Marketing The Least Sexy Product Ever: Tax
Tax is a three letter word that generates more emotion than most swear words.
As someone who cares about the looming election season and my local politics, the word tax is cruelly common. The older I become, the more I really struggle to resonate with the preached words for tax.
Yet, there is an acceptance that tax is a fact of life.
Fine, I can get behind that. After all, without tax, infrastructure is purely ficiton. Roads? Pffft. Healthcare? Hah!
For all its benefits, taxes are still about as popular as a trip to the dentist. Necessary, yet often dreaded. Why? Because no one enjoys seeing their hard-earned cash evaporate into a bureaucratic black hole. It’s like paying for a gym membership that promises to tone your whole body, but all you can see is the bill with no six pack.
This disconnect between what taxes promise and what they deliver is where things get tricky and absurd.
This is where tax has a massive marketing problem. Despite funding the very things we rely on, it’s the least sexy product ever.
Etymology Of Tax
As a fan of linguistics, the etymology of the word “tax” is actually really insightful to the function of society.
The word “tax” originates from the Latin word taxare. This means “to estimate” or “to assess.” The term was adopted into Old French as taxer, which then transitioned into Middle English in the 13th century as tax. Initially, taxare referred to a process of evaluation or appraisal, particularly for determining the value of goods that would later become subject to some form of levy. This link between valuation and taxation reflects the fundamental nature as an imposition based on one’s assessed wealth.
The concept of taxation, though similar, can also trace its origins to earlier Indo-European languages, in which verbs like tag or tangere referred to “touching” or “grasping.” So, early forms of tax also carried a connotation of grasping or taking part of a subject’s property or goods.
Taxation is not a new pratice by any means. In Ancient Egypt, citizens provided labor or goods as tax, while the Rosetta Stone (196 BCE) documented a tax-related decree. In Mesopotamia, rulers like Hammurabi formalized taxes on agriculture and trade. The Roman Empire developed a sophisticated tax system, with land taxes (tributum) and a poll tax under Augustus, laying the foundation for many modern tax concepts.
In medieval Europe, kings taxed the clergy and nobility, and large-scale surveys like the English Domesday Book (1086) assessed taxable lands. During the early modern period, taxes became a tool of state-building. This was exemplified by Louis XIV’s taille land tax and the English Poll Tax of 1381, which sparked the Peasants’ Revolt.
The 20th century saw the rise of progressive taxation, with the U.S. implementing income tax through the Sixteenth Amendment during 1913.
Today, taxes are an essential aspect of life. Governments rely on taxes to function which in turn, allow us to live quite well.
Arguing Over That Three Letter Word
Let it be known that we killed people over this word.
One of the most famous wars over taxation emerged during the 17th and 18th centuries. This was epitomized by the English Civil War (1642–1651). Here one of the grievances against King Charles I was his imposition of taxes like ship money without Parliamentary consent.
Feels like it ended well for him…
Taxation as a political issue reached more violent levels during the American Revolution. The slogan “No taxation without representation” captured the colonists’ frustration with the British Parliament’s ability to tax them without their consent. History shows that the Stamp Act of 1765 and the Tea Act of 1773 were rather emotive…
The rationale for conflict over taxation comes from three possible reasons. First, taxation often triggers a strong desire for fairness, as people resist systems they perceive as unjust. For example, “No taxation without representation” during the American Revolution emphasized the deep need for fair governance. Second, taxes challenge individuals’ sense of control over their resources. When people feel forced to contribute without choice, resistance grows. Lastly, taxes evoke emotional reactions, often more powerful than logical assessments of public good.
Why This Is A Marketing Problem
The fact that tax has a marketing problem is oddly ironic, considering it funds the very systems we rely on daily. Tax funds needs. Yet, the disconnect is glaring.
On one hand, governments expect taxpayers to fund vital services like healthcare, education, and infrastructure. Society does not function without these. On the other, they’ve failed to “sell” the concept in a way that unites the public. People often portray tax as a burdensome deduction from their hard-earned work, instead of framing it as a collective investment.
We feel the “dread” surrounding the word tax rather than the “good”.
No one gets excited about “investing in road maintenance” the same way they might about buying the latest tech gadget. The fundamental issue here is that the transaction is invisible. No one sees the tangible benefits of your contribution in real-time. And that makes it difficult to form a positive emotional attachment to something so necessary.
Tax’s marketing failure also lies in its perceived lack of transparency and control. The average taxpayer doesn’t really know where their money goes, but there is an emotive reaction. There’s no invoice that says, “$500 of your taxes went to fixing the pothole on Main Street.”
Instead, the system operates as a black hole, shuffling funds around in ways that don't always align with personal values or priorities. This leads to a psychological aversion; if people feel their money is being siphoned off to pay for things they don’t care about, the resentment grows. It’s less about tax being inherently evil, and more about it feeling like an uncontrollable withdrawal with no clear return on investment.
Tax should be marketed as the ultimate crowd-funded venture. Well, it was always meant to be but that’s never the pitch. Hardly ever. Instead, politicians weaponise tax as a political football, alternately promising to cut or raise it based on voter whims. And during election season, it's the first to score a goal that counts.
Instead, we’re trapped in a loop of fear-mongering. Every election season, it’s either “they’ll hike your taxes to fund wasteful projects!” or “we’ll cut your taxes to save you from economic ruin!”
Take public schools, for example. You almost never hear a politician posture their argument as, “Your taxes are helping to educate future doctors, engineers, and scientists!” Instead, the narrative becomes “we’re throwing your tax dollars into a broken system.” Even infrastructure, something as concrete as bridges or public transport, is often framed as a “cost” rather than an investment.
It’s hard to rally behind something when its image is so frequently distorted. Rather than being viewed as a tool for societal improvement, tax gets cast as the villain, when, in fact, it could be the unsung hero.
It is nothing more than a tool that is often postured as the problem.
Customer Perception Issues
Tax has a branding problem because it’s universally disliked. Everyone hates it.
Research shows that public perception of taxes is often negative, largely because people feel they don’t see a direct benefit (James Alm and Benno Torgler, Public Finance Review, 2006). Roads may get paved and hospitals may get funded, but the mental math stops at, “Wait, why is this much coming out of my paycheck?”
There is also a framing of tax as a loss rather than a gain. Most taxpayers have a cognitive disconnect between the taxes they pay and the benefits they receive. This is called “tax visibility.” People remember what’s taken but rarely recognize what’s given in return. For instance, have you ever heard anyone say, “I’m so glad my taxes went to maintaining clean water and functioning streetlights!”? Exactly. Taxes are framed as a loss rather than a necessary contribution to the greater good.
And let’s not forget: tax systems are complicated. Complexity breeds frustration, and frustration feeds resentment. This perception drives the distaste in relation to the topic.
Communication Challenges
If taxes were a product, their biggest communication flaw would be how they’re sold. Unlike social welfare programs, which politicians can proudly advertise as “look what we’ve done for you!” taxes get branded as an obligatory burden. Instead of showing how taxes fund every aspect of public life, politicians often pitch taxes as something to reduce, avoid, or combat.
That language is combative. Linguistically, these words evoke an “us vs. them” mentality. Tax is the enemy. It postures entities as the government as an entity extracting your resources and labour.
When politicians promise to “reduce” taxes, the implication is that taxes are a burden. Words like “combat” make it sound as if the act of taxation is an aggressive imposition on wealth on the basis of fairness. These choices of words don’t cause citizens to associate taxes with loss rather than collective gain.
The language around taxes is another problem. Taxes are discussed in ways that most people don’t really grasp. “Fiscal responsibility,” “deficit reduction,” “economic growth”, these are phrases that don’t resonate with the average joe, who’s just worried about making rent. If I am struggling to think about the week, I am certainly not going to think about the month.
This communication gap is enormous. There’s no compelling narrative about taxes being the lifeblood of essential services; instead, there’s a focus on minimizing them. That language barrier creates an inherent distrust in the system.
Target Market Misalignment
One of the most surprising aspects of tax is how poorly it’s aligned with its “target market.” It’s sold as a one-size-fits-all solution to everyone’s problems. But everyone has very different needs and priorities.
The millennial paying student loans doesn't care about tax breaks for retirees, and the small business owner isn't thrilled about public health care programs that don't seem to benefit their profits. As economist James Alm argues, the challenge is that tax policies often reflect political agendas rather than addressing the diverse, real-world needs of the population (Tax Policy and the Economy, 2012).
Tax systems in New Zealand, like in most democratic nations, are designed intending to benefit the majority. But the individual will rarely be able to perceive the majority accurately.
There’s often a disconnect between what people think they need and what their taxes actually fund. For instance, a retiree in Auckland might complain about high council rates without realising that these taxes fund essential local services she regularly relies on. Meanwhile, younger Kiwis, often vocal about climate change, may not fully appreciate how much government revenue is already being directed toward renewable energy projects.
I acknowledge that this is an information framing problem. How to solve this target market misalignment? I don’t know.
Where To From Here?
Well, we could start by asking if tax just needs a better PR team.
Or perhaps the trick is language. If we swapped out current word selection for something less aggressive, maybe people would start seeing taxes less as a personal affront and more like their Netflix subscription, annoying, yes, but worth it for the perks.
Or, if that feels too optimistic, perhaps we just need to start small. Get people thinking less about the taxes they pay and more about what those dollars actually buy. It’s not impossible…just tricky.
But hey, nothing worth doing is ever easy, right?
So stay tuned, there is much more to talk about with Tax and Marketing in a sequeal to this article.
Would you consider a follow?
https://asymmetriccreativity.medium.com/
Biblography
David Martin, The Rise of American Democracy: Jefferson to Lincoln (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2005)
John Brewer, The Sinews of Power: War, Money, and the English State, 1688–1783 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1989
Alm, James, and Torgler, Benno. “Culture Differences and Tax Morale in the United States and in Europe.” Public Finance Review, vol. 34, no. 3
Alm, James. “Measuring, Explaining, and Controlling Tax Evasion: Lessons from Theory, Experiments, and Field Studies.” Tax Policy and the Economy, vol. 26
