Topic: Communicating on Budgets and Taxes
By Meg Bostrom, Public Knowledge
On every social issue that we investigate — children's issues, poverty, child abuse, education, health care, environmental issues, foreign policy, etc. — the public's perceptions of taxes, government services and state budgets consistently emerge as barriers to supporting collective public action. The mood at most statehouses is similarly bleak. As the economy has worsened and tax revenues have declined, advocates find themselves in fierce competition for public funding. The need to communicate effectively becomes particularly important in this environment.
There are a number of common assumptions concerning the public's view of taxes. For example:
- People are selfish and want to keep as much money as they can for themselves.
- People forget, or are unaware of, the kinds of government services that benefit them.
- People believe that government wastes tax dollars, and cutting waste will solve the problem.
- People don't care about those who are suffering or in need.
While we have not yet had an opportunity to fully investigate the public's thinking on budgets and taxes, there is quite a bit we have learned from other FrameWorks projects and other sources that may prove useful to advocates. This memo will draw on recent national public opinion data, recent research in the state of Alabama concerning the state's budget and taxes, and relevant insights from across our research on a variety of social issues. Importantly, each state has its own unique character and history that influence how citizens see their state's budget situation, so advocates should consider carefully how these insights apply to their state.
Raising taxes and lowering taxes are two very different conversations — and not merely because they are opposite sides of the same coin. Recently, the public has demonstrated significant opposition to the Bush administration's tax cuts. However, this does not mean that Americans support an increase in taxes.
Nationally, the public is very skeptical about the Bush Administration's efforts to reduce taxes. Americans would clearly rather the federal government spend more on domestic programs (68%) than cut taxes (29%).1 The tax cuts were framed as an economic stimulus, but many Americans do not believe that tax cuts help the economy.2 Only 29% say that cutting taxes is the best way to increase economic growth, while 64% say there are better ways to improve the economy. Furthermore, when asked for the better approach for improving the national economy, a majority chooses reducing the deficit (59%), while only 28% choose cutting taxes.3
Even at the time the tax cuts were signed into law, the public was unenthusiastic about the cuts. The public was divided over whether or not the tax cuts were a good or a bad idea (47% good idea, 43% bad idea) and over whether or not the new tax cuts would help the economy (47% will help the economy, 47% will not). Americans are also skeptical that they benefit personally from tax cuts. At the time of the most recent tax cut, most Americans (56%) felt the tax cuts would not help their personal financial situation.4 Currently, even more Americans (61%) say the 2003 tax cuts have not helped their family's finances, while only 30% say they have helped.5
At the same time, the public is not advocating for raising taxes. For example, to balance state budgets, voters would prefer the state government concentrate on cutting spending (84%) than on raising taxes (10%).6
The seeming disconnect between public opposition to tax cuts and its opposition to increasing taxes cannot be explained by Americans' perception that their own taxes are too high. Compared with past years, most members of the public do not feel unduly burdened by taxes. According to surveys by the Gallup Organization, the percentage of Americans reporting that the amount of federal tax they pay is "too high" typically rates in the mid to high 60s. Currently, however, only 50% of Americans believe the amount of federal tax they pay is "too high" while 46% think it is "about right." Furthermore, 64% say the income tax they paid in 2003 was fair.7
What's going on? Part of the answer is that Americans believe government wastes tax dollars. A poll by ABC News in April 2002 found that on average, people believe government wastes 47 cents of every tax dollar, a response that has been fairly consistent for several years.8
Part of the answer is also that Americans feel the tax burden is not equally shared. When asked what bothers them most about taxes, a plurality say they are most bothered by "the feeling that some wealthy people and corporations get away with not paying their fair share in taxes" (46%), followed by "the complexity of the tax system" (31%), while few are most bothered by "the large amount you pay in taxes" (14%).9 Similarly, nearly half (49%) say lower income people pay too much in taxes, compared to 40% who believe middle-income people pay too much, and 10% who believe upper-income people pay too much. Majorities believe middle-income people pay a fair share (51%) and upper-income people pay too little (63%).10
Case Study: Education
A review of public opinion concerning education funding is instructive in understanding the dynamics of public perceptions of state budgets and taxes. At the state level, most voters (58%) understand that state governments are facing serious budget deficits, and that spending cuts will be necessary. In fact, two-thirds (68%) report that education programs in their state have already been affected by budget cuts. Voters are very clear that they want policymakers to prioritize education in the current economic climate: a majority places education as a top priority for federal and state spending (55% and 58% respectively), a majority wants to see education spending protected (54%), and more worry about cuts in education and health care (64%) than worry about tax increases (31%). While they prioritize education and want to protect it from budget cuts, support for a tax increase for public education remains shallow. While a majority (59%) is willing to increase taxes to improve public education, only 18% are "very willing" to do so.12
Furthermore, when "increased taxes" is added to education reform measures, support frequently drops dramatically. For example, 77% favor providing "tutoring and remedial work for students who need it," but only 38% favor increasing "taxpayer funds to provide tutoring and remedial work for students who need it." Two-thirds (66%) favor providing "more computers, newer books, and other materials for teachers and students," but only 37% favor increasing "taxpayer funds to provide more computers, newer books, and other materials for teachers and students.13
So why do voters place such high priority on protecting education from cuts, while they are only lukewarm toward increased taxes for education? One reason is the public's concern over wasted government dollars and poor priorities: more would be willing to increase their taxes if they knew the funds would be earmarked to improve education (67% willing, 23% very willing).14 Similarly, in rating four options, people show the most enthusiasm for cutting other parts of the budget to maintain spending for education at its current level (78% favor "a great deal" or "a fair amount"), followed by increasing state taxes to avoid education cuts (58%), or a combination of increased state taxes and education cuts (53%). Few would support reducing state spending for education (26%).15
Therefore, part of the answer is that people think there is a lot of waste in state budgets and poor priorities for state spending. They would rather increase taxes than cut education, but they believe education funding can come from other places in the state budget. However, our research also clearly indicates that voters do not necessarily see money as the problem facing the education system. Instead, the problem is poor parenting, inadequate teaching, discipline, etc. Broad calls for education funding, then, are frequently greeted by a skeptical public that is wondering why the money is needed in the first place.
Case Study: Alabama
As noted earlier, each state has its own unique character and history which influence public perceptions. Using our recent research in Alabama as an example, there are several findings that were clearly unique to Alabama's character and history:
- State citizens see Alabama as a poor state, and believe it is likely to trail the rest of the country for a long time.
- Citizens believe that businesses are attracted to the state's low taxes and limited regulations, which means that economic opportunity lies in keeping corporate taxes low, and in keeping rules, regulations and unions to a minimum.
- According to both Democrats and Republicans, corruption, mismanagement and the "good ol' boy network" are the cause of the state's budget woes, not low revenues.
- Due to their intense mistrust of government officials, Alabamians will not vote for a tax increase unless there is increased accountability, but demonstrating accountability is a daunting, if not impossible, task in the short-term. Fundamentally Republicans see low taxes and smaller government as assets, not liabilities. Democrats have no faith in the current administration and are convinced that the Governor's proposal will advantage the "good ol' boy network" rather than ordinary people.
The Alabama tax initiative was somewhat unusual in the sense that it was about both a tax increase and tax reform. Early on, the debate was set as being "about" a tax increase. That meant that the public conversation had to overcome all of the barriers mentioned above, and convince people that more revenue was needed and that the revenue would be put to good use by officials who would manage their money wisely. Our research indicated that a tax reform frame would have been far more effective, in part because the barriers listed above would no longer be part of the dialogue. Instead, people just needed to be convinced that this referendum would be a step in the right direction toward making the state's tax system more equitable.
Lessons for Communicators
There is not one set of guidelines that will fit every social issue or every state situation. However, there are some lessons that we believe apply across most issues and states.
Abstract calls for increased funding will not gain public support. Our research consistently demonstrates that people are generally more supportive of increased funds when the request is tied to a specific need, but they oppose broad requests for government funding. The public assumes that government wastes or mismanages tax dollars, so people find it hard to support a general call for funding.
If the only option is a broad request for increased taxes, advocates need to investigate the kind of drastic proof that will be compelling. Furthermore, do not assume that people understand how state government works or what services taxes fund. Some of the language that experts typically use may have a very different meaning to the general public. For example, people may not interpret a "budget shortfall" in the same way that they would interpret a "budget cut." Most believe that taxes increase every year. Therefore, state government has more money to spend every year. A graphic representing a drop in state revenue, or long-term trends demonstrating flat revenue, might help citizens understand such a fundamental point. Advocates should reconsider their language, and use terminology citizens can immediately grasp such as "funding cuts" or "declining income" instead of "shortfall." It is not enough to talk about programs that might be cut, since people may still assume that revenue is constant or increasing.
The image of ineffectual or untrustworthy government erodes support for public programs. Advocates cannot allow citizens to become so thoroughly disenchanted with state government that support for all services is undermined. In part, this means immediately addressing corruption in government as soon as it appears and becoming a vocal and consistent critic of such corruption, in order to achieve public credibility. This also means that advocates need to change their communications. Years of emphasizing crises has convinced the public that government cannot do anything right. Advocates need to talk about what works and what needs to be done, rather than just highlight what is broken. Citizens need to feel that government programs and services can work, or they will not support continued funding for those programs. This is a long-term communications need that will benefit all children's issues.
A lack of understanding about how state budgets work undermines support for taxes and government services. Since "government waste" is a frequent news story, but "government efficiency" is not, citizens of most states are likely to have a better sense of what is wrong with state budgets than what is right. One long-term objective for advocates' communications should be to help citizens re-connect to government by appreciating what they can do better together than separately. The goal is not to make citizens love taxes; rather it is to help them understand their role as citizens and to break the persistent news frame of inefficiency in government.
Sometimes the issue is not really "about" increased taxes; rather it is "about" something else. The recent tax proposal in Alabama represented an increase in taxes but the proposal also incorporated significant tax reform to make the tax system more equitable. The dominant news frame defined this measure as a tax increase, not reform, and citizens overwhelmingly voted against it. Education funding reform efforts are frequently in a similar situation: many advocates are working to shift their state's education financing system away from property taxes and toward a more equitable system. In these instances, the issue is about tax fairness, not tax increases.
Political voices are of limited value; non-partisan voices need to be brought into the dialogue. Our research consistently demonstrates that even people with strong party affiliations filter the messages of their own party. People want to hear from those without a vested interest, who have relevant experience and credibility. Even better, they want to know that "unlikely allies" can rally around a common sense solution; endorsements that show unity across a wide spectrum of the state's leadership are positively received.
These lessons are intended to inform advocates' communications over the long-term, and not to provide a quick fix to an immediate need. A long-term effort to re-connect people to government, educate people about how government works, and help people see the ways in which government can be effective in addressing problems, will go a long way toward helping advocates in future budget battles.
October 2003
- Conducted by ABC News/Washington Post, April 27-April 30, 2003 and based on telephone interviews with a national adult including an oversample of blacks sample of 1,105. There was an oversample of Blacks for a total sample of 169 blacks. Results are weighted to be representative of a national adult population. Interviews were conducted by TNS Intersearch. Data provided by The Roper Center for Public Opinion Research, University of Connecticut.
- Survey by NBC News, Wall Street Journal. Methodology: Conducted by Hart and Teeter Research Companies, May 17-May 19, 2003 and based on telephone interviews with a national adult sample of 1,000. Data provided by The Roper Center for Public Opinion Research, University of Connecticut.
- CBS News/New York Times Poll. Sept. 28-Oct. 1, 2003. N=981 adults nationwide.
- CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll. May 30-June 1, 2003. N=1,019 adults nationwide. The questions concerning assistance to family finances and the US economy were asked of half samples.
- FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll. Sept. 23-24, 2003. N=900 registered voters nationwide.
- Survey by Cable News Network, USA Today. Methodology: Conducted by Gallup Organization, April 22-April 23, 2003 and based on telephone interviews with a national adult sample of 1,001. Data provided by The Roper Center for Public Opinion Research, University of Connecticut.
- Conducted by Gallup Organization, April 7-April 9, 2003 and based on telephone interviews with a national adult sample of 1,018. Data provided by The Roper Center for Public Opinion Research, University of Connecticut.
- Conducted by ABC News, April 10-April 14, 2002 and based on telephone interviews with a national adult sample of 1,043. Sampling, data collection and tabulation by TNS Intersearch. Data provided by The Roper Center for Public Opinion Research, University of Connecticut.
- Survey by Public Interests Project. Methodology: Conducted by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research, June 17-June 22, 2003 and based on telephone interviews with a national likely voters (see note) sample of 1,000. Likely voters are registered voters who voted or were ineligible/too young to vote in the 2000 election, and are almost certain/probable to vote in the 2004 election. Data provided by The Roper Center for Public Opinion Research, University of Connecticut.
- Conducted by Gallup Organization, April 7-April 9, 2003 and based on telephone interviews with a national adult sample of 1,018. Data provided by The Roper Center for Public Opinion Research, University of Connecticut.
- "Demanding Quality Education In Tough Economic Times," sponsored by Public Education Network and Education Week, conducted by Lake Snell Perry & Associates, 1050 registered voters nationally, including oversamples of 125 African Americans and 125 Latinos, January 22-January 28, 2003. Data provided by The Roper Center for Public Opinion Research, University of Connecticut.
- "Demanding Quality Education In Tough Economic Times," sponsored by Public Education Network and Education Week, conducted by Lake Snell Perry & Associates, 1050 registered voters nationally, including oversamples of 125 African Americans and 125 Latinos, January 22-January 28, 2003. Data provided by The Roper Center for Public Opinion Research, University of Connecticut.
- Sponsored by Educational Testing Service, conducted by Hart and Teeter Research Companies, 1003 adults nationally, May 17 - 21, 2002. Data provided by The Roper Center for Public Opinion Research, University of Connecticut.
- "Demanding Quality Education In Tough Economic Times," sponsored by Public Education Network and Education Week, conducted by Lake Snell Perry & Associates, 1050 registered voters nationally, including oversamples of 125 African Americans and 125 Latinos, January 22-January 28, 2003. Data provided by The Roper Center for Public Opinion Research, University of Connecticut.
- "Attitudes Toward the Public Schools Survey, 2002," sponsored by Phi Delta Kappa, conducted by the Gallup Organization, 1000 adults nationally, June 5 - 26, 2002. Data provided by The Roper Center for Public Opinion Research, University of Connecticut.
