↓ Skip to main content

Do Individuals Perceive Income Tax Rates Correctly?

Overview of attention for article published in Public Finance Review, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#2 of 507)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
6 news outlets
policy
4 policy sources
twitter
15 X users
reddit
3 Redditors
bluesky
1 Bluesky user

Readers on

mendeley
36 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Do Individuals Perceive Income Tax Rates Correctly?
Published in
Public Finance Review, August 2016
DOI 10.1177/1091142115615670
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

This article uses data from survey questions fielded on the 2011 wave of the Cognitive Economics Study to uncover systematic errors in perceptions of income tax rates. First, when asked about the marginal tax rates (MTRs) for households in the top tax bracket, respondents underestimate the top MTR on wages and salary income, overestimate the MTR on dividend income, and therefore significantly underestimate the currently tax-advantaged status of dividend income. Second, when analyzing the relationship between respondents' self-reported average tax rates (ATRs) and MTRs, many people do not understand the progressive nature of the federal income tax system. Third, when comparing self-reported tax rates with those computed from self-reported income, respondents systematically overestimate their ATR while reported MTR are accurate at the mean, the responses are consistent with underestimation of tax schedule progressivity.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 36 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 17%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 8%
Student > Master 3 8%
Researcher 3 8%
Other 1 3%
Other 5 14%
Unknown 15 42%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 13 36%
Social Sciences 6 17%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 3%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 3%
Unknown 15 42%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 78. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 October 2026.
All research outputs
#672,476
of 32,810,023 outputs
Outputs from Public Finance Review
#2
of 507 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,655
of 327,545 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Public Finance Review
#1
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 32,810,023 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 507 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 327,545 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.