

I’ve often been involved in debates in politics in which people deny actual facts. At first, it’s easy to attribute that to partisanship. But it takes more than partisanship.
Consider sports. On Sunday night, I was disappointed when Patrick Mahomes threw the touchdown pass that ended the game in overtime and handed the win to the Kansas City Chiefs. But I didn’t deny that there was a touchdown. I bet there were a few million households in northern and central California and elsewhere in which there were 49ers fans who were quite disappointed. But I have yet to hear from, talk to, or read about a 49ers fan who thinks that Kansas City didn’t score a touchdown. Yet all 49ers fans are, by definition, partisans of the 49ers.
Consider, by contrast, politics. I often talk to people about political issues who won’t admit basic facts.
So, for example, someone will tell me that the rich don’t pay their “fair share” in taxes. They are usually talking, not about the rich, but about high-income people. I’m long past the days when I would correct them on that, unless it really matters for the discussion. We both know that we’re talking high-income, so I proceed with the discussion. It’s hard to know what their fair share is; that’s a normative issue. But it’s not hard to know what percent of income is paid in taxes by people in various income groups. When I point out that the higher the income, the higher the percent paid (except for, in some countries, a tiny percent at the top), they often deny it. But they don’t show me any data that contradict that. It’s true that it’s a little tougher to find data on that than to notice whether the football player caught the ball in the end zone. But, with Google and other search engines so readily available, it’s only a little tougher. And they often stick with their view.
They could argue the economically relevant point that you can’t judge the burden of the tax by who explicitly pays but, instead, have to consider elasticities of supply and demand to figure out who really bears the burden. But that’s not typically what happens.
READER COMMENTS
robc
Feb 13 2024 at 9:10am
I don’t know about that…
From the 1990 season alone:
I deny that Colorado crossed the goalline on 5th down.
I deny that there was a clip on Rocket Ishmael’s punt return in the Orange Bowl.
I do acknowledge that the AP still declared Colorado national champions, despite those incidents and their loss.
I deny the AP as a legitimate source for awarding a national title.
I was a senior in 1990-91, it doesn’t take many guesses to figure out my school.
steve
Feb 13 2024 at 2:23pm
I think your point is correct but your example is not the best. When I am online I have little trouble getting people to agree, that on average, wealthier people pay a higher percentage of disclosed income. You can easily and quickly provide numbers. I think it has also helped if you are honest and note that there are individual exceptions and stuff like the carried interest rule. (This is not a common topic in my in person conversations and given your occupation maybe it is for you and your experience could be different.) At least for me what I keep running into is certain groups of people no longer accepting what I have seen as pretty commonly accepted data sources. BLS, FRED, Census numbers, major science journals, major medical publications are no longer acceptable sources of info. I am supposed to accept numbers from some guy on Youtube whom I have never heard of before who hasn’t published his claims anywhere you can read and verify them. Or, if I am lucky, that person offers some numbers but doesnt show his homework on how he got there.
It’s all about feelings and not data. The wife has spent years teaching me you cant argue feelings.
Steve
David Henderson
Feb 13 2024 at 4:00pm
I think your examples are good too. The problem is that to convince people that those data sources are not politically corrupt, you have to go through a lot of history with them. I’ve known people at BLS over the decades and I know (or, at least, am pretty sure I know) how non-corrupt they are. But the skeptics don’t know that.
Henri Hein
Feb 13 2024 at 2:30pm
That reminds me of the book Kevin mentioned with the five categories of intellectual, ordered by how objectively rational they are. As I recall, the most rational was the Scientist and the second category was Sports Fan. I wish I could remember which book that was.
Kevin Corcoran
Feb 13 2024 at 4:41pm
The book is What’s Our Problem: A Self-Help Book for Societies by Tim Urban, and the post you’re talking about is here!
Henri Hein
Feb 14 2024 at 12:57pm
Great! Thanks Kevin.
Monte
Feb 13 2024 at 9:20pm
Why? Politics today is a lot like professional wrestling. It’s more performance art and pretense than reality. Spectators of both tend to disengage themselves from critical thinking and logic in order to embrace their narrative of preference, a phenomenon defined as “motivated reasoning” by the APA:
As a result, America is experiencing a crisis in facts and truth.
Matthias
Feb 14 2024 at 3:12am
If you are rich enough in the US, you can arrange to get capital gains instead of income.
Eg many founder-CEOs like Mark Zuckerberg take 1 dollar a year as their salary. They hold a lot of company shares that go up in value. (Assume the company pays no dividends and instead does stock buy backs for simplicity.)
That CEO can borrow against the shares to fiance lavish consumption.
But that CEO would hardly pay any taxes.
(Thanks to a quirk in US tax law, the loans can be paid back when the CEO dies, because your estate can sell shares without trigger capital gains taxes.)
Anonymous
Feb 14 2024 at 12:17pm
Are you sure? I know when the stocks are passed to your heirs, they receive a stepped up basis and can then be sold without capital gains. But I don’t see how your estate could sell without triggering the capital gains tax.
Comments are closed.