Statistics and stereotypes: The taxed and the taxed‐not

Abstract

In the past decade, libertarians, free‐market think tanks, and conservative media and politicians in English‐speaking countries (Romney, 2012; Ryan, 2010; Morrison, 2016) have increasingly argued that a growing share of the population is receiving more in benefits than they pay in taxes and is “voting for a living”. This presentation of a class conflict between “tax producers” and “tax consumers” is related to public choice theories (MacLean, 2017) and has also been argued in Sweden (Lindbeck, 1985; American Economic Review, 1997). Statistics on the share of the taxed and the “taxed‐not” are used to argue that tax systems are too progressive and that welfare states have become overgenerous and unsustainable. This article analyses the creation, interpretation and development of measures used to estimate the number of the taxed and the taxed‐nots. The article shows that the share of households who receive more in benefits than they pay in taxes is very similar across countries and is not related to the size of the welfare state, the distribution of benefits and taxes or the welfare state regimes commonly used to classify different countries. The article analyses the relationship between these concerns and political rhetoric justifying austerity policies.

How do Australian policymakers frame the causes of and policy solutions to poverty? A critical examination of Anti‐Poverty Week parliamentary debates from 2012 to 2021

“…The neoliberal approach to poverty attributes disadvantage primarily to individual behaviour and failures (often labelled welfare dependency) rather than to economic or social structures (Carson & Kerr, 2020; Gerrard & Threadgold, 2022). That approach is epitomised by the use of pejorative terms such as “bludgers” to stigmatise poor and unemployed Australians (Saunders, 2019: 18), and the creation of an artificial separation between welfare claimants and taxpayers with the former blamed for placing an alleged economic burden on the latter (Whiteford, 2022: 5).…”