Tax evasion and welfare fraud: do punishments fit the crime or the perception of the crime?

Lisa Marriott and Dalice Sim

Pacific Accounting Review, 2017, vol. 29, issue 4, 573-589

Abstract: Purpose - Individuals with fewer resources often receive more punitive treatment in the justice system than those who are more privileged. This situation is frequently justified with reference to societal preferences. To test the accuracy of this justification, the purpose of this study is to report on the extent to which the different treatments of tax evaders and welfare fraudsters in the Australian and New Zealand justice systems reflect the views of these societies. Design/methodology/approach - Attitudes are captured in a survey with 3,000 respondents in Australia and New Zealand. Findings - When asked directly, the majority of respondents (58 per cent) perceive no difference in people committing welfare fraud or tax evasion. However, responses to presented scenarios on tax evasion and welfare fraud show different tolerances for each crime. When provided with scenarios including crimes and criminals, results show that survey respondents see tax evasion as a less serious crime. However, when asked about their own propensity to commit the same offence, respondents indicate that they are more likely to engage in welfare fraud than tax evasion. The authors also report on factors that have an impact on individual’s attitudes towards tax evasion and welfare fraud. Social implications - The survey results do not clearly show more punitive attitudes towards tax evasion or welfare fraud. Thus, the authors do not find support for the suggestion that the harsher treatment of welfare fraud can be justified with reference to society’s views. Originality/value - The study reports on original survey research.

Keywords: Social policy; Social justice; Tax evasion; Welfare fraud (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2017
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.110 ... d&utm_campaign=repec (text/html)
https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.110 ... d&utm_campaign=repec (application/pdf)
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:eme:parpps:par-10-2016-0094

DOI: 10.1108/PAR-10-2016-0094

Access Statistics for this article

Pacific Accounting Review is currently edited by Professor Tom Scott, Dr Pei-Chi Kelly Hsiao, Associate Professor Chelsea Liu, Associate Professor Sophia Su, Associate Professor Thu Phuong Truong and Dr Lily Chen

More articles in Pacific Accounting Review from Emerald Group Publishing Limited
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Emerald Support ().