For many international observers, John Kerry's tax proposals seem like an easy sell - roll back the tax cuts on the richest 2 per cent to fund new tax breaks for the middle class.
In the final two televised presidential debates the Democratic candidate once again tried to remind American voters that some 98 per cent of them would be better off under his plans.
But when Americans are asked whom they trust to handle tax policy, they consistently opt for George W. Bush over Mr Kerry. So what accounts for Mr Kerry's failure to persuade a majority of Americans that his tax plans would benefit them?
Academics say part of the answer lies in widespread delusions among Americans about where they fit in the income pecking order, combined with a lack of knowledge of the tax system.
In presenting his plans on tax, Mr Kerry has been forced to tiptoe through a cultural minefield. Americans traditionally respond negatively to tax systems that appear to take from the rich to give to the poor.
A key reason may be that many Americans believe they are rich. In a US survey by Time Magazine in 2000, 19 per cent of respondents thought they were in the top 1 per cent of earners and another 19 per cent believed they would be one day.
In his rhetoric Mr Kerry has generally avoided percentages - stating simply that taxes would only rise on those earning more than $200,000 (€160,000, £111,000) - to prevent confusion. "Many Americans cherish dreams that they could be the next Donald Trump," says Karry Katz, a Harvard economist. "And this is quite a powerful antidote to class envy."
Even so, research by Larry Bartels, an economist at Princeton, suggests few voters have fully grasped the extent to which the Bush tax cuts have primarily benefited the wealthy.
Citizens for Tax Justice, a Washington think-tank, estimates that over a decade the Bush cuts are worth $1,861bn, with $689bn going to the wealthiest 1 per cent - those with an income of more than $337,000 a year.
Prof Bartels' work - based on surveys taken in 2002 after the first round of Bush tax cuts - suggests that ignorance may have been partly responsible for the strength of public support for the package.
The survey tested respondents' knowledge of US politics - such as whether they could name the vice-president - and their attitude to the tax cuts. The results showed that the respondents with relatively poor political knowledge were almost unanimously in favour of the cuts, while more informed Americans were just as likely to oppose the tax package as support it.
"Survey data suggest that many people do feel that the rich do not shoulder their fair share of the tax burden," he says. "I think if Americans had a better understanding of the differences between the two candidates' policies they would be more likely to favour Kerry's plans."
That seems to be backed up by a Gallup poll published this year in which two-thirds of respondents said "upper-income earners" paid too little tax and only a quarter said they paid their fair share. Close to half felt that "middle income families" paid too much, with the other half feeling they paid their fair share.
Misunderstandings about taxation are best illustrated by the estate tax - or "death tax", as its opponents call it. Half of Americans think that most families have to pay the tax and two-thirds think they will one day be hit by the tax, according to a 2002 survey by National Public Radio, the Kaiser Foundation and Harvard's Kennedy School.
In fact, last year the tax affected only 2 per cent of people passing on their estates. In 2004 only estates worth more than $1.5m (or $3m for couples) were subject to the tax and it is scheduled to be phased out gradually by 2010. The tax seems to chime with Americans' desire for a more progressive tax system, yet some 80 per cent of Americans favour eliminating it.
The perception of the candidates' tax plans appears to have been coloured by their delight over receiving tax cuts under Mr Bush. "Rebate cheques made the Bush cuts very visible and therefore very politically effective," says Veronique de Rugy, at the American Enterprise Institute. Every US income taxpayer got at least some reduction and millions got $300 rebate cheques in the post, starting in the second half of 2001.
"Americans overall seem to feel that as long as they got something, it doesn't matter if other people got a lot more," says Joel Slemrod, an economist at the University of Michigan.
Mr Kerry is also fighting a credibility problem. Although polls suggest he is more trusted than Mr Bush as a steward of the economy, half of voters questioned in a CBS News survey last month said they would pay higher taxes under Mr Kerry. This suggests people do not know about Mr Kerry's proposals, do not understand them or do not believe them.
"It has been relatively easy for the Republicans to say that anyone who wants to raise taxes at the top end will end up raising taxes on everybody," says John Samples, an analyst at Cato, the free-market think-tank.
Polling data after the final presidential TV debate provide some evidence that Mr Kerry is closing the gap with Mr Bush in the area of tax. A month ago polls gave the president a 10-point lead on the issue. CNN's post-debate poll put him 3 points ahead on tax. But Mr Kerry is running out of time to convince the American people that he is closer to their instincts on tax than Mr Bush.
Find this article at: http://news.ft.com/cms/s/d7551b46-216b-11d9-9db7-00000e2511c8,ft_acl=,s01=1.html