Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-dfsvx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T00:32:08.942Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ought It Audit? Information, Values, and Public Support for the Internal Revenue Service

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 November 2022

Ian G. Anson Open the ORCID record for Ian G. Anson [Opens in a new window]  and
John V. Kane Open the ORCID record for John V. Kane [Opens in a new window]
Ian G. Anson*
Affiliation:
University of Maryland, Baltimore County, Baltimore, MD, USA
John V. Kane
Affiliation:
New York University, New York, NY, USA
*
*Corresponding author. Email: iganson@umbc.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In democracies, policy ambitions hinge upon governments’ ability to collect tax revenue from their citizens. Ongoing funding cuts at the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) undermine the US government’s ability to fulfill this function. Yet, despite its central importance, funding for IRS enforcement activities has received scant scholarly attention, limiting our understanding of the factors that underlie public attitudes on this issue. In this article, we report the results of preregistered experiments that test whether citizens’ attitudes regarding the IRS can be shaped by framing efforts. Specifically, we test both information-based and value-consistent frames that invoke partisans’ core ideological concerns. Results show that these frames significantly increase public support for the IRS, as well as citizens’ willingness to learn more and become politically active. Thus, to ensure state capacity, information about the consequences of IRS underfunding and appeals to partisans’ ideological concerns can be implemented to increase support for tax collection.

Keywords

framingtaxationpublic supportIRSideology
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Experimental Political Science , Volume 10 , Issue 2 , Summer 2023 , pp. 209 - 220
Open Practices
Open data Open materials
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of American Political Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

This article has earned badges for transparent research practices: Open Data and Open Materials. For details see the Data Availability Statement.

References

Anson, Ian G. and Kane., John V. 2022. Replication Data for: “Ought It Audit? Information,’ Values, and Public Support for the Internal Revenue Service. Harvard Dataverse V3. doi: 10.7910/DVN/L5QIRU.Google Scholar
Besley, Timothy and Persson, Torsten. 2009. The Origins of State Capacity: Property Rights, Taxation, and Politics. American Economic Review 99(4): 1218–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bullock, John G. 2011. Elite Influence on Public Opinion in an Informed Electorate. American Political Science Review 105(3): 496–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Congressional Budget Office. 2020. Trends in the Internal Revenue Service’s Funding and Enforcement. Technical Report, July 8. Retrieved from https://www.cbo.gov/publication/56422 Google Scholar
Coppock, A. and McClellan, O. A.. 2019. Validating the Demographic, Political, Psychological, and Experimental Results Obtained from a New Source of Online Survey Respondents. Research & Politics 6(1): 2053168018822174.10.1177/2053168018822174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cowell, F. A. 1992. Tax Evasion and Inequity. Journal of Economic Psychology 13(4): 521–43.10.1016/0167-4870(92)90010-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeMora, S. L., Merolla, J. L., Newman, B., and Zechmeister, E. J.. 2021. Reducing Mask Resistance among White Evangelical Christians with Value-Consistent Messages. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 118(21): e2101723118.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
DeSilver, Drew. 2013. IRS among Least-Popular Federal Agencies. Pew Research Center, May 16. Retrieved from https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/05/16/irs-among-least-popular-federal-agencies/ Google Scholar
Englehart, Neil A. 2009. State Capacity, State Failure, and Human Rights. Journal of Peace Research 46(2): 163–80.10.1177/0022343308100713CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Etzioni, A. 1986. Tax Evasion and Perceptions of Tax Fairness: A Research Note. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 22(2): 177–85.10.1177/002188638602200209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gurman, Sadie. 2017. “US Agrees to Pay Tea Party Groups in Suits over IRS scrutiny.” The Associated Press, October 26. Retrieved from https://apnews.com/article/ff9f0798c7da44ecb59356b90296cd38 Google Scholar
House Committee on the Budget. 2020. Funding the IRS Pays Off: Preventing Tax Dodging by Wealthy Filers Is the First Step to Fixing Our Tax Code. Reports: 117th Congress, October 1. Retrieved from https://budget.house.gov/publications/report/funding-irs Google Scholar
Hvidman, Ulrik and Andersen, Simon Calmar. 2016. Perceptions of Public and Private Performance: Evidence from a Survey Experiment. Public Administration Review 76(1): 111–20.10.1111/puar.12441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jost, J. T., Nosek, B. A., and Gosling, S. D.. 2008. Ideology: Its Resurgence in Social, Personality, and Political Psychology. Perspectives on Psychological Science 3(2): 126–36.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kane, J. V., and Barabas, J. 2019. No Harm in Checking: Using Factual Manipulation Checks to Assess Attentiveness in Experiments. American Journal of Political Science 63(1), 234–49.10.1111/ajps.12396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kane, J. V., Mason, L., and Wronski, J. 2021. Who’s at the Party? Group Sentiments, Knowledge, and Partisan Identity. The Journal of Politics 83(4), 1783–99.10.1086/715072CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiel, Paul and Eisinger, Jesse. 2018. How the IRS was Gutted. ProPublica, December 11. Retrieved from https://www.propublica.org/article/how-the-irs-was-gutted Google Scholar
Luong, K. T., Garrett, R. K., and Slater, M. D.. 2019. Promoting Persuasion with Ideologically Tailored Science Messages: A Novel Approach to Research on Emphasis Framing. Science Communication 41(4): 488–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mason, Paul D., Utke, Steven, and Williams, Brian M.. 2020. Why Pay Our Fair Share? How Perceived Influence Over Laws Affects Tax Evasion. The Journal of the American Taxation Association 42(1): 133–56.10.2308/atax-52598CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, S. M. 2016. Public Support for Sale: Government Spending and Public Approval of Federal Agency Performance. American Politics Research 44(3): 523–47.10.1177/1532673X15615941CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pew Research Center. 2018. Majorities Express Favorable Opinions of Several Federal Agencies, Including the FBI. Pew Research Center Report, February 14. Retrieved from https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2018/02/14/majorities-express-favorable-opinions-of-several-federal-agencies-including-the-fbi/ Google Scholar
Rampell, Catherine. 2021. For Every Extra Dollar Invested in the IRS, the Government Could Be Getting $6 Back.” The Washington Post, March 25. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/want-to-shrink-deficits-or-fund-bidens-spending-plans-give-the-irs-more-money/2021/03/25/2959bcd8-8d90-11eb-9423-04079921c915_story.html Google Scholar
Rubin, Richard. 2021. High-Income Tax Avoidance Far Larger than Thought, New Paper Estimates. The Wall Street Journal, March 22. Retrieved from https://www.wsj.com/articles/high-income-tax-avoidance-far-larger-than-thought-new-paper-estimates-11616364001 Google Scholar
Shen, F. and Edwards, H. H.. 2005. Economic Individualism, Humanitarianism, and Welfare Reform: A Value-Based Account of Framing Effects. Journal of Communication 55(4): 795–809.10.1111/j.1460-2466.2005.tb03023.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williamson, V. S. 2017. Read My Lips: Why Americans Are Proud to Pay Taxes: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Yackee, S. W. and Lowery, D.. 2005. Understanding Public Support for the US Federal Bureaucracy: A Macro Politics View. Public Management Review 7(4): 515–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: Link

Anson and Kane Dataset

Dataset

https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/L5QIRU
Link
Supplementary material: File

Anson and Kane supplementary material

Anson and Kane supplementary material
Download Anson and Kane supplementary material(File)
File 132.2 KB