IdeaLog

How to talk about taxes and voting

Posted on August 20, 2024

As we recently explained here, there are three key rules of persuasion: (1) Always begin in agreement; (2) Use values to frame the debate; and (3) Show listeners how they benefit. Here’s how to apply those rules to the issues of taxes and voting.

Taxes

Begin in agreement, for example: Our tax system is unfair because wealthy individuals and big corporations don’t pay their fair share.
Use values, for example: Fairness, fair share, justice, equal opportunity, level playing field.
Show how they benefit, for example: It’s average Americans who need tax breaks, not rich individuals and huge corporations.

Americans think that taxes are unfair. By a three-to-one margin, they believe that upper-income people and big corporations are paying too little. You should explicitly declare that tax laws have been engineered to unfairly benefit the rich and special interests. In short, don’t defend taxes, defend tax fairness.

Say… Our tax system is unfair. The tax burden on working families has increased while rich people and huge corporations have been given tax giveaways and loopholes. That’s wrong—everyone should pay their fair share. We need to change the rules to create a tax system that works for all of us, not just the wealthy few. One step is [describe your specific proposal]…

Don’t say tax relief because it frames taxes as an affliction in need of a remedy. The problem is not the existence of taxes, it is that federal, state and local taxes are riddled with giveaways and loopholes for the politically powerful. Whatever you do, don’t defend the unpopular tax system. And don’t begin with a raft of statistics either. Start by agreeing with voters.

Don’t say… Tax relief, taxes are a necessary evil
Say… Tax fairness, tax giveaways and tax loopholes, private tax subsidies, unfair tax system

No one likes to pay taxes, and persuadable voters don’t want to hear a lecture that taxes are the dues we pay for a civilized society. But people generally accept that they should pay their fair share.

Interestingly, a progressive monologue about taxes becomes less popular if it begins with unfairness and then goes on to say what government could do with the money. This is because persuadable voters don’t really believe the government needs more money; they believe one-third to one-half of tax dollars are wasted. Talking about the good things government can do with the taxes it collects also evokes voters’ biases against tax-and-spend politicians. So stick with your plea that the powerful need to pay their fair share.

Here are a couple of claims you may have to deal with:

Right wing argument: Forty-seven percent of Americans pay no taxes.

Say… Everyone needs to pay their fair share of taxes. And in fact, everyone who earns a salary pays taxes for Social Security and Medicare. Everyone who buys products at a store or owns a home pays taxes. Everyone who has a phone or online service pays taxes. When all the federal, state and local taxes and fees are added together, almost everybody except the rich pays about 20 to 30 percent of their income. The richest individuals and largest companies in America do not pay anywhere near their fair share.

Right wing argument: We’re all hurt by the “death tax.”

Say… Everyone should pay their fair share of taxes. If we repealed the tax on inheritance, the system would be far more tilted to benefit the rich. That’s because you and I don’t pay any inheritance tax, it only applies to the very wealthiest people. They already have more than their fair share of tax breaks. And worse, if we eliminated that source of taxes to the government, you and I would have to make up the difference. If you’re for tax fairness, you’re for keeping the inheritance tax.

Voting

Begin in agreement, for example: In a democracy, the right to vote is a fundamental freedom.
Use values, for example: Freedom, liberty, fundamental rights, basic rights, democracy.
Show how they benefit, for example: A modern voting system that is free, fair and accessible makes it quicker and simpler for you to vote.

In general, progressives seek to make voter registration simpler and more accurate and voting more convenient. Right wingers try to make it harder for eligible Americans to register and vote. Your argument is based on freedom, patriotism and the modernization of our outmoded voting systems. Their argument is based on the unfounded fear of voter fraud, often imagined as fraudulent voting by African Americans and immigrants.

Whether you are arguing for a progressive reform or against a right-wing restriction, begin with a statement of your values.

Say… In America, the right to vote is a fundamental freedom. And because we are the leading democracy in the world, our election system ought to be completely free, fair and accessible.

Put the conversation in context. When talking about voting, progressives have two great advantages that are too-rarely used by our side:

First, the most popular and powerful value in political debate is freedom. Use it in debating this issue. If voting is understood as a basic right like freedom of speech, then it must be protected. None of our freedoms should be limited without an overriding reason and, in this case, none exists. If you can win the frame that voting is a fundamental freedom, you’ll ultimately win the argument.

Second, Americans are proud of American democracy and an appeal to that feeling of patriotism helps to persuade them. For example, here’s a narrative that opposes voting restrictions generally:

Say… In America, the right to vote is a fundamental freedom. And because we are the leading democracy in the world, our election system must be free, fair and accessible for every qualified voter. As we protect election integrity, we cannot infringe on freedom. When the government puts up barriers, it creates long lines for everyone, increases taxpayer costs, and denies the vote to millions of senior citizens and military veterans. Let’s stick to efficient and effective ways to keep our elections honest.

How do we deal with lies about voter fraud?

In the real world, if someone tries to cast a ballot by impersonating an eligible voter or tries to manipulate voting numbers, that’s a crime punishable by years in prison. Because the penalty is so severe, this crime almost never happens.

The problem is, the right-wing media has convinced many Americans that voter fraud exists. The best messaging advice is—acknowledge the importance of protecting the integrity of our elections, argue that voting is the most basic right in a democracy, and try to push the debate toward the goal of making elections free, fair and accessible. For example, when arguing against voter ID legislation, appeal to freedom and patriotism, and then:

Say… Protecting the integrity of our elections is absolutely essential. In the process, we cannot infringe on freedom; we cannot deny voters an election that is free, fair and accessible. If we require Election Day precinct officials to scrutinize each and every voter’s identification and limit the types of qualified ID to just a few, it will create long lines for everyone, increase election costs by millions of dollars, and make it much harder for Americans who don’t have a driver’s license to vote—including senior citizens and military veterans. There are more effective ways to keep our elections honest without making it harder for us to exercise our fundamental freedom to vote.

The narrative makes three points:

1. Long lines—In considering any policy, people first want to know how it affects them personally. Voter ID will increase everyone’s waiting time at the polls, perhaps by a lot. Let voters understand they will be personally inconvenienced by this law.
2. Taxpayer costs—Right now, any unnecessary government spending is unpopular. A photo ID requirement means the government will have to pay to educate voters about the new rules, educate precinct officials, and perhaps pay for staff or machinery in order to speed up the delays it will cause. This may sound like a small point, but it played a big role in winning a Minnesota referendum on voter ID.
3. Making it harder to vote—This is the most important argument but, to be effective, limit your examples to the most sympathetic victims. Average Americans can be persuaded by focusing on seniors and veterans who are lifelong voters; often they no longer have valid driver’s licenses and they would have a hard time getting substitute ID. Swing voters are less likely to be persuaded by hearing about people in poverty who lack identification.

Do not underestimate the difficulty of the progressive argument. Be mindful of Americans’ beliefs and use the best-informed messaging to win them over.