Obama tax increase misperception grows

[swag]

http://www.brendan-nyhan.com/blog/2010/04/obama-tax-increase-misperception-grows.html

Earlier this year, I noted a CBSNews.com post showing that 24% of Americans thought President Obama had raised taxes for most Americans and 53% believed taxes had been kept the same. The numbers, which were drawn from a CBS/New York Times poll conducted February 5-10, were even worse among Tea Party supporters -- 44% thought taxes had been increased and 46% thought taxes were the same. In reality, Obama cut taxes for 95% of working families.

The latest CBS/New York Times poll, which was conducted April 5-12, asks the same question:

So far, do you think the Obama Administration has increased taxes for most Americans, decreased taxes for most Americans, or have they kept taxes about the same for most Americans?

The findings show that misperceptions about changes to taxes under Obama have gotten worse. The percentage of respondents who think taxes have gone up under Obama has increased from 24% to 34% among the general public and from 44% to 64% among Tea Party supporters:

It's the all-too-predictable result of combining misleading rhetoric suggesting Obama has raised taxes with people's biases toward their pre-existing beliefs.

[ejpoeta]

1. yeah, i could see the tax increase in my inreased tax refund. OMG!! can i smack some people.

[sinkingfeeling]

2. If 1/3 of the population can't even figure out if they got a reduction in taxes, how the hell could

they possibly figure out how to invest/save for their retirement, understand a mortgage agreement, or the terms of their car loan? The country is doomed because of plain stupidity.

[dawg]

3. Spot on!

A democracy is only as good as its citizens. And I know it isn't popular to criticize the intelligence of the voters, or the consumers, but the ugly truth is that large numbers of adults in this country are either unable or unwilling to understand basic financial concepts and basic issues related to governance.

[Igel]

4. It's a funny result, isn't it?

Then again, when the figure of something like 47% of households not paying income taxes was noised about there was a great deal of effort put into saying that actually they *did* pay taxes, but got tax credits of various kinds.

This guy recognizes the distinction that this argument relied upon: "While some taxes have been increased, there has been a net decrease in federal taxes for most Americans under Obama."

The problem is for those decrying the 47% (give or take) number as false, consistency dictates that they say that taxes have increased--because the net decrease is in the form of tax credits. If the claim that taxes have gone down (on average) is to be taken seriously, then suddenly the 47% is accurate. Otherwise we're shifting definitions mid-argument, and that results in kasha.

Then again, a lot of people have a loose definition of "tax": Fees are taxes, in a fashion; increased insurance premiums conditioned upon provisions of the HRC bill are taxes. (Again, some people last year tried to argue that since Congress can impose taxes, this is sufficient authority for the insurance mandate. I note that I haven't heard any Congressperson try this argument. It's specious.)

And, finally, a lot of people are temporally challenged. A tax increase that's passed but hasn't taken effect is hard to nail in polls, and I suspect that those have been explicitly passed or entailed. "Do you think that the Obama Administration has already increased the future tax rate for most Americans, decreased taxes for most Americans, or have they kept taxes about the same for most Americans, discounting any effect that averaging will have but including temporary or one-time tax credits?" Yeah, that just rolls off the tongue and is crystal clear.