In the United States, 741 billionaires collectively hold a staggering $5.2 trillion in wealth. The fortunes of the ultra-wealthy are anything but hidden from public view. American billionaires often lead highly visible lives, with their personal affairs frequently covered by the media. This fascination with billionaire lifestyles even extends into popular culture, where some of the most iconic superhero characters, like Iron Man and Batman, are depicted as billionaires.

This concentration of wealth at the top is part of a larger phenomenon of growing income inequality. Meanwhile, on the other end of the income distribution, homelessness has surged to unprecedented levels, with about one in every 500 Americans without a home. The middle class is also facing significant challenges. For example, only half of those born in the 1980s are earning more than their parents did.

Despite the extreme inequality, billionaires are estimated to pay lower average tax rates than the average American. This could change soon, as there is growing interest among policymakers in increasing taxes on billionaires. For example, Vice President and presidential candidate Kamala Harris proposed that taxpayers with a net wealth above $100 million should pay a minimum tax on their unrealized capital gains, a policy some refer to as the Harris billionaire minimum tax.

Do Americans support taxing billionaires? What factors influence their opinions? In a recent working paper, we address these questions with a survey experiment. We recruited a sample of 9,013 Americans to participate in our study. The survey featured an information-provision experiment in which subjects were randomly assigned to receive one of several pieces of information about billionaires, such as their lavish lifestyles, earnings, or business acumen. In the final part of the survey, we asked participants to indicate their desired income tax rate for billionaires and their support for existing policy proposals aimed at taxing billionaires.

We start by outlining the perceptions and preferences of individuals in the control group – that is, those who did not receive any information treatments. While support for billionaire taxes differs significantly among respondents, the overall tendency leans heavily toward higher taxes. From a fairness standpoint, most participants believe that billionaires are not paying enough in taxes. And a large majority support policy proposals like the Billionaire Minimum Income Tax and the California Extreme Wealth Tax. Additionally, most respondents are willing to sign a petition to increase taxes on the ultra-wealthy and prefer to allocate a substantial portion of a donation budget to an NGO that advocates for higher taxes on the ultra-wealthy.

Moreover, we find that participants had significant misperceptions about billionaires. For example, most participants underestimated the value of billionaires’ homes, and their annual earnings; on the other hand, most subjects overestimated the average tax rates that billionaires pay. When exposed to information through the experiment, respondents updated their beliefs in the direction of the information provided to them, indicating that they found the information credible. A supplemental survey also indicates that the information triggered emotional responses, with negative emotions outweighing positive ones.

Given these shifts in beliefs and the emotional reactions, one may expect these treatments to increase support for taxing billionaires. Indeed, we conducted a survey where experts (mostly professors with research experience in related fields) were asked to forecast the effects of each of the treatments. There was a consensus among experts that all treatments would have strong positive effects on the desired income tax rate for billionaires. On the contrary, our experimental findings reveal that most treatments do not increase the demand for taxation, and some even reduce it.

The treatment with the most positive effect was the luxury treatment, which presented information about the extravagant lifestyles of billionaires. This treatment increased the desired top income tax rate by 2 percentage points and the corporate tax rate by 1.8 percentage points. It also heightened the perception that billionaires’ taxes are unfairly low, and bolstered support for policy proposals. Our preferred interpretation is that the qualitative information, such as the narrative and imagery used in this treatment made the information more relatable and thus more persuasive.

The luck treatment, which aimed to highlight the role of luck in accumulating wealth, led participants to believe that hard work was less crucial to the billionaire’s success. This treatment also negatively affected the sentiment toward billionaires, reducing feelings of admiration. However, contrary to experts’ predictions, this information had no significant effect on the desire for higher taxation. This suggests that people see economic success as a complex outcome of various factors, making it harder to justify taxation based solely on luck.

The earnings treatment provided information on the earnings of billionaires. This treatment increased the perception of billionaires’ income and had some immediate effect on the desired income and corporate tax rates (1.9 and 1.46 percentage points, respectively). However, these effects did not last and did not significantly alter views on the fairness of billionaire taxes or support for related policies.

The tax rate treatment presented information about the average tax rates that billionaires pay. This treatment decreased the perceived tax rates that billionaires pay by about 5.5 percentage points. Instead of increasing support for taxation, however, this treatment led to a significant reduction in the desired top income and corporate tax rates. We attribute this to a “status-quo effect,” where learning about the low current tax rates sets a reference point, making people hesitant to demand higher rates.

In the tax-loophole sub-treatment, in addition to the information about the average tax rates, participants were informed about the accounting strategies used by billionaires to lower their tax bills. While this information increased the belief that billionaires exploit the tax system and negatively impacted their perceived trustworthiness, it did not significantly affect preferences for income or corporate tax rates. However, this treatment did increase support for tax reform.

Our study offers new insights into public attitudes toward taxing the ultra-wealthy. It demonstrates that providing information about billionaires can significantly influence their public image. However, when it comes to increasing support for higher taxes on billionaires, shifting public opinion is much more challenging.