Author
Listed:
- Robert W. McGee
- Yanira Petrides
- Jiahua Zhou
Abstract
This study used World Values Survey data to learn the attitude toward tax evasion of sample populations in the four BRIC countries – Brazil, russia, India and China. The study found that more than 75 percent of the Chinese and Indian samples believed that tax evasion was never justifiable, compared to only 34 percent of the Russian sample. Overall, the Chinese were most opposed to tax evasion, followed by the Indians, the Brazilians and the russians. Gender was not a significant demographic variable. Older groups tended to be more averse to tax evasion than younger groups. Education was not a significant demographic variable in 75 percent of the cases, and when it was a significant demographic variable, no clear trend could be identified. Religion was not a significant variable for the Brazilian and Chinese samples. The Indian sample found that Muslims were sometimes significantly less opposed to tax evasion than were other religions. In russia, those with no religion were significantly less opposed to tax evasion than were the Orthodox Christians. A trend analysis found that Brazilians, russians and Indians had become significantly less opposed to tax evasion over time. Although the Chinese views in 1991 and 2018 were about the same, in the interim period, they had become less averse to tax evasion
Suggested Citation
Robert W. McGee & Yanira Petrides & Jiahua Zhou, 2022.
"Attitude toward tax evasion in Brazil, Russia, India and China (BRIC),"
Philosophy, Economics and Law Review Articles, Philosophy, Economics and Law Review, vol. 2(2), pages 70-84, December.
Handle:
RePEc:cxt:phelrj:v:2:y:2022:i:2:p:70-84
DOI: https://doi.org/10.31733/2786-491X-2022-2-70-84
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cxt:phelrj:v:2:y:2022:i:2:p:70-84. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Philosophy, Economics and Law Review (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://phelr.com.ua/ .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.