Seeing Wealth as a Responsibility Improves Attitudes Towards Taxation

Ashley V. Whillans; Nathan J.  Wispinski; Elizabeth W. Dunn

Article | Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization

Seeing Wealth as a Responsibility Improves Attitudes Towards Taxation

by Ashley V. Whillans, Nathan J. Wispinski and Elizabeth W. Dunn

Abstract

Taxes are beneficial; society depends on the revenue generated from taxation to provide essential public services such as education and health care. Taxes also attract a high degree of loathing. Tax noncompliance is a major problem for governments worldwide—with hundreds of billions of potential tax revenue uncollected each year. Thus, it is critical for research to examine factors that encourage tax satisfaction. In this research, we hypothesized that people would be more inclined to view taxation in a favorable light if they believed that wealth incurs a responsibility to give back to society (wealth-as-responsibility). Consistent with this prediction, in Study 1, people who reported stronger wealth-as-responsibility beliefs felt better about paying taxes. In Study 2, individuals assigned to read text encouraging the idea that wealth incurs a responsibility to give back to society felt better about paying taxes compared to a neutral control group. In Study 3, individuals assigned to read text encouraging wealth-as-responsibility felt better about paying taxes on earned income in the lab. Together, these studies show that reframing the meaning of wealth can shape people’s attitudes about paying their taxes, thus providing evidence for a novel lever to encourage more positive attitudes about taxation.

Keywords: Wealth; Taxation; Attitudes; Society;

Format: Print

Find at Harvard Read Now

Citation:

Whillans, Ashley V., Nathan J. Wispinski, and Elizabeth W. Dunn. "Seeing Wealth as a Responsibility Improves Attitudes Towards Taxation." Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 127 (July 2016): 146–154.

Using a multi-method approach, we investigate whether income volatility is associated with financial impatience—the preference to receive a small sum of money immediately over a larger sum of money later. We find that experiencing more income volatility—including a higher frequency of either income dips or spikes – is associated with greater financial impatience. Using longitudinal data on biannual income, Study 1 demonstrates that this effect operates above and beyond individual differences in income risk preferences and wealth. Study 2 conceptually replicates these correlational findings with recent month-to-month income volatility and finds that this effect occurs primarily among people who report having little control over their finances. Using a longitudinal field experimental with low-income working women, Study 3 tests for a causal effect of an externally-induced spike in monthly income on changes in financial impatience. In a pre-post test experimental design, participants randomly assigned to receive cash transfers amounting to a median monthly income spike of 29% exhibit significantly greater financial impatience compared to a control condition in which participants receive no cash transfers. We conclude by discussing the implications of these findings for employers and policymakers.

It’s true: we have more time for leisure than we did fifty years ago. But leisure has never been less relaxing, mostly because of the disintermediating effects of our screens. Technology saves us time, but it also takes it away. This is known as the autonomy paradox. We adopt mobile technologies to gain autonomy over when and how long we work, yet, ironically, we end up working all the time. Long blocks of free time we used to enjoy are now interrupted constantly by our smart watches, phones, tablets, and laptops. This situation taxes us cognitively, and fragments our leisure time in a way that makes it hard to use this time for something that will relieve stress or make us happy. Researchers call this phenomenon time confetti, which amounts to little bits of seconds and minutes lost to unproductive multitasking. Each bit alone seems not very bad. Collectively, though, all that confetti adds up to something more pernicious than you might expect.

Autonomous products such as robotic vacuum cleaners, lawn mowers, and playmates for our pets are meant to improve people’s lives—but do they actually make consumers happier? The authors share the results of recent research which found that owning autonomous products does in fact increase happiness, but with two important caveats: first, they found that consumers felt less comfortable using products with highly human-like features such as voices or names, and actually reported feeling guilty about relegating their dirty work to these products. Second, they found that if using a robotic product was associated with laziness, that could also decrease consumer happiness. Based on these findings, the authors offer several practical suggestions for how manufacturers can most effectively develop and market these time-saving products to the modern consumer.

Faculty & Research

Seeing Wealth as a Responsibility Improves Attitudes Towards Taxation

Abstract

Citation:

About the Author

More from the Author