Christopher Faricy
Associate Professor of Political Science and Public Policy, Syracuse University
Areas of Expertise:
Connect with Christopher
About Christopher
Faricy’s main area of interest is in the politics of income inequality. Specifically; he examines how political parties use changes to tax policy to distribute federal money and how public opinion on tax breaks and inequality influences policymakers and public policy outcomes.
Contributions
No Jargon Podcast
In the News
Research discussed by , in "March 22 Luncheon: Expert Dissects America's "Welfare for the Wealthy'," The Progressive Pulse, March 13, 2018.
Opinion: "Donald Trump’s Tax Plan Would Mean Huge Breaks for Millionaires like Trump," Christopher Faricy, The Washington Post, March 15, 2017.
Guest on CNY Central, September 26, 2016.
Opinion: "Both the Clinton and Trump Child-Care Tax Plans Have an Appeal — But to Very Different Voters," Christopher Faricy, The Washington Post, August 25, 2016.
Opinion: "Is It Time for a New "New Deal?”," Christopher Faricy, The American Prospect, June 9, 2016.
Interviewed in "Syracuse University Professor Weighs on the Possibility of a Contested Convention," The Daily Orange, May 2, 2016.
Opinion: "How the U.S. Tax System Disadvantages Racial Minorities," Christopher Faricy, The Washington Post, April 18, 2016.
Quoted by Laura Lorenzetti in "How Closely Does Iowa Resemble the U.S.?," Fortune, January 20, 2016.
Opinion: "5 Things You Should Know about the Republican Welfare State," Christopher Faricy, Vox, November 2, 2015.
Quoted by Sean McElwee in "How to Actually Beat These Guys: The Trick That Could Get Republicans behind Redistribution," Salon, October 31, 2015.
Opinion: "Can Americans be Sold on Dave Camp’s Tax Reform?," Christopher Faricy (with ), The Washington Post, March 5, 2014.
Quoted by John Sides in "How Government Spending Moves Public Opinion: It Depends on Redistribution," The Washington Post, February 28, 2013.
Quoted by Dan Froomkin in "Social Welfare State, American-Style, Means Relief for the Rich," Huffington Post, January 13, 2012.
Quoted by Kevin Drum in "Chart of the Day: Republican vs. Democratic Spending," Mother Jones, February 21, 2011.
Publications
"The Distributive Politics of Tax Expenditures: How Parties Use Policy Tools to Distribute Revenue across Classes" Politics, Groups, and Identities (forthcoming).
Establishes that while both political parties increase the number of tax breaks when in power, Democrats increase the level of tax credits that distribute money to the working poor and Republicans raise the level of tax deductions, which accrues more money to the rich.
The Other Side of the Coin: Public Attitudes towards Social Tax Expenditures and Inequality in America (with ). (The Russell Sage Foundation, forthcoming).
Examines how citizens form attitudes about social tax breaks and how these fit with their opinions about egalitarianism and inequality.
Welfare for the Wealthy: Parties, Social Spending, and Inequality in the United States (Cambridge University Press, 2015).
Shows that Republicans increase social spending through the tax code, which benefits businesses and wealthier workers and increases income inequality over time.
"Public Attitudes towards Direct Spending vs. Tax Expenditures in the United States" (with ). Political Behavior 36, no. 1 (2014): 53-76.
Presents evidence that citizens prefer social spending delivered as a tax break, although support diminishes once respondents learn that most benefits go to the rich. Argues that Democrats and Independents reduce their preferences for regressive social tax expenditures while Republicans are not influenced by this same information.
"Social Policy and Public Opinion: How the Ideological Direction of Spending Influences Public Mood" (with ). Journal of Politics 73, no. 4 (2011): 1095-1110.
Documents that the mass public responds to increases in the number and value of tax breaks by calling for policy to move in a more liberal direction.