Tax compliance: An investigation using individual taxpayer compliance measurement program (TCMP) data

In this paper, we analyze the tax compliance behavior of U.S. taxpayers by using a 1979 data set that combines information from a random sample of individual tax returns, each of which has been thoroughly audited, IRS administrative records, and sociodemographic data from the Census. We find evidence that both audits and tax code provisions affect compliance. However, the effects are significant for only low-and high-income groups. Interestingly, work on the underground economy also suggests that it is these two groups that are least compliant. Our results for audits suggest that the ripple or general deterrent effect of audits may be substantially larger than the direct revenue yield of audits for high-income taxpayers. Our results for allowable subtractions from income imply that the 1986 Tax Reform Act changes that lowered allowable subtractions may have procompliance effects.     

Life Skill Service Needs: Perspectives of Homeless Youth

The present study describes the service needs related to life skill development from the perspective of sheltered homeless youth. Qualitative semistructured life narrative interviews addressing the use of services at an emergency shelter were administered to 30 youth. All youth were residig in an emergency shelter located in a large metropolitan area at the time of interview. Youth identified factors that influence their ability to access and utilize services, categorized as service availability, factors serving as access and/or barriers to services and lack of available services. Youth identify service delivery approaches and staff characteristics as impacting service delivery. Services such as counseling and childcare were identified as facilitating development and acquisition of life skills.     

The Importance of Social and Political Context: The Case of AIDS Activism

We utilize a 1992 survey of approximately, 2500 AIDS activists to analyze their degree of participation. Activity levels were affected by several traditional predictors, but the inclusion of contextual measures indicating the activists' connection with AIDS, especially the pain and loss incurred, led to a much fuller and more complex explanatory model. We argue that a richer comprehension of political participation requires more studies of issue-specific activists and the specification of contexual features that serve to motivate more intensive degrees of participation.     

Constitutional and Human Rights Disturbances: Australia’s Privative Clauses Created Both in an Immigration Context

With the arrival of another wave of “boat people” to Australian waters in late 2009, issues of human rights of asylum seekers and refugees once again became a major feature of the political landscape. Claims of “queue jumping” were made, particularly by some sections of the media, and they may seem populist, but they are also ironic, given the protracted efforts on the part of the federal government to stymie any orderly appeals process, largely through resort to “privative clauses”. Such clauses demonstrate the many ways in which human rights of those seeking asylum in far-off lands and are potential future immigrants, who often lack much-touted needed papers, yet who are for the most part genuine refugees, are subject to the slings and arrows of political fortune (and misfortune). Approaching the courts if treated unfairly or seeking a further decision as to your fate would seem one of the fundamental premises of human rights. Yet privative clauses—or attempts to ouster the jurisdiction of the courts and to insulate decisions from appeal—have become an increasingly frequent feature of the Australian migration legislation. With a seemingly watertight federal constitutional power set in stone since 1901, to deal with migration and aliens, and without the tempered contemporary update of a federal Bill of Rights, the Australian federal government has been able to narrow the grounds of judicial review in those contexts. We argue that the concerted efforts to deny such fundamental rights of appeal to those most in need of the full armoury of the protection of the law in a modern, affluent democracy, constitutes both a breach of their human rights and a breach of core constitutional principles such as separation of powers. Those principles may not be formally articulated in the text of the Australian Constitution, but in our view they are implicit in the constitutional arrangements, and hence we can conclude with the arguments of former Justice of the High Court of Australia, Michael Kirby, who asked—to whom does sovereignty truly belong?