Giving to government: Voluntary taxation in the lab

Li, Sherry Xin; Eckel, Catherine C.; Grossman, Philip J.; Brown, Tara Larson

doi:10.1016/j.jpubeco.2011.03.005

Cited by 75 publications

(53 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Tax research has shown that political beliefs do not influence individual tax compliance (Bobek et al, 2013;Li et al, 2011). Consequently, both right-leaning and left-leaning individuals condemn tax evasion.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Consumer reactions to corporate tax strategies: The role of political ideology

Antonetti

Anesa

2017

Journal of Business Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study contributes to research on how stakeholders react to corporate tax strategies (CTSs). In two experiments we show that consumers are more likely to react negatively to 'aggressive' rather than to reward 'conservative' CTSs. The impact of CTSs on consumer reactions is mediated by the perceived ethicality of the firm and moderated by individuals' political identification. Right-leaning consumers are less likely than left-leaning consumers to punish companies engaging in tax avoidance. This moderation depends on the personal connection customers have with a particular brand: both left-leaning and right-leaning consumers punish firms they feel close to when such firms engage in aggressive CTSs. The study extends our understanding of the benefits and risks associated with different CTSs. It contributes to debates on the morality of CTSs, showing that political ideology shapes individuals' perceived ethicality of corporations engaged in aggressive tax avoidance.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Consumer reactions to corporate tax strategies: The role of political ideology

Antonetti

Anesa

2017

Journal of Business Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…[8,10,11,13-18]). Eckel et al [19], Crumpler and Grossman [20], and Li et al [21] adopted a different approach, using laboratory experiments to test the same or related hypotheses.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Government and charity funding of cancer research: public preferences and choices

Shah

Sussex

Hernández-Villafuerte

2015

Health Res Policy Sys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundIt is unclear how the public would respond to changes in government decisions about how much to spend on medical research in total and specifically on major disease areas such as cancer. Our aim was to elicit the views of the general public in the United Kingdom about how a change in government spending on cancer research might affect their willingness to donate, or to hypothecate a portion of their income tax payments, to cancer research charities.MethodsA web-based stated preference survey was conducted in 2013. Respondents considered hypothetical scenarios regarding changes in the levels of government funding for medical research. In each scenario, respondents were asked to imagine that they could allocate £100 of the income tax they paid this year to one or more medical research charities. They were asked how they wished to allocate the £100 between cancer research charities and medical research charities concerned with diseases other than cancer. After having been given the opportunity to allocate £100 in this way, respondents were then asked if they would want to reduce or increase any personal out-of-pocket donations that they already make to cancer research and non-cancer medical research charities. Descriptive analyses and random effects modelling were used to examine patterns in the response data.ResultsThe general tendency of respondents was to act to offset hypothetical changes in government spending. When asked to imagine that the government had reduced (or increased) its spending on cancer research, the general tendency of respondents was to state that they would give a larger (or smaller) allocation of their income tax to cancer research charities, and to increase (or reduce) their personal out-of-pocket donations to cancer research charities. However, most respondents’ preferred allocation splits and changes in personal donations did not vary much from scenario to scenario. Many of the differences between scenarios were small and non-significant.ConclusionsThe public’s decisions about how much to donate to cancer research or other medical research charities are not greatly affected by (hypothetical) changes to government plans about the amount of public funding of cancer or other medical research.

show abstract

“…On completion of the experiment, subjects were asked to fill out a survey questionnaire including questions about beliefs on causes of poverty, the effectiveness of spending, etc. Exploratory factor analysis is used to reveal the underlying structure of beliefs (Li et al ., ). Factor analysis reveals six distinct factors (see Table ).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 97%

Paternalism and Ethnicity in Giving

Jones

2017

Economic Record

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper investigates paternalism and ethnicity in giving. In this experiment donors choose to donate to one of three recipient types, varying by ethnicity. In one treatment, donors can impose a costly restriction on their donation. I find a higher proportion of donors choose to donate to a commonly negatively stereotyped recipient (Indigenous Australians) when they are able to act paternalistically. Even when paternalism is costly, almost 60 per cent chose to restrict their donation. Paternalism is also found to be related to recipient type. The results indicate that to increase donations, charities may need to reduce donors’ perceptions of misuse.

show abstract

Giving to government: Voluntary taxation in the lab

Cited by 75 publications

References 29 publications

Consumer reactions to corporate tax strategies: The role of political ideology

Consumer reactions to corporate tax strategies: The role of political ideology

Government and charity funding of cancer research: public preferences and choices

Paternalism and Ethnicity in Giving

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About