Recent viral reporting on Biden's proposed tax hikes has generated heated criticism and outrage online. Some say the proposed capital gains tax increase to 44.6% and an unrealized gains tax of 25% will predominantly affect the wealthy. Supporters insist the wealthy deserve to pay their “fair share.” Critics argue high earners already pay a significant portion of total taxes. Many also say the government should focus more on reducing its spending rather than increasing taxation.

Opposition to Unrealized Gains Tax

Discussions have ensued particularly about the proposed unrealized gains tax. This tax would be levied on any increase in value of an asset, even if it has not yet been sold. For example, if a person buys a stock for $100 and it increases in value to $150, they will have an unrealized gain of $50. Currently, Americans are not taxed on this gain until they sell the stock. Taxing unrealized gains is highly controversial, with opponents arguing it would be unfair and would cause financial hardships for people who have seen their assets increase in value but do not have the cash on hand to pay a tax on the gain.

The severe negative sentiment towards an unrealized gains tax is expressed in tweets like one from venture capitalist David Sacks. Many voters who align with this thinking say Biden’s proposed tax increase will destroy American taxpayers and business owners.

Let’s say you build a business from scratch and qualify for Biden’s new 25% unrealized gains tax. So you have to sell 25% of your business to pay the tax. But now you have to pay 44.6% cap gains + 13.3% CA on that. So you actually have to sell ~37%. Is this right?

— David Sacks (@DavidSacks) April 25, 2024

Another argument against taxing unrealized gains suggests it’s unfair because it requires taxpayers to pay taxes on income they haven’t received. Voters talk about the idea of a tax on unrealized gains as outright theft.

Most Americans seem to believe that Biden’s tax hikes would lead to negative economic consequences. They say it would force reduced investment and economic growth, discouraging entrepreneurship, which would harm the economy.

• Following 2024 Tax Day, sentiment toward taxes started to decline, falling from 48% on April 14 to 46% on the 15th and 44% 10 days later.
• Americans are also increasingly negative on the economy, with sentiment sinking to 42% following news about Biden’s proposed tax plans.

Many voters also discuss their belief that taxes are being misused by the government. They complain that money gets spent on things they disagree with or is not being distributed fairly. Two recent issues Americans complain are a misuse of tax dollars are illegal immigrant support and foreign aid.

Voter Group Reactions

Wealthy Americans who would be directly impacted by the new tax policies are most likely voice negativity about Biden’s plan. They argue it would deter investment and prevent doing business. They say it’s effectively double taxation since capital gains are often derived from income that has already been taxed.

Some small business owners who have assets but are not extremely wealthy also disapprove of the proposal. They express concerns that, even if they don’t reach the affected tax backet, it could indirectly impact their businesses if wealthy consumers and investors cut back on spending and investment.

Republican voters of all economic classes are also generally opposed to the tax hike. They say higher taxes will hurt economic growth, regardless of who is personally affected. They also argue it would penalize success and discourage entrepreneurship.

Democratic voters are generally supportive of the tax increase. However, some moderate Democrats have expressed concern about the potential impact on business and economic growth.

Many people online also point out that Biden’s proposal, if implemented, would impose the highest capital gains tax rate in history. They also highlight the fact that Jimmy Carter, who also proposed increased capital gains taxes, suffered politically.

Biden is proposing a 44.6% capital gains tax, the highest ever, previously set by Jimmy Carter.

Here's how that worked out for Jimmy Carter: pic.twitter.com/UFiiPl6Skb

— Joe Consorti ⚡ (@JoeConsorti) April 24, 2024

Democrats and Lower Economic Classes are in Favor

Biden defenders are generally more supportive of the tax hike, viewing it as a way to address income inequality. They argue the wealthy should pay more taxes and be prevented from monopolizing wealth. They say the additional revenue could be used to fund programs that benefit lower income individuals, such as education and healthcare.

Progressive voters and lower income Americans often push back against online complaints about higher taxes, claiming many who are complaining are not wealthy enough to be affected. They argue the rich benefit disproportionately from economic growth and should therefore contribute more in taxes.

MIG Reports analysis clearly shows a potential TikTok ban in the United States is opposed by most voters. This majority views a ban as an infringement on their freedom of speech, a fundamental right in the United States.

Many voters express concern over government overreach and censorship. They argue their voices are being silenced and their ability to express themselves freely is being limited. This sentiment is particularly strong among younger Americans, who are more likely to use TikTok and other social media platforms as a form of expression and communication.

Many view the potential ban as an assault on their First Amendment rights, arguing the government is trying to control or limit platforms it has no right to restrict. They express concern about the suppression of voices, elimination of income streams, and potentially silencing certain opinions. They say without platforms like TikTok, an array of voices may not be heard.

Freedom of Speech Arguments

The concept of freedom of speech appears to be particularly important to younger Americans. They view TikTok as a platform for self-expression and community building. These users often refer to the app as a space that allows uncensored speech and promotes diversity. They fear a ban would be unnecessary and counterproductive.

There is a small contingent, mostly older voters, who support the ban. They frequently cite national security concerns. This group argues the Chinese-owned app is a risk to the United States and its citizens. Some also say big tech companies being regulated by the government is not a free speech issue. However, this sentiment is less prevalent and is mainly found among older Americans.

Arguments also spark debates about freedom of speech versus hate speech. Some say freedom of speech should not be used as a cover to promote hate or discrimination. This sentiment is seen across various age groups and political affiliations.

Gen Z and Other Digital Natives

Among younger demographics, regardless of political affiliation, opinions are largely negative towards the ban. Younger Americans view TikTok as a source of entertainment, self-expression, and even income.

This group often blames both the Trump and Biden administrations for the proposed ban, often using humor and sarcasm in their comments. They also express concern over the government's control over social media platforms.

Other Discussions About TikTok

General sentiment toward the idea of banning TikTok in the United States appears to be divided along political and generational lines. Beyond free speech and government censorship, people are discussing security, social issues, and the modern community.

National Security

Some conservative or older voters insist a ban is necessary due to concerns over national security and data privacy. They argue TikTok and its Chinese parent company ByteDance, share sensitive user data with the Chinese government.

Anti-Woke Sentiment

A significant number of voters express anti-woke sentiments, a term often used to criticize perceived political correctness or progressive social ideologies. These users voice disdain for what they perceive as liberal or “left: bias on social media platforms, including TikTok.

Anti-Racism

More liberal or progressive voters say they use TikTok as a platform to promote anti-racist sentiments and ideas. They argue banning TikTok would suppress these important conversations and movements.

Entertainment and Community

For many younger users, TikTok is primarily a source of entertainment and community. These Americans often express frustration at the potential ban, viewing it as an unnecessary restriction on their leisure activities and social interactions.

Reactions to Joe Biden's "Solar for All" program and sentiments about Earth Day, environmentalism, and Joe Biden reveal a mix of positive, negative, and skeptical sentiments.

Positive sentiments are primarily passive forms of support. Some appreciate Biden prioritizing environmental protection, understanding the importance of climate change actions, and supporting clean energy solutions. Many voters are clearly in favor of climate change initiatives and express relief and encouragement about the "Solar for All" program. They view it and similar programs as crucial steps towards safeguarding the environment for future generations, commending Joe Biden’s leadership in these matters. Mostly Democrats, this group seems to fall along political lines, further emphasizing the role of tribalism in the response to Biden's initiative.

Negative sentiments come from skeptics of climate change and critics of the policies being implemented. Some voters believe climate change is misrepresented to manipulate the public and gain power and money for politicians and corporations. They express frustration and disbelief at the perceived manipulation and voice opposition to the "Solar for All" program. They also criticize the focus on environmental protection, arguing there are more pressing issues to address, such as the debt crisis. They also doubt Biden's understanding of the problem and his ability to fix it.

Skeptical sentiments mainly come from those who believe in the impact of climate change but do not explicitly express support or opposition for specific policies or leaders. These voters may express concern about the environment and the need for action, but they do not necessarily align themselves with a particular political stance or leader.

Data suggests a large percentage of voters remain skeptical about the effectiveness of the initiative. They say, despite Biden’s claim, the initiative will not effectively tackle the enormity of the climate change problem. With an increase in conversation around this topic, data shows an immediate drop in sentiment. This suggests similar efforts from Biden’s administration to address climate issues in the future may cause a negative response as general distrust of government rises.

As Trump’s New York trial over alleged hush money payments gets underway, there’s significant partisan reactions on both sides. Republicans tend to be angry and frustrated about the trial, characterizing it as politically motivated and unjust. Democrats are more likely to celebrate the potential for punishment and criticize Trump’s behavior during the trail.

It remains to be seen whether the trial or possible convictions will impact Trump’s support in the presidential election. However, sentiment among all voters is lower regarding accusations made against Trump than the court case itself.

• The top three keywords used in discussions related to Trump and allegations, according to MIG Reports data, are “Corruption,” “Accusations,” and “Biden.”
• The top keywords related to Trump and legal topics are “Indictment,” “Investigation,” and “DOJ.”
• Nationally, sentiment toward Trump’s legal cases hovers in the low to mid 40% range, while sentiment toward allegations against him stays mid to high 30%.
• In swing states, sentiment for both topics is tighter, but averages higher for both legal and allegations.

Trump’s Gag Order

Many voters view the gag order against Trump as an unjust political move instigated by the Biden administration. Often Trump supporters, they express their frustration with politicized courts and judges who seem to be out to “get Trump.”

Furthermore, there are those who voice their concern over the potential impact of the gag order on democracy. They view the gag order as a threat to democratic principles, arguing that it hampers the ability of voters to make informed decisions as the election unfolds. This sentiment is more frequently held by Republicans and MAGA conservatives. But the concern does seem to cross party lines in some instances where voters are concerned about the integrity of the court system and elections.

Never Trumpers and Democrats tend to support the gag order, celebrating the idea that Trump should be silenced by a judge’s order.

Republicans Reactions to Jury Selection and Judge Merchan

Many Republicans view this hush money trial as politically motivated and part of a broader attempt to undermine the election. They argue Judge Merchan’s actions and the evidence allowed in the case are fueled by partisan bias and are unfair. Some suggest prosecutorial focus should be shifted to other political figures, such as Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, whom they accuse of committing crimes and violations.

Conservatives are also more likely to discuss the possibility of a biased jury. They point out that jury selection typically take longer – even in cases where the dependent isn’t a former president. This group worries that it will be nearly impossible for Trump to have an unbiased jury in a city like New York.

Democrats Are Eager for a Conviction

Democrats are largely enthralled and thrilled to witness the Trump trial. They say it is a necessary step towards holding him accountable for his alleged actions. They argue no one, including the President, should be above the law. This group often reiterates their belief that Trump undermines democracy and is a would-be dictator.

Most liberals and Democrats view the trial as a long-overdue measure of accountability. As inferred from Joy Reid's comments, some may see the prosecution of Trump as a victory for multicultural and multiracial democracy.

Democrats are also vocal about how they view Trump’s actions leading up to and during the trial. They criticize his demeanor in the court room and generally view the press's reporting on the trial as accurate and fair. Some Democrats have even called for Trump's immediate imprisonment.

Independents Say They’ll Judge the Trial on its Merits

Independent and more moderate voters have typically scattered views. Some express concern about the potential implications of a conviction if Trump should lose. Others question the timing and motivations behind the prosecutions.

Many Independents say they value weighing the facts of the case without the lens of party loyalty. They may be more focused on the legalities and the implications of the case for political norms and the rule of law. This could cause moderates to sway in Trump’s favor if they perceive a flimsy legal cause may be politicizing the court system.

Other believe Trump should face the consequences of his actions, siding with Democrats. However, in general, Independents are more likely to focus on the specific facts of the case rather than each party's rhetoric about the proceedings.

Media Coverage of the Trial

The press's coverage of the trial is similarly partisan. Conservative outlets tend to portray the trial as a politically motivated attack on Trump. They tend to focus on Judge Merchan’s actions and whether they believe the jurors can remain fair.

Liberal and mainstream outlets largely focus on describing Trump’s actions and demeanor in court. Some outlets have included analysis of Trump’s expressions and interactions in detail.

Many voters view various news coverage of the trial as biased according to political leaning. They also lament the fact that no video or audio from the trial is allowed, saying voters have a right to witness and judge for themselves.

The man who set himself on fire outside the trial has added another layer to the discussion. His extreme act has been reported widely, with his identity as an "investigative researcher" adding to confusion about his potential political affiliations.

A recent Supreme Court decision not to hear the Mckesson v. Doe case has sparked a robust online discussion. Much of the commentary seems to be from liberal and left leaning voters who support BLM and other social justice protests.

The case in question involved DeRay Mckesson, a civil rights activist, who was sued by an anonymous police officer (Doe) who was injured during a protest Mckesson organized in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, in 2016. The lawsuit alleged Mckesson was responsible for the injuries because he should have anticipated violent actions during the protest.

SCOTUS’ decision essentially upholds a lower court ruling that organizers of protests can be held responsible for violence or illegal actions that occur, even if they didn't directly participate in or endorse such actions. This decision extends to the states of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas. Critics argue this decision essentially criminalizes protest organization.

Many discussing this subject seem to misunderstand the court decisions, believing SCOTUS made it illegal to protest, when in fact the court had declined to hear a case, leaving a lower court's decision in place.

The event has also sparked conversation about politicized and weaponized justice. MIG Reports data suggests liberals and conservatives both entertain ideas that the government and courts could be weaponized – however they disagree about whom the weaponization is against.

• National sentiment towards SCOTUS is relatively high compared to protests and police.
• Sentiment towards all topics related to protests and prosecutions for protests has declined slightly in the last two weeks.

Liberals Emphasizing Mckesson’s Plight

Those arguing the decision infringes upon the First Amendment tend to lean liberal. They say it’s chilling the right to protest by making organizers potentially liable for actions they cannot control. They see this as a move to criminalize dissent and express fear about the implications for democratic freedoms.

Some voice fears this could dissuade activists from organizing protests out of fear of legal repercussions. They argue holding organizers accountable for the actions of individuals within a protest is unfair and infringes upon the constitutional right to free speech and peaceful assembly.

Supporters of the decision argue protest organizers should be held accountable for any illegal activities that occur during their events. They believe this will deter violent protests and encourage peaceful assemblies. Although these voices tend to be more right leaning, there is much less discussion of the case among Republicans and conservatives.

Those who are discussing the case either blame Democratic leadership for lawlessness during protests or criticize Republican lawmakers for eroding democratic rights. The debate around this case highlights the partisan views many hold about protest rights, depending on the cause of the protest.

Contrasting Views of Weaponized Government

The politicized view of protests seems apparent when contrasting opinions about Mckesson v. Doe and January 6 prosecutions. Those who view the events of January 6 as an attack on democracy demand protesters be held accountable. These individuals frequently use terms such as "insurrectionists," "traitors," and "seditious clowns," and appear to be among the same group discussing the Mckesson v. Doe decision.

Liberal and progressive voters are more likely to call for the arrest, conviction, and jailing of J6 participants. This group also includes elected officials who they believe incited or supported the attack like former President Trump. Many demand a thorough investigation and express satisfaction when they see arrests and convictions.

Progressive and liberal voters express a sense of double standards in how different protests are handled. They say law enforcement response to the J6 demonstrators was less severe than responses to Black Lives Matter protests.

Conservatives View J6 Convictions as Weaponized

In contrast to liberals who claim lenience for Mckesson and maximum consequences for J6 defendants, conservatives view the courts as weaponized in the opposite direction. This group is more likely to claim J6 demonstrators were merely exercising their right to protest. They criticize the media and Democrats for applauding J6 convictions while shrugging off BLM protest violence.

Right leaning voters believe there is bias in the FBI's actions, specifically in the context of the prosecution of J6 participants. They contrast this with leniency towards leftist activists who commit crimes and violence in the name of Black Lives Matter of Palestine.

Conservatives are more likely to believe in the existence of the Deep State – a group of unelected bureaucrats manipulating the government. They express frustration and mistrust towards the government and politicians who politicize federal agencies and the court system.

There is a strong perception that conservatives are being unfairly targeted and labeled "domestic terrorists" by the FBI and other institutions.

MIG Reports data has identified a significant amount of dissatisfaction and frustration among Americans regarding cyberattacks and perceived failures of homeland security. Many of these feelings result from recent events that users suspect to be cyberattacks, which they blame on the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and its Secretary, Alejandro Mayorkas.

Some are calling for Mayorkas to resign, indicating dissatisfaction with his handling of security issues. There is a belief that DHS is not doing enough to prevent cyberattacks and protect American citizens. These sentiments are fueled by the perceived ineffectiveness and alleged corruption within the department.

Discussions have been increasing with a rising number of disastrous incidents on U.S. infrastructure, with many skeptical of reasons why. These events include things like the Baltimore Bridge, weather radar outages, and 911 outages. As foreign conflicts expand in countries like Russia and Iran, Americans are more worried they will never find the truth about responsible actors.

Anger is also directed at the government at large, with some voters accusing it of being compromised by foreign entities. They believe foreign adversaries have manipulated the government to their advantage, leading to a lack of accountability for cyberattacks.

Many people are apprehensive about the possibility of future attacks. There is a sense that the current government and security departments are not adequately prepared or competent to handle and prevent such incidents. As a result, there is a call for more stringent security measures and more robust responses to cyber threats.

There's also a level of anxiety about how cyberattacks could impact daily life, from increasing costs to potentially disrupting essential services. Some speculate about the potential for cyberattacks to escalate into physical conflict or even war, citing the mutual hostility between certain nations.

Others argue that hostile foreign adversaries could exploit American communications and cyber infrastructure to carry out attacks. However, there are also concerns about domestic threats, with some users accusing certain politicians and political groups of being "domestic terrorists."

On April 16, 1,300 illegal immigrants lined up outside City Hall in New York City expecting green cards to be handed out. The event occurred due to confusion, as the migrants are ineligible for green cards (an immigration benefit). Millions of illegal immigrants from dozens of ethnicities and backgrounds have entered the U.S. since 2021. This makes it difficult for unregulated NGOs with limited capabilities to convey messaging to everyone. With the ongoing border crisis, it’s likely events like these may continue and potentially worsen.

MIG Reports analysis reveals a divided but shifting political. Opinions also differ within racial and economic groups. Generally, voters’ views align with the broader national debate on immigration—a topic that has become increasingly polarized during the Biden administration.

Democrats, who generally support more inclusive immigration policies, seem to be less critical of the migrants seeking green cards. However, some expressed concerns about the practicality of completely open borders, yet also question what it would mean to “close” the border. They note many people cross for legal reasons. Despite this, the overall sentiment among Democrats is one of understanding and empathy for the migrants' plight.

Republicans use stronger language, referring to the situation as an “invasion” and calling for militarization of the border. They express frustration at the Biden administration's immigration policies and accuse them of incompetence and malfeasance. They also convey outrage about the perceived misuse of taxpayer money, arguing it should be used to address the southern border instead of funding foreign nations.

On April 16, following the migrants in NYC seeking free immigration benefits, Immigration discussions online surpassed Border Security discussion volume. This is anomalous as Border Security typically generates more mentions.

Further analysis reveals a shift in Latino voting patterns towards alignment with white, non-Hispanic blue-collar workers, a group traditionally associated with Republican voting. This could suggest a change in sentiment among legal immigrants towards tougher immigration policies.

Economic class also plays a role in shaping sentiments. Those expressing frustration at the misuse of taxpayer money often belong to the middle class. They express feeling the burden of taxes and the impact of national debt. In addition, many calling for increased border security are among the growing lower economic classes, possibly perceiving immigrants as a threat to their jobs or resources.

The general sentiment towards immigration during the Biden administration has been mixed, with political, racial, and economic factors playing a significant role in shaping public opinion. Recent events underscore the complexity of the immigration debate, growing economic concerns, and the current state of distrust and anger within the American public.

Following A15 pro-Palestine protests which shut down bridges, airport traffic, and caused chaos in the streets, Americans are discussing disparate law enforcement responses. In places like California and New York, many people feel the police did little to uphold the rule of law. These optics are a sharp contrast to how police dealt with protesters in Florida where arrests were made, and protests quickly dispersed.

Much of the conversation is divided along partisan lines with more liberal and Democratic voters advocating for the protesters’ rights. Those on the right or moderates who value rule of law tend to voice support for the decisive response from law enforcement in red states like Florida.

• Sentiment toward protests on April 15 dropped in Florida to 31% from 43% the day before.
• In California, protest sentiment increased from 38% prior to April 15, to 40%, suggesting more support for the A15 protests.
• Palestine sentiment also decreased in Florida on April 15 and increased in California.

Backlash for Senator Cotton’s Tweet

A tweet from Arkansas Senator Tom Cotton has also sparked discussion about the prudence of civilian action to deal with protesters. Some people called his tweet a tongue-in-cheek call to vigilante action against protesters. Many others, however, took umbrage with the tweet.

I encourage people who get stuck behind the pro-Hamas mobs blocking traffic: take matters into your own hands to get them out of the way.

It's time to put an end to this nonsense.

— Tom Cotton (@TomCottonAR) April 16, 2024

Much of the negative response and disapproval toward Cotton's message came from liberals and progressives who claimed he was calling for violence. Some even went as far as calling for his resignation or even imprisonment.

This group accused him of inciting violence and promoting vigilantism against peaceful protesters. Some use strong language to describe their disgust, calling him a "disgrace" and stating he belongs in prison.

There also seems to be a portion of right leaning voters who agree that blocking roads is inappropriate and potentially illegal, but they disagree with the notion of citizens taking drastic actions. This group cites examples like Kyle Rittenhouse and Daniel Penny who both “took matters into their own hands,” and faced severe legal consequences.

Many asked whether Cotton would be prepared to legally defend citizens who intervened, if progressive activists or politicized prosecutors came after them legally.

Other conservative and right leaning voters voiced agreement with Cotton. They said the right to protest does not grant the right to inconvenience others or block public thoroughfares. They argue protesters who do so should face severe consequences, including jail sentences.

Law Enforcement Response in Florida

There's a mix of reactions to pro-Palestinian protests in Florida disrupting traffic. Many express frustrations at the inconvenience, while others focus more on the rationale behind anti-Israel and anti-America demonstrations.

Many Floridians commend police actions and the law-and-order stance under Ron DeSantis's leadership, particularly in dealing with Pro-Hamas protesters. This group often contrasts the response of Florida law enforcement with that of police in New York, California, and other large cities in blue states.

Progressives tend to decry any arrest of pro-Palestine protesters. Some even compare DeSantis to Adolf Hitler, saying his leadership in Florida is authoritarian and racist. However, many of the voices criticizing Florida’s governance also seem to declare their unwillingness to live in or even travel to Florida.

Perceived Inaction by Police in New York and California

Many people online criticize law enforcement in San Francisco and New York City for being passive. They believe police stood by during disruptive protests and did nothing when demonstrators blocked roads and bridges. There is a sense of frustration over disruptions to travel and commerce, accusing the police of failing to maintain order.

There is also frequent criticism for protesters for causing inconvenience and potentially endangering public safety by roads. Many are particularly critical of pro-Palestinian, anti-Israel protests, accusing them of causing unnecessary disruption, insulting America, and burning American flags.

Some protest supporters and activists who were reacting to the Middle East conflict which now involves Iran, drew attention to police brutality, arguing police officers even in blue cities are too rough with peaceful protesters. This group criticizes those who they believe are more concerned with the disruption caused by protests than with the issue of police brutality itself.

MIG Reports analysis of what Americans are saying online about their tax returns reveals mixed sentiment, however, general dissatisfaction. Many taxpayers express frustration and confusion over the complex tax filing process. Some suggest the system is designed to benefit the wealthy and corporations over average citizens. While there is appreciation for the various resources and services available to assist with tax preparation, smaller tax returns this year, amid overarching economic concerns, diminish the overall mood during tax season.

Sentiment seems to vary by political affiliation. Republicans tend to have a more positive view of the tax return process, citing the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 as beneficial for lowering tax rates and simplifying the process. This Trump-era Act was the only noticed bright spot throughout the online discussions. Democrats, on the other hand, feel the tax cuts disproportionately favor the wealthy and corporations, leading to a more negative sentiment.

As Tax Day approached, online conversations increased to their highest point in the tax season, while sentiment dropped to its lowest point.

Demographics

Economic classes play a role in shaping sentiment. Lower and middle-class taxpayers often express frustration over the perceived unfairness of the tax system, feeling that they shoulder a disproportionate burden. Wealthier taxpayers, while also expressing some dissatisfaction with the complexity of the tax process, generally show a more positive sentiment due to the financial benefits they receive from tax cuts. Although, in general all Americans seem concerned about the economy and maintaining their standard of living.

Age also affects sentiment towards tax returns. Older taxpayers, who are often more acquainted with the tax filing process, show less frustration compared to younger taxpayers who may be navigating the process for the first time. The sentiment among different racial groups seems to be mixed, with no clear patterns emerging.

Geographically, there is less sway in discourse and sentiment; however, taxpayers in states with higher state and local taxes, such as California and New York, express more dissatisfaction due to caps on state and local tax deductions.

Overall, while there are resources available to help Americans with their tax returns, sentiment leans negative, with calls for a simpler, more equitable tax system. There is also an undercurrent of concern that tax dollars are not being used efficiently.