncovered a surprising illusion in how we remember time
Mental Health

New research suggests the conservative mental health advantage is a myth

July 3, 2025

Do conservatives really have better mental well-being than liberals? A new study suggests the answer depends entirely on how you ask. The well-known ideological gap disappears when "mental health" is replaced with the less-stigmatized phrase "overall mood."

Read moreDetails
New psychology study sheds light on mysterious “feelings of presence” during isolation
Political Psychology

People who think “everyone agrees with me” are more likely to support populism

July 1, 2025

People who wrongly believe that most others share their political views are more likely to support populist ideas, according to a new study. These false beliefs can erode trust in democratic institutions and fuel resentment toward political elites.

Read moreDetails
Radical leaders inspire stronger devotion because they make followers feel significant, study finds
Political Psychology

Radical leaders inspire stronger devotion because they make followers feel significant, study finds

June 28, 2025

A new study finds that voters are more motivated by radical political leaders than moderates, because supporting bold causes makes them feel personally significant—driving greater activism, sacrifice, and long-term engagement across elections in the United States and Poland.

Read moreDetails
Political ambivalence has a surprising relationship with support for violence
Authoritarianism

New study sheds light on the psychological roots of collective violence

June 21, 2025

A new study from Lebanon finds that people with authoritarian beliefs tend to oppose violence against political leaders, while those high in social dominance orientation are more likely to support violence against rival group members.

Read moreDetails

SUBSCRIBE

Go Ad-Free! Click here to subscribe to PsyPost and support independent science journalism!

STAY CONNECTED

LATEST

New study finds link between sexism and denial of male victimhood in relationships

Viral AI-images highlight how Trump engages in “victimcould,” scholar argues

Breakfast habits are associated with depressive symptoms, study finds

Neuroscientists detect decodable imagery signals in brains of people with aphantasia

Loneliness predicts an increase in TV viewing for older women, but not for men

Othello syndrome: Woman’s rare stroke leads to psychotic delusions of infidelity

How to protect your mental health from a passive-aggressive narcissist

Dark personality traits linked to generative AI use among art students

         
       
  • Contact us
  • Privacy policy
  • Terms and Conditions
[Do not sell my information]

Welcome Back!

Login to your account below

Forgotten Password?

Retrieve your password

Please enter your username or email address to reset your password.

Log In

Add New Playlist

Subscribe
  • My Account
  • Cognitive Science Research
  • Mental Health Research
  • Social Psychology Research
  • Drug Research
  • Relationship Research
  • About PsyPost
  • Contact
  • Privacy Policy