IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/joepsy/v75y2019ipas0167487018303088.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Are consumption taxes really disliked more than equivalent costs? Inconclusive results in the USA and no effect in the UK

Author

Listed:
  • Olsen, Jerome
  • Kogler, Christoph
  • Brandt, Mark J.
  • Dezső, Linda
  • Kirchler, Erich

Abstract

In two experiments on hypothetical purchase decisions, Sussman and Olivola (2011) found that US citizens prefer avoiding tax-related costs over avoiding tax-unrelated monetary costs of the same size. The original Experiment 1 and 2 tests of this Tax Aversion indicated that people are willing to wait longer to receive a discount when it refers to taxes (e.g., “axe-the-tax discount”) than when it is just a regular discount (e.g., “customer rewards”). We conducted high-powered close replications of both original studies, Experiment 1 (N = 590) and Experiment 2 (N = 650), which reveal either no effect (Experiment 1: r = 0.02, 95% CI [−0.06, 0.10]) or a small effect (Experimental 2: r = 0.09, 95% CI [0.01, 0.16]) in the USA. We also replicated both experimental procedures in the UK to test whether the effect generalized to a value added tax system. Neither Experiment 1 (N = 595; r = 0.01, 95% CI [−0.07, 0.09]) nor Experiment 2 (N = 673; r = 0.03, 95% CI [−0.04, 0.11]) revealed an effect in the UK. Tax Aversion in hypothetical consumption decisions seems to be a smaller phenomenon than originally proposed and does not generalize to a value added tax system.

Suggested Citation

  • Olsen, Jerome & Kogler, Christoph & Brandt, Mark J. & Dezső, Linda & Kirchler, Erich, 2019. "Are consumption taxes really disliked more than equivalent costs? Inconclusive results in the USA and no effect in the UK," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 75(PA).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:joepsy:v:75:y:2019:i:pa:s0167487018303088
    DOI: 10.1016/j.joep.2019.02.001
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167487018303088
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.joep.2019.02.001?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Raj Chetty & Adam Looney & Kory Kroft, 2009. "Salience and Taxation: Theory and Evidence," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 99(4), pages 1145-1177, September.
    2. Smith, Peter, 1991. "Lessons From the British Poll Tax Disaster," National Tax Journal, National Tax Association;National Tax Journal, vol. 44(4), pages 421-436, December.
    3. Smith, Peter, 1991. "Lessons from the British Poll Tax Disaster," National Tax Journal, National Tax Association, vol. 44(4), pages 421-36, December.
    4. Wahlund, Richard, 1992. "Tax changes and economic behavior: The case of tax evasion," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 13(4), pages 657-677, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Anna Esslinger & Katharina Pfeil & Lars P. Feld, 2024. "Asymmetric Labor Supply Responses to Taxation," CESifo Working Paper Series 11317, CESifo.
    2. Eric J. Brunner & Mark D. Robbins & Bill Simonsen, 2021. "Experimental evidence about property tax word aversion," Public Budgeting & Finance, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(4), pages 50-70, December.
    3. James Alm & Matthias Kasper, 2020. "Laboratory Experiments," Working Papers 2008, Tulane University, Department of Economics.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Cullis, John G. & Lewis, Alan, 1997. "Why people pay taxes: From a conventional economic model to a model of social convention," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 18(2-3), pages 305-321, April.
    2. William Gale, 1997. "What can America learn from the British tax system?," Fiscal Studies, Institute for Fiscal Studies, vol. 18(4), pages 341-369, November.
    3. James, Simon, 2007. "Tax Simplification is not a simple issue: the reasons for difficulty and a possible strategy," MPRA Paper 19281, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. James, Simon, 2012. "The contribution of behavioral economics to tax reform in the United Kingdom," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 41(4), pages 468-475.
    5. Franz W. Wagner, 2006. "Was bedeutet Steuervereinfachung wirklich?," Perspektiven der Wirtschaftspolitik, Verein für Socialpolitik, vol. 7(1), pages 19-33, February.
    6. William Gale, 1997. "What can America learn from the British tax system?," Fiscal Studies, Institute for Fiscal Studies, vol. 18(4), pages 341-369, November.
    7. Andreas R. Kostøl & Andreas S. Myhre, 2021. "Labor Supply Responses to Learning the Tax and Benefit Schedule," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 111(11), pages 3733-3766, November.
    8. Persson, Petra, 2018. "Attention manipulation and information overload," Behavioural Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 2(1), pages 78-106, May.
    9. John Y. Campbell, 2016. "Restoring Rational Choice: The Challenge of Consumer Financial Regulation," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 106(5), pages 1-30, May.
    10. Beestermöller, Matthias, 2017. "Striking Evidence? Demand Persistence for Inter-City Buses from German Railway Strikes," Discussion Papers in Economics 31768, University of Munich, Department of Economics.
    11. Fossen, Frank M. & König, Johannes, 2015. "Public health insurance and entry into self-employment," VfS Annual Conference 2015 (Muenster): Economic Development - Theory and Policy 112934, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    12. Hindriks, Jean & Serse, Valerio, 2022. "The incidence of VAT reforms in electricity markets: Evidence from Belgium," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 80(C).
    13. repec:ags:jrapmc:122316 is not listed on IDEAS
    14. Reyes, Germán, 2024. "Coarse Wage-Setting and Behavioral Firms," IZA Discussion Papers 17039, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    15. Ying Zhang & Yingli Huang, 2023. "Killing Two Birds with One Stone or Missing One of Them? The Synergistic Governance Effect of China’s Carbon Emissions Trading Scheme on Pollution Control and Carbon Emission Reduction," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(13), pages 1-25, June.
    16. Haisken-DeNew, John & Hasan, Syed & Jha, Nikhil & Sinning, Mathias, 2018. "Unawareness and selective disclosure: The effect of school quality information on property prices," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 449-464.
    17. Matthias Krapf & David Staubli, 2020. "The Corporate Elasticity of Taxable Income: Event Study Evidence from Switzerland," CESifo Working Paper Series 8715, CESifo.
    18. Sebastian Eichfelder & Mona Lau, 2015. "Capitalization of capital gains taxes: (In)attention and turn-of-the-year returns," FEMM Working Papers 150019, Otto-von-Guericke University Magdeburg, Faculty of Economics and Management.
    19. Heyes, Anthony & Lyon, Thomas P. & Martin, Steve, 2018. "Salience games: Private politics when public attention is limited," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 396-410.
    20. Paskalev, Zdravko & Yildirim, Huseyin, 2017. "A theory of outsourced fundraising: Why dollars turn into “Pennies for Charity”," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 1-18.
    21. Cakici, Nusret & Zaremba, Adam, 2022. "Salience theory and the cross-section of stock returns: International and further evidence," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 146(2), pages 689-725.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:joepsy:v:75:y:2019:i:pa:s0167487018303088. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/joep .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.