1 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1.0 Chapter ... - DSpace@UM

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Table 4.2: Mean and Standard Deviation (SD) for Tax Fairness DimensionsItem/Scales Mean S.DGeneral FairnessFor the average taxpayer I think that the income tax system is 3.37 0.945For me personally , I believe that the income tax system is 3.48 0.892Generally, I believe that the manner in which the income3.19 0.988Tax burden is distributed across tax payers isGenerally, I feel that the income tax is a fair tax 3.35 1.025On the whole the burden of income taxes is fairly distributed 3.27 0.972Exchange with governmentI get my fair value in terms of benefits received from the governmentexample , education, medical, infrastructureThe income taxes that I have to pay are unreasonable high considering thebenefits provided by the governmentThe benefits I receive from the government in exchange for my income-taxpayments are reasonable3.14 1.1253.14 1.1412.92 1.073Self InterestCurrent tax laws require me to pay more than my fair share of income taxes 3.14 1.027Compared to other tax payers , I pay less than my fair share of income taxes 2.69 1.058Compared to the amount paid by more wealthy taxpayer’, I pay more thanmy fair share of income taxes3.09 1.040SpecialSpecial provisions in the income tax law that apply only to a few people areunfairSome perfectly legal tax deductions are not fair because only the wealthy arein a position to use themPeople whose income is about the same as mine should pay the same amountof income tax regardless of what kind of investments they make, how manydependents they have or what their other financial obligations are3.36 0.8693.37 0.9273.46 0.931Tax RateHigh-income tax earners have a greater ability to pay income taxes, so it is 3.31 0.049fair that they should pay a higher rate of tax than low-income tax earnersIt is fair that high-income tax earners pay proportionately more tax than lowincome3.62 0.049earnersA ‘fair’ tax rate means it should be the same for everyone 3.66 0.04858
Table 4.3: Mean and Standard Deviation (SD) of Tax complianceItem Mean S DTcomp1 2.96 1.083Tcomp2 3.13 1.065Tcomp3 3.23 1.090Tcomp4 3.27 1.013Tcomp5 3.31 0.977Tcomp6 3.22 1.017Tcomp7 3.21 1.115Tcomp8 3.18 1.037Tcomp9 3.14 0.971Tcomp10 3.09 1.057Tcomp11 3.02 1.099Tcomp12 3.15 0.973Tcomp13 3.27 0.995Tcomp14 3.29 0.985Tcomp15 3.21 1.002Note: Tcomp= Taxcompliance, N = 390Next, Table 4.4 was drawn to summarize the means of each of the dimensions of taxfairness and also the tax compliance variables The results of the mean scores of the fivetax fairness dimensions showed that the range of the score was 61% to 66% which meansthat about 64% of taxpayers’ find the system fair. And as for the tax complianceconstruct, the mean score was 44.71. The mean value was only 9.71 points higher fromthe midpoint of 35.0(lowest score 14 and highest 70). Thus it showed that about 64% oftaxpayers’ were compliant (honest in their tax reporting behaviour) while the rest of themwere dishonest. Therefore Malaysian taxpayers’ showed moderate compliance only.Next, factor analysis was conducted to validate whether Malaysian taxpayers’ identifiedtax fairness under the same dimensions or differently. The results showed Malaysianhave grouped the five dimensions to mean only three dimensions.59
Page 4:
noncompliance which means not repor
Page 10 and 11: individuals that push for tax fairn
Page 12 and 13: Following from hypothesis H1 - H5,
Page 14 and 15: 1.6 Limitations of the StudyThe fin
Page 16 and 17: CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW2.0 Cha
Page 18 and 19: compliance research and numerous ta
Page 20 and 21: stated crime is an industry where m
Page 22 and 23: 2.2 Definition of Tax FairnessThe l
Page 24 and 25: Distribution in tax fairness refers
Page 26 and 27: elief, and evaluation between pragm
Page 28 and 29: elief that unfairness in the tax sy
Page 30 and 31: elevance of knowing the attitudes o
Page 32 and 33: It has been admitted by many resear
Page 34 and 35: significant results. The reasons gi
Page 36: unfair and also their exchange with
Page 39 and 40: (vertical equity) or in other words
Page 41 and 42: Jackson & Milliron (1986) found tha
Page 43 and 44: differences. Therefore the findings
Page 45 and 46: study education which is a noncompl
Page 47 and 48: CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY3.0 Chapter O
Page 49 and 50: Table 3.1: Reversed Coded Items on
Page 51 and 52: 3.2 Sampling DesignA non probabilit
Page 53 and 54: correlations and multiple regressio
Page 55 and 56: the four Federal Territory IRB bran
Page 57: analysis was carried out. Firstly,
Page 61 and 62: factor analysis was considered appr
Page 63 and 64: paid is fair to himself). Based on
Page 65 and 66: dependent variables but having the
Page 68 and 69: 4.5.2 Correlation Matrix 2 between
Page 70 and 71: 4.6.1 H1: There is a positive assoc
Page 72 and 73: The second predictor which was sign
Page 74 and 75: analyzed in Model 3a and 3b to know
Page 76 and 77: Model 3a band 3b was specifically t
Page 78 and 79: CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMEN
Page 80 and 81: taxes they pay, and may not be payi
Page 82 and 83: in the pay statements and they have
Page 84 and 85: service announcements such as, tele
Page 86 and 87: BIBLIOGRAPHYAllingham, M., & Sandmo
Page 88 and 89: Fallan, L. (1999), “Gender, expos
Page 90 and 91: Mazur, M. .J. & Plumley. A. (2007),
Page 92 and 93: Singh, V. (2003), “Tax Compliance
show all

1 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1.0 Chapter ... - DSpace@UM

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?