Relative income, happiness, and utility : an explanation for the Easterlin paradox and other puzzles

The well-known Easterlin paradox points out that average happiness has remained constant over time despite sharp rises in GNP per head. At the same time, a micro literature has typically found positive correlations between individual income and individual measures of subjective well-being. This paper suggests that these two findings are consistent with the presence of relative income terms in the utility function. Income may be evaluated relative to others (social comparison) or to oneself in the past (habituation). We review the evidence on relative income from the subjective well-being literature. We also discuss the relation (or not) between happiness and utility, and discuss some nonhappiness research (behavioral, experimental, neurological) related to income comparisons. We last consider how relative income in the utility function can affect economic models of behavior in the domains of consumption, investment, economic growth, savings, taxation, labor supply, wages, and migration.

A summary view of government cost recovery policies in Australia and New Zealand relating to the supply of public sector information

Researching administrative history is problematical. A trail of authoritative documents is often hard to find; and useful summaries can be difficult to organise, especially if source material is in paper formats in geographically dispersed locations. In the absence of documents, the reasons for particular decisions and the rationale underpinning particular policies can be confounded as key personnel advance in their professions and retire. The rationale for past decisions may be lost for practical purposes; and if an organisation’s memory of events is diminished, its learning through experience is also diminished. Publishing this document tries to avoid unnecessary duplication of effort by other researchers that need to venture into how policies of charging for public sector information have been justified. The author compiled this work within a somewhat limited time period and the work does not pretend to be a complete or comprehensive analysis of the issues.----- A significant part of the role of government is to provide a framework of legally-enforceable rights and obligations that can support individuals and non-government organisations in their lawful activities. Accordingly, claims that governments should be more ‘business-like’ need careful scrutiny. A significant supply of goods and services occurs as non-market activity where neither benefits nor costs are quantified within conventional accounting systems or in terms of money. Where a government decides to provide information as a service; and information from land registries is archetypical, the transactions occur as a political decision made under a direct or a clearly delegated authority of a parliament with the requisite constitutional powers. This is not a market transaction and the language of the market confuses attempts to describe a number of aspects of how governments allocate resources.----- Cost recovery can be construed as an aspect of taxation that is a sole prerogative of a parliament. The issues are fundamental to political constitutions; but they become more complicated where states cede some taxing powers to a central government as part of a federal system. Nor should the absence of markets be construed necessarily as ‘market failure’ or even ‘government failure’. The absence is often attributable to particular technical, economic and political constraints that preclude the operation of markets. Arguably, greater care is needed in distinguishing between the polity and markets in raising revenues and allocating resources; and that needs to start by removing unhelpful references to ‘business’ in the context of government decision-making.

Beyond charity : outlines of a jurisprudence for civil society

There is not a single, coherent, jurisprudence for civil society organisations. Pressure for a clearly enuciated body of law applying to the whole of this sector of society continues to increase. The rise of third sector scholarship, the retreat of the welfare state, the rediscovery of the concept of civil society and pressures to strengthen social capital have all contributed to an ongoing stream of inquiry into the laws that regulate and favour civil society organisations. There have been almost thirty inquiries over the last sixty years into the doctrine of charitable purpose in common law countries. Those inquiries have established that problems with the law applying to civil society organisations are rooted in the common law adopting a ‘technical’ definition of charitable purpose and the failure of this body of law to develop in response to societal changes. Even though it is now well recognised that problems with law reform stem from problems inherent in the doctrine of charitable purpose, statutory reforms have merely ‘bolted on’ additions to the flawed ‘technical’ definition. In this way the scope of operation of the law has been incrementally expanded to include a larger number of civil society organisations. This piecemeal approach continues the exclusion of most civil society organisations from the law of charities discourse, and fails to address the underlying jurisprudential problems. Comprehensive reform requires revisiting the foundational problems embedded in the doctrine of charitable purpose, being informed by recent scholarship, and a paradigm shift that extends the doctrine to include all civil society organisations. Scholarly inquiry into civil society organisations, particularly from within the discipline of neoclassical economics, has elucidated insights that can inform legal theory development. This theory development requires decoupling the two distinct functions performed by the doctrine of charitable purpose which are: setting the scope of regulation, and determining entitlement to favours, such as tax exemption. If the two different functions of the doctrine are considered separately in the light of theoretical insights from other disciplines, the architecture for a jurisprudence emerges that facilitates regulation, but does not necessarily favour all civil society organisations. Informed by that broader discourse it is argued that when determining the scope of regulation, civil society organisations are identified by reference to charitable purposes that are not technically defined. These charitable purposes are in essence purposes which are: Altruistic, for public Benefit, pursued without Coercion. These charitable puposes differentiate civil society organisations from organisations in the three other sectors namely; Business, which is manifest in lack of altruism; Government, which is characterised by coercion; and Family, which is characterised by benefits being private not public. When determining entitlement to favour, it is theorised that it is the extent or nature of the public benefit evident in the pursuit of a charitable purpose that justifies entitlement to favour. Entitlement to favour based on the extent of public benefit is the theoretically simpler – the greater the public benefit the greater the justification for favour. To be entitled to favour based on the nature of a purpose being charitable the purpose must fall within one of three categories developed from the first three heads of Pemsel’s case (the landmark categorisation case on taxation favour). The three categories proposed are: Dealing with Disadvantage, Encouraging Edification; and Facilitating Freedom. In this alternative paradigm a recast doctrine of charitable purpose underpins a jurisprudence for civil society in a way similar to the way contract underpins the jurisprudence for the business sector, the way that freedom from arbitrary coercion underpins the jurisprudence of the government sector and the way that equity within families underpins succession and family law jurisprudence for the family sector. This alternative architecture for the common law, developed from the doctrine of charitable purpose but inclusive of all civil society purposes, is argued to cover the field of the law applying to civil society organisations and warrants its own third space as a body of law between public law and private law in jurisprudence.

An examination of tax-deductible donations made by individual Australian taxpayers in 2007-08

Each year, The Australian Centre for Philanthropy and Nonprofit Studies (CPNS) at Queensland University of Technology (QUT) collects and analyses statistics on the amount and extent of tax-deductible donations made and claimed by Australians in their individual income tax returns to deductible gift recipients (DGRs). The information presented below is based on the amount and type of tax-deductible donations made and claimed by Australian individual taxpayers to DGRs for the period 1 July 2006 to 30 June 2007. This information has been extracted mainly from the Australian Taxation Office's (ATO) publication Taxation Statistics 2006-07. The 2006-07 report is the latest report that has been made publicly available. It represents information in tax returns for the 2006-07 year processed by the ATO as at 31 October 2008. This study uses information based on published ATO material and represents only the extent of tax-deductible donations made and claimed by Australian taxpayers to DGRs at Item D9 Gifts or Donations in their individual income tax returns for the 2006-07 income year. The data does not include corporate taxpayers. Expenses such as raffles, sponsorships, fundraising purchases (e.g., sweets, tea towels, special events) or volunteering are generally not deductible as „gifts‟. The Giving Australia Report used a more liberal definition of gift to arrive at an estimated total of giving at $11 billion for 2005 (excluding Tsunami giving of $300 million). The $11 billion total comprised $5.7 billion from adult Australians, $2 billion from charity gambling or special events and $3.3 billion from business sources.

Cross culture comparison of tax morale and tax compliance : evidence from Costa Rica and Switzerland

This paper analyzes the effects of internal and external social norms on tax morale and tax compliance behavior. Field data and data derived from laboratory experiments are used to examine tax morale and tax compliance behavior in Costa Rica and Switzerland. The results indicate that internal and external social norms have a significant effect on tax morale and tax compliance.

Tax morale affects tax compliance : evidence from surveys and an artefactual field experiment

Our working hypotheses is that cross-cultural differences in tax compliance behaviour have foundations in the institutions of tax administration and citizen assessment of the quality of governance. Tax compliance being a complex behavioural issue. Its investigation requires use of a variety of methods and data sources. Results from artefactual field experiments conducted in countries with substantially different political histories and records of governance quality demondtrate that observed differences in tax compliance levels persist over alternative levels of enforcement. The experimental results are shown to be robust by replicating them for the same countries using survey response measures of tax compliance.

Tax morale and conditional cooperation

Why so many people pay their taxes, even though fines and audit probability are low, is a central question in the tax compliance literature. Positing a homo oeconomicus having a refined motivation structure sheds light on this puzzle. This paper provides empirical evidence for the relevance of conditional cooperation, using survey data from 30 West and East European countries. We find a high correlation between perceived tax evasion and tax morale. The results remain robust after exploiting endogeneity and conducting several robustness tests. We also observe a strong positive correlation between institutional quality and tax mmorale. Keywords: Tax morale; Tax compliance; Tax evasion; Pro-social behavior; Institutions

Managing the winds of change

Environmental impacts caused during Australia's comparatively recent settlement by Europeans are evident. Governments (both Commonwealth and States) have been largely responsible for requiring landholders – through leasehold development conditions and taxation concessions – to conduct clearing that is now perceived as damage. Most governments are now demanding resource protection. There is a measure of bewilderment (if not resentment) among landholders because of this change. The more populous States, where most overall damage has been done (i.e. Victoria and New South Wales), provide most support for attempts to stop development in other regions where there has been less damage. Queensland, i.e. the north-eastern quarter of the continent, has been relatively slow to develop. It also holds the largest and most diverse natural environments. Tree clearing is an unavoidable element of land development, whether to access and enhance native grasses for livestock or to allow for urban developments (with exotic tree plantings). The consequences in terms of regulations are particularly complex because of the dynamic nature of vegetation. The regulatory terms used in current legislation – such as 'Endangered' and 'Of concern' – depend on legally-defined, static baselines. Regrowth and fire damage are two obvious causes of change. A less obvious aspect is succession, where ecosystems change naturally over long timeframes. In the recent past, the Queensland Government encouraged extensive tree-clearing e.g. through the State Brigalow Development Scheme (mostly 1962 to 1975) which resulted in the removal of some 97% of the wide-ranging mature forests of Acacia harpophylla. At the same time, this government controls National Parks and other reservations (occupying some 4% of the State's 1.7 million km2 area) and also holds major World Heritage Areas (such as the Great Barrier Reef and the Wet Tropics Rainforest) promulgated under Commonwealth legislation. This is a highly prescriptive approach, where the community is directed on the one hand to develop (largely through lease conditions) and on the other to avoid development (largely by unusable reserves). Another approach to development and conservation is still possible in Queensland. For this to occur, however, a more workable and equitable solution than has been employed to date is needed, especially for the remote lands of this State. This must involve resident landholders, who have the capacity (through local knowledge, infrastructure and daily presence) to undertake most costeffectively sustainable land-use management (with suitable attention to ecosystems requiring special conservation effort), that is, provided they have the necessary direction, encouragement and incentive to do so.

The Changing world and service problems in bankruptcy

In an age where financial transactions are conducted worldwide and mobility of citizens throughout the world is common, lawyers seeking to serve Bankruptcy Notices and Creditor’s Petitions encounter many problems. To assist lawyers in overcoming some of the service problems that are arising as a result of this changing world, a number of recent cases are considered that highlight a number of issues, including American Express Australia Limited v Michaels [2010] FMCA 103, Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Barnes (2008) 70 ATR 776; [2008] FMCA 7, Battenberg v Restom & Ors (2005) 223 ALR 692; upheld by the Full Federal Court in Battenberg v Restrom and Ors (2006) 149 FCR 128 at 133; [2006] FCAFC 20 and Envee Energy Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) v Stockford [2007] FMCA 1426. While the fact situation of every bankruptcy case will differ, recent decisions may assist lawyers in dealing effectively with bankruptcy matters in these times of transition. Lawyers can facilitate completion of the litigious process within the relevant legislative framework in order to satisfy their responsibility to clients and to the Court by considering this case law.