Prepared for the Canada Revenue Agency
Supplier name: Phoenix SPI
Contract Number: # 46558-195043-001_CY
Contract value: $159,253.05 (including HST)
Award date: 2018-12-20
Delivery date: 2019-08-13
Registration number: POR 079-18
For more information on this report, please email media.relations@cra-arc.gc.ca.
Ce rapport est aussi disponible en français.
Taxpayer Attitudinal Segmentation Research 2018/2019
Final Report
Prepared for the Canada Revenue Agency by Phoenix Strategic Perspectives Inc.
August 2019
This public opinion research report presents the results of a 16-minute telephone survey of 3,001 Canadians 18 years of age and older conducted between January 15 and February 8, 2019.
Cette publication est aussi disponible en français sous le titre: Segmentation des contribuables sur l'observation fiscale de 2018/2019.
Permission to Reproduce
This publication may be reproduced for non-commercial purposes only. Prior written permission must be obtained from the Canada Revenue Agency. For more information on this report, please contact the Canada Revenue Agency at: media.relations@cra-arc.gc.ca
Catalogue Number:
Rv4-134/2019E-PDF
International Standard Book Number (ISBN):
978-0-660-31882-0
Related Publication (Registration Number: POR 079-18):
Catalogue number Rv4-134/2019F-PDF (Final Report, French)
ISBN: 978-0-660-31883-7
© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, as represented by the Minister of National Revenue, 2019
Table of contents
Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) is planning to develop new communications and marketing initiatives with the goal of improving voluntary tax compliance among Canadians. To support these initiatives, CRA commissioned Phoenix Strategic Perspectives Inc. (Phoenix SPI) to conduct a 16-minute random digit dialling (RDD) telephone survey with 3,001 Canadians 18 years of age and older between January 15 and February 8, 2019. Based on a sample of this size, the overall findings can be considered accurate to within ±2.1%, 19 times out of 20 (adjusted to account for sample stratification). This research was first conducted in 2010-2011. The purpose of year’s research was to assess how, if at all, Canadians’ attitudes and behaviour towards tax compliance have changed over time. CRA intends to use the research findings to help develop communications and marketing initiatives aimed at improving voluntary tax compliance.
Key findings of the research include:
The contract value was $159,253.05 (including HST).
I hereby certify as a Senior Officer of Phoenix SPI that the deliverables fully comply with the Government of Canada political neutrality requirements outlined in the Communications Policy of the Government of Canada and Procedures for Planning and Contracting Public Opinion Research. Specifically, the deliverables do not contain any reference to electoral voting intentions, political party preferences, standings with the electorate, or ratings of the performance of a political party or its leader.
Signed: Alethea Woods
President
Phoenix Strategic Perspectives Inc.
Canada Revenue Agency commissioned Phoenix Strategic Perspectives Inc. (Phoenix SPI) to conduct a telephone survey of taxpayers to better understand what motivates Canadians towards compliant and non-compliant behaviour.
Canada Revenue Agency is planning to develop new communications and marketing initiatives with the goal of improving voluntary tax compliance among Canadians. To support these initiatives, CRA conducted a public opinion study in 2010-2011 to better understand what motivates Canadians towards compliant and non-compliant behaviour. The 2018-2019 was designed to explore how, if at all, attitudes and behaviour towards tax compliance have changed since the original research findings.
The specific objectives of this study were to:
CRA intends to use the data in the following ways: 1) to help develop communications and marketing initiatives aimed at improving voluntary tax compliance by appealing to the social/cultural benefits of compliance; 2) in the development of messaging for taxpayers based on compliance behaviours and attitudes of segments of the Canadian population, and in assisting in the development of targeted enforcement and service strategies; and 3) to improve and design T1 programs that serve to best meet the needs of Canadians.
A 16-minute random digit dialling (RDD) telephone survey was conducted with Canadians 18 years of age and older, who had lived in Canada for at least one year (at the time of the research). A regionally-disproportionate sample of Canadian residents was used to improve the accuracy of regional results. The sample frame included both landline and cellphone numbers. In total, 3,001 Canadians were surveyed between January 15 and February 8, 2019. Based on a sample of this size, the overall findings can be considered accurate to within ±2.1%, 19 times out of 20 (adjusted to account for sample stratification[1]). More information on the methodology can be found in the Appendix: Technical Specifications of Research.
Using a 10-point scale (1=strongly disagree, 10=strongly agree)[2] respondents were asked to express their level of agreement with a number of statements focusing on the fairness of taxation in Canada.
Over half of respondents believe that they pay more than their fair share of taxes (55%; down from 61% in 2011) and that Canadians pay too much in taxes (54%; down from 58% in 2011). Conversely, more than four in 10 (45%) agreed that the taxes they are required to pay are fair. This represents a significant increase since 2011, when only one-third (34%) agreed that the taxes they are required to pay are fair.
Figure 1: Perceived fairness of taxes
| Strongly agree (9-10) | Somewhat agree (7-8) | Neutral (5-6) | Somewhat disagree (3-4) | Strongly disagree (1-2) | |
| I think I pay more than my fair share of taxes | 36% | 19% | 21% | 8% | 15% |
| I think that Canadians pay too much in taxes | 32% | 22% | 23% | 10% | 12% |
| I think the taxes I am required to pay are fair | 18% | 27% | 26% | 13% | 15% |
| I think wealthy Canadians pay their fair share of taxes | 13% | 15% | 19% | 17% | 32% |
| I think corporations pay their fair share of taxes | 12% | 15% | 20% | 17% | 31% |
Q1/Q6. Please tell me the extent to which you agree or disagree with each of the following statements using a scale of one to 10, where one means strongly disagree, 10 means strongly agree. If something does not apply to you, please say so. Base: n=3,001; all respondents.
Smaller, and similar-sized, proportions believe that wealthy Canadians (28%) and corporations (27%) pay their fair share of taxes. In contrast, nearly half disagreed with both statements (49% and 48%, respectively) and disagreement was more likely to be strong than moderate. In fact, the single largest proportion of respondents expressed strong disagreement with both of these statements.
Most Canadians appear to take their tax responsibilities seriously. Nearly nine in 10 (88%) agreed that paying taxes is a responsibility that should be willingly accepted by all Canadians, with 70% saying they strongly agree with this view. Similarly, 85% agreed that it is their responsibility to pay their fair share of taxes, with 65% saying they strongly agree. Those who did not agree were more likely to be neutral than to disagree with either statements.
Figure 2: Perceptions of tax-related responsibilities
| Strongly agree (9-10) | Somewhat agree (7-8) | Neutral (5-6) | Somewhat disagree (3-4) | Strongly disagree (1-2) | |
| Paying taxes is a responsibility that should be willingly accepted by all Canadians | 70% | 18% | 6% | 1% | 3% |
| It is my responsibility to pay my fair share of taxes | 65% | 20% | 9% | 2% | 4% |
Q1/Q6. Please tell me the extent to which you agree or disagree with each of the following statements using a scale of one to 10, where one means strongly disagree, 10 means strongly agree. If something does not apply to you, please say so. Base: n=3,001; all respondents.
Views on tax-related responsibilities have not changed since 2011, when 87% agreed that paying taxes is a responsibility that should be willingly accepted by all Canadians and 85% felt it is their responsibility to pay their fair share of taxes.
Respondents were asked how likely they would be to do each of the following in the future:
Two-thirds or more said they would be not very or not at all likely to engage in any of these activities.
Figure 3: Likelihood of Tax Cheating in the Future
| Very likely | Somewhat likely | Not very likely | Not at all likely | |
| Pay cash for a service to get a cheaper price by not paying tax | 11% | 23% | 25% | 40% |
| Sell things you made, or services you offer, without reporting the income | 5% | 9% | 22% | 60% |
| Work for cash to avoid paying income tax | 5% | 9% | 23% | 62% |
| Knowingly not declare some income on your tax return | 2% | 3% | 18% | 76% |
Q3 In the future, how likely would you be to do each of the following? How about..? Base: n=3,001; all respondents. [Dk/nr: less than 0%-1%]. [Q3d: Does not apply: 3%]
Paying cash for a service to get a cheaper price by not paying tax was the only activity in which a substantial proportion acknowledged that they might do. One-third said they are very (11%) or somewhat (23%) likely to do this. Significantly fewer (14% each) said they are likely to sell things without reporting the income or to work for cash to avoid paying income tax. Few (5%) think it is likely that they would knowingly not declare some income on their tax return. These results are virtually identical to 2011.
Seven in 10 (71%) respondents said it is not OK for self-employed Canadians to be paid in cash for some of the work they do in order to avoid paying taxes on that income. Conversely, one-quarter think it is OK to do so (14%) or to do so sometimes (11%).
Figure 4: Accepting cash payments to avoid paying taxes
Q4. Is it OK for a self-employed Canadian to be paid in cash for some of the work they do in order to avoid paying taxes on that income? Base: n=3,001; all respondents. [Dk/nr: 4%].
Respondents who thought it was OK for self-employed Canadians to accept cash payments to avoid paying taxes (n=874) were asked at what point it becomes serious tax cheating. The largest single proportion, just over one-quarter, set the threshold at less than $1,000, but almost as many (23%) set it between $1,000 and $5,000. Seventeen percent think that not claiming up to $10,000 is considered tax cheating, and an almost identical proportion (18%) think that not claiming more than $10,000 is considered tax cheating.
Figure 5: Unclaimed cash income and tax cheating
Q5. At what point would you say not claiming a year's worth of cash income becomes serious tax cheating? Base: n=874; respondents who think it is OK to be paid in cash to avoid paying taxes on income.
Views were mixed when it came to other peoples’ perceptions of whether it is acceptable to cheat on taxes. When asked to agree or disagree with the statement—a lot of people think it’s ok to cheat on taxes—relatively similar proportions agreed (34%), disagreed (32%), or were neutral (30%). The same was true when it came to whether Canadians who collect tips should report them as income and pay taxes. While 45% agreed that tips should be reported as income, the largest proportion was neutral (20%) or disagreed (36%) on this issue.
In contrast, strong majorities expressed disagreement with statements related to their own perceptions of tax cheating. This included disagreeing that it is OK for them to not declare income received under the table on their tax return (76%), that tax cheating is not a real crime (78%), and that a small amount of tax cheating is not so bad (81%).
Figure 6: Perceptions of tax cheating
| Strongly agree (9-10) | Somewhat agree (7-8) | Neutral (5-6) | Somewhat disagree (3-4) | Strongly disagree (1-2) | |
| A lot of people think it's OK to cheat on taxes | 14% | 20% | 30% | 11% | 21% |
| People working in jobs where they collect tips should report tips as income and pay taxes | 28% | 15% | 20% | 10% | 26% |
| I don't think of tax cheating as a real crime | 8% | 6% | 8% | 10% | 68% |
| It's OK if I don't declare income received under the table on my tax return | 6% | 5% | 12% | 12% | 64% |
| I think a small amount of tax cheating is not so bad | 6% | 4% | 8% | 8% | 73% |
Q1/6/8. Please tell me the extent to which you agree or disagree with each of the following statements using a scale of one to 10, where one means strongly disagree, 10 means strongly agree. If something does not apply to you, please say so. Base: n=3,001; all respondents.
Compared to 2011, Canadians continue to have relatively varied perceptions of tax cheating. That said, the proportion of Canadians who believe that other people think it is OK to cheat on taxes has declined, from 40% in 2011 to 34% this year. In addition, this year, greater proportions of Canadians disagreed that it is OK to not declare income received under the table and that tax cheating is not a real crime has increased (76% versus 72% in 2011 and 78% versus 73% in 2011, respectively).
Respondents were most likely to agree that if they cheat on their taxes there will be less money for government services like healthcare and education. Just over three-quarters (76%) agreed with this, including 56% who agreed strongly. Almost as many (70%) agreed that taxes help governments do worthwhile things.
The level of agreement with the other statement was much lower. Almost half (49%) agreed that if their neighbours cheat on their taxes it would require them to pay more taxes. In contrast, 31% disagreed that they would be required to pay more taxes if their neighbours cheated.
Figure 7: Impact of tax cheating
| Strongly agree (9-10) | Somewhat agree (7-8) | Neutral (5-6) | Somewhat disagree (3-4) | Strongly disagree (1-2) | |
| If I cheat on my taxes, there is less money for government services like healthcare and education | 56% | 20% | 9% | 3% | 10% |
| Taxes help governments do worthwhile things | 43% | 27% | 17% | 5% | 7% |
| If my neighbours cheat on their taxes, it means that I have to pay more | 33% | 16% | 16% | 80% | 23% |
Q6/8. Please tell me the extent to which you agree or disagree with each of the following statements using a scale of one to 10, where one means strongly disagree, 10 means strongly agree. Base: n=3,001; all respondents.
This year, more Canadians agreed that taxes help governments do worthwhile things (70%; up from 66% in 2011) and fewer felt that neighbours’ tax cheating would affect them (49%; down from 53% in 2011).
Respondents were asked to express their level of agreement with a set of reasons why some people might think it’s okay to cheat on taxes.
As the accompanying graph shows, over three-quarters of respondents disagreed with each of these rationalizations, including at least two-thirds who expressed strong disagreement.
Specifically, respondents were most likely to disagree that it’s OK to cheat on taxes because there are plenty of other people paying their taxes (93%) and that it’s OK to do so because lots of people do it (92%).
Identical majorities (81% each) disagreed that it is OK to cheat on taxes because rich people and big companies get away with avoiding taxes, and because governments don’t provide enough services for the taxes they collect. Almost as many (79%) disagreed that it is OK to cheat on taxes since governments waste taxpayers’ money.
Figure 8: Tax cheating rationalizations
| It’s OK to cheat on taxes because… | Strongly agree (9-10) | Somewhat agree (7-8) | Neutral (5-6) | Somewhat disagree (3-4) | Strongly disagree (1-2) |
| … rich people and big companies get away with avoiding taxes | 6% | 4% | 8% | 12% | 69% |
| … there are plenty of other people paying their taxes | 2% | 1% | 3% | 7% | 86% |
| … lots of people do it | 2% | 1% | 4% | 7% | 85% |
| It’s OK to cheat on taxes since governments… | |||||
| … waste taxpayers’ money | 6% | 5% | 10% | 13% | 66% |
| … don’t provide enough services for the taxes they collect | 4% | 5% | 8% | 13% | 68% |
Q7. Here are a few reasons some people might give to explain why they think it’s OK to cheat on taxes. Please use the same scale of one to 10, where one means strongly disagree, 10 means strongly agree. Base: n=3,001; all respondents.
Consistent with the findings from 2011, the rationalizations that focus on perceived government deficiencies resonated more than the other potential reasons. With that said, the proportion of Canadians agreeing with these rationalizations has declined over time. In 2011, 15% agreed that it’s okay to cheat because governments waste taxpayers’ money compared to 11% in 2019, and 11% agreed that it’s okay to cheat because governments don’t provide enough services compared to 9% in 2019.
Large majorities of Canadians would feel ashamed to get caught cheating on taxes (83%) and think that if a company got caught tax cheating, it would have an impact on its reputation (80%). Views in this regard are virtually unchanged from 2011 when the same proportion of Canadians, 83%, agreed they would feel ashamed if caught tax cheating and 82% agreed that tax cheating would affect the reputation of a company.
Opinion was divided as to whether most people who cheat on their taxes will eventually be caught. While half (51%) agreed with this, one in five (20%) were neutral, and one in four (26%) did not agree that tax cheaters would eventually be caught. Confidence in tax evasion being detected has declined since 2011, when 58% of Canadians agreed that most tax cheaters would eventually be caught.
One in five (20%) Canadians agreed that money saved by cheating on taxes is worth the risk of fines and jail time. Conversely, the majority, 74%, did not agree, with 70% expressing strong disagreement (as was the case in 2011). The risk of fines and jail time continue to resonate with Canadians as tax cheating deterrents.
Figure 9: Perceptions of penalties and getting caught
| Strongly agree (9-10) | Somewhat agree (7-8) | Neutral (5-6) | Somewhat disagree (3-4) | Strongly disagree (1-2) | |
| I would feel ashamed to get caught cheating on taxes | 72% | 11% | 6% | 3% | 8% |
| If a company got caught tax cheating, it would have an impact on its reputation | 62% | 18% | 9% | 4% | 6% |
| I think that most people who cheat on their taxes will eventually get caught | 32% | 19% | 20% | 13% | 13% |
| Money saved by cheating on taxes is worth the risk of fines and jail time | 13% | 7% | 6% | 4% | 70% |
Q1/6/8. Please tell me the extent to which you agree or disagree with each of the following statements using a scale of one to 10, where one means strongly disagree, 10 means strongly agree. If something does not apply to you, please say so. Base: n=3,001; all respondents.
Using a 10-point scale (1=not at all effective; 10=extremely effective) respondents were asked to assess the effectiveness of the following potential government actions to reduce tax cheating:
A majority of respondents rated each of these measures as effective, but the size of the majority varied considerably. Canadians were most likely to agree on the effectiveness of catching more wealthy people and companies that cheat on their taxes (81%), educating people earlier about their tax obligations (80%), and publishing the names of businesses caught tax cheating (77%), with majorities rating each of these as extremely effective.
Approximately six in 10 Canadians agreed on the effectiveness of better informing Canadians of the penalties for tax cheating (62%), increasing fines or jail time for tax cheating (61%), and increasing the use of audits and penalties for tax cheating (61%). Fewer, but still a majority of 54%, think that publishing the names of people caught tax cheating would be an effective measure to reduce tax cheating (just over one-quarter, 26%, disagreed).
Figure 10: Effectiveness of Potential Government Actions
| Extremely effective (9-10) | Very (7-8) | Moderately (5-6) | Slightly (3-4) | Not effective at all (1-2) | |
| Catching more wealthy people and companies that tax cheat | 57% | 24% | 12% | 3% | 3% |
| Educating people earlier about their tax obligations | 56% | 24% | 12% | 4% | 3% |
| Publishing the names of businesses caught tax cheating | 54% | 23% | 12% | 4% | 6% |
| Better informing Canadians of the penalties for tax cheating | 33% | 29% | 22% | 7% | 9% |
| Increasing fines or jail time for tax cheating | 34% | 27% | 21% | 7% | 8% |
| Increasing the use of audits and penalties | 27% | 34% | 23% | 7% | 7% |
| Publishing the names of people caught tax cheating | 32% | 22% | 19% | 8% | 18% |
Q10. How effective do you think the following potential government actions would be in terms of reducing tax cheating? Please use a scale of one to 10, where one means you think it would not be effective at all and 10 means you think it would be extremely effective. How about…? Base: n=3,001; all respondents. [Dk/nr: 1%]
With two exceptions, Canadians’ views on potential government actions have not changed in significant ways since 2011. The exceptions relate to the perceived effectiveness of potential penalties. Fewer Canadians believe that publishing the names of people caught tax cheating will be effective (54% versus 61% in 2011) and slightly more feel that publishing the names of businesses caught tax cheating (77% versus 74% in 2011) will help reduce tax cheating.
Using a 10-point scale (1=not a motivator at all; 10=a very big motivator), respondents were asked to what extent each of the following would motivate them personally to pay their full share of taxes:
A majority of respondents assessed each of these as at least moderately effective as a motivator to pay their full share of taxes. Leading the way were understanding their responsibility as a Canadian to pay taxes (83%), upholding the law (81%), and having to pay heavy penalties (79%). Majorities viewed each of this as big motivators to pay one’s taxes.
Figure 11: Motivators to Pay Taxes
| Big (9-10) | Moderate (7-8) | Some (5-6) | Not much (3-4) | Not at all (1-2) | |
| Understanding the responsibility I have as a Canadian to pay taxes | 58% | 25% | 11% | 3% | 4% |
| Because it is the law, and I won’t break the law | 62% | 19% | 10% | 4% | 5% |
| Fear of having to pay heavy penalties | 54% | 25% | 11% | 4% | 6% |
| Seeing how government services I use might be impacted if there is more tax cheating | 49% | 24% | 13% | 5% | 8% |
| Concern about the impact on my reputation if I’m caught cheating on taxes | 40% | 29% | 18% | 5% | 6% |
| Fear of embarrassing my family and friends | 42% | 23% | 16% | 6% | 12% |
| Knowing that wealthy people and big companies are paying their fair share | 37% | 23% | 18% | 6% | 14% |
Q11. There are a number of things that might motivate or encourage people to pay their full share of taxes. Please rate each of the following in terms of how big a motivator it is to you personally, using a scale of one to 10, where one means it is not a motivator at all, and 10 means it is a very big motivator. Base: n=3,001; all respondents. [Dk/nr: less than 0.5%-2%].
Smaller proportions rated the other potential motivators as moderately or extremely effective: seeing how government services that they use might be impacted (73%), concern about the impact on their reputation if caught tax cheating (69%), fear of embarrassing family and friends (65%) and knowing wealthy people and big companies are paying their fair share of taxes (60%).
In 2019, more Canadians view as effective motivators the following: understanding their responsibility as a Canadian to pay taxes (83% versus 78% in 2011), seeing how government services might be impacted by tax cheating (73% versus 68%), and fear of having to pay heavy penalties (79% versus 76%).
There were several components to the segmentation analysis: the factor analysis, the cluster analysis and a regression analysis. A detailed discussion of the methods can be found in the Appendix: Technical Specifications of Research. What follows in this section is a description of the factors, including how they have changed over time, and a discussion of the taxpayer segments.
A wide variety of items were included in the questionnaire to explore Canadians’ attitudes about paying taxes, tax cheating, and related issues. In order to synthesize the large amount of information and present it in a cohesive and comprehensible way, a factor analysis was performed. A factor analysis is a technique used to group together a large number of questions into similar themes or “factors”.
Since the segments were first created in 2011, and a primary objective of this year’s survey was to explore how, if at all, the segments have changed, the factors were constructed to be mirror the 11 that provided the foundation for the first segmentation. What follows below is a description of the factors, as well as a brief summary of how they have changed since 2011.
Over time, the factor with the most variation is “rationalization”. In 2019, significantly more Canadians strongly disagree that it is acceptable to cheat on taxes (71% versus 60% in 2011). All other differences over time were relatively small. Specifically, slightly more Canadians strongly disagree with the view that that tax cheating is “not a big deal” (51% versus 47% in 2011) and strongly agree with the view that paying taxes is part of “responsible behaviour” as a citizen (53% versus 48%). In addition, fewer Canadians agree that other people think it’s OK to cheat on taxes (“Others”, factor 7) and that taxation is unfair (Tax Fatigue, factor 6).
Figure 12: Tax-related Factors
| Factor | Rating | 2011 | 2019 | Difference |
| Rationalization | Strongly disagree | 60% | 71% | +11% |
| Somewhat disagree | 24% | 18% | -6% | |
| No big deal | Strongly disagree | 47% | 51% | +4% |
| Somewhat disagree | 33% | 31% | -2% | |
| Consequences | Strongly agree | 39% | 37% | -2% |
| Somewhat agree | 37% | 35% | -2% | |
| Responsible behaviour | Strongly agree | 48% | 53% | +5% |
| Somewhat agree | 38% | 33% | -5% | |
| Risky business | Strongly agree | 24% | 22% | -2% |
| Somewhat agree | 30% | 27% | -3% | |
| Tax fatigue | Strongly agree | 21% | 17% | -4% |
| Somewhat agree | 32% | 28% | -4% | |
| "Others" | Strongly agree | 19% | 14% | -5% |
| Somewhat agree | 25% | 21% | -4% |
On the psychographic-related factors, there has been virtually no change in Canadians' values over time.
Figure 13: Psychographic-related Factors
| Factor | Rating | 2011 | 2019 | Difference |
| Traditionalism | Strongly agree | 80% | 77% | -3% |
| Somewhat agree | 17% | 19% | +2% | |
| Elitism | Strongly disagree | 5% | 5% | -- |
| Somewhat disagree | 19% | 18% | -1% | |
| Strongly agree | 8% | 6% | -2% | |
| Somewhat agree | 31% | 30% | -1% | |
| External Control | Strongly disagree | 11% | 12% | -1% |
| Somewhat disagree | 28% | 28% | -- | |
| Strongly agree | 10% | 9% | -1% | |
| Somewhat agree | 20% | 18% | -2% | |
| Hedonism | Strongly agree | 25% | 22% | -3% |
| Somewhat agree | 42% | 41% | -1% |
The differences over time are presented another way in figure 14. While the tables in figures 12 and 13 offer insight into the intensity of the views held by Canadians (i.e., the proportions that strongly agree or disagree), the mean scores (out of 10) show the overall shift in views in the eight years between the baseline and the current study. Differences over time are small, ranging from 0.1 to 0.8.
Figure 14: Factors over time: mean score comparison
| 2011 | 2019 | |
| 1. Rationalization | 2.6 | 2.2 |
| 2. No big deal | 2.9 | 2.8 |
| 3. Consequences | 7.6 | 7.5 |
| 4. Responsible behaviour | 8.2 | 8.3 |
| 5. Risky business | 6.4 | 6.1 |
| 6. Tax fatigue | 6.6 | 6.1 |
| 7. Others | 6.1 | 5.3 |
| 8. Traditionalism | 9.2 | 9.0 |
| 9. Elitism | 5.9 | 5.8 |
| 10. External Control | 5.1 | 5.0 |
| 11. Hedonism | 7.0 | 6.8 |
A table comparing the full results for the factors over time can be found in the Appendix: Factors – A comparison over time.
Once the factor analysis was completed, the results were used to support the segmentation work. In 2011, the segmentation analysis was conducted using a multivariate technique called cluster analysis. This resulted in six segments, dividing taxpayers according to their likelihood or risk of cheating on taxes, as well as their orientations toward a range of related issues. These segments were:
Low risk: Law Abiders / Altruistic Compliers
Middle: Rationalizers / Underground Economists / Over-Taxed Opportunists
High risk: Outlaws
Almost a decade later, in 2019, the landscape has changed very little. These six segments continue to reflect Canadians in terms of their attitudes towards taxation. Almost half of Canadians are law abiders or altruistic compliers and present a low risk of cheating on taxes. At the other end of the spectrum, relatively few Canadians are outlaws and present a high risk for tax evasion.
Figure 15: Taxpayer Segments: 2019 vs. 2011 [8]
| 2011 | 2019 | |
| Law Abiders | 29% | 26% |
| Altruistic Compliers | 15% | 20% |
| Rationalizers | 17% | 14% |
| Underground Economists | 13% | 16% |
| Over-Taxed Opportunists | 12% | 10% |
| Outlaws | 14% | 13% |
Descriptions of these segments are presented below, including the key characteristics that define them.
This segment comprises 26% of Canadians. Law abiders exhibit the lowest risk of cheating on taxes and the second lowest risk with respect to paying cash to get a cheaper price by not paying tax. A significant defining characteristic of law abiders is that they think it is risky to cheat on taxes. They were the most likely of all the segments to think that people who cheat on their taxes will eventually get caught.
Not surprisingly, members of this segment are more likely than most to embrace responsible behaviour and to exhibit greater recognition of the potential consequences of tax cheating. In particular, law abiders were more likely than the general public to strongly agree (scores of 10 on a 10-point scale) with the following:
These taxpayers, along with altruistic compliers, are the least likely to accept or use rationalizations about tax cheating, and they are among the most likely to think that tax cheating is a big deal. They are also the least likely (with altruistic compliers) to believe that it is OK for a self-employed Canadian to be paid in cash for some of the work they do in order to avoid paying taxes on that income (4% versus 14% of the general public) and the most apt to place the threshold for serious tax cheating at under $1,000 of unclaimed cash income (48% versus 26% of the general public).
It is also noteworthy that members of this segment are more likely than the general public to display tax fatigue. Specifically, law abiders were among the most likely to strongly agree that Canadians pay too much in taxes and that they themselves pay more than their fair share of taxes (second only to outlaws). As was the case in 2011, law abiders appear to be following the law because of the risk of getting caught and the consequences that flow from tax cheating not necessarily because they believe taxes are fair.
In terms of their psychographic profile, law abiders are the most likely to lean towards traditional values and more likely than average to exhibit elite and hedonistic attitudes, second only to over-taxed opportunists.
Figure 16: Law Abiders
26% of Canadians, down 3% versus 2011
Demographics
Members of this segment are more likely to be:
Risk of Tax Cheating: LOW
Key Factors - where Law Abiders rank
| Rationalization | 2nd lowest | LOWER THAN AVERAGE | |
| No big deal | 3rd lowest | LOWER THAN AVERAGE | |
| Consequences | HIGHER THAN AVERAGE | 2nd highest | |
| Responsible behaviour | HIGHER THAN AVERAGE | 3rd highest | |
| Risky business | HIGHEST | ||
| Tax fatigue | HIGHER THAN AVERAGE | 3rd highest | |
| "Others" | LOWEST |
Members of this segment are more likely to be:
Members of this segment are less likely to be:
In addition, law abiders were more likely than average to say that spousal support is their main source of income.
While the demographic profile of this segment was older in 2011 (members were more likely than average to be 65 years of age or older), law abiders continue to be overrepresented by females and underrepresented by university graduates.
In total, 20% of Canadians are members of this group. Altruistic compliers are quite similar to law abiders in terms of attitudes and beliefs. Like law abiders, recognizing the consequences of tax cheating and responsible behaviour are important characteristics of altruistic compliers. In fact, this segment was more likely than any other segment to reflect these views:
Altruistic compliers are also the least likely to accept rationalizations about tax cheating, and they are the most likely to view tax cheating as a big deal. Like law abiders, altruistic compliers also consider it unacceptable for a self-employed Canadian to be paid in cash in order to avoid paying taxes on that income.
The defining characteristic of altruistic compliers, however, is that they are the least likely to consider tax cheating to be risky business. Compared to the general public, altruistic compliers were far less apt to think that most people who cheat on their taxes will eventually get caught (13% vs. 27%). Consistent with 2011 segmentation results, altruistic compliers do not abide by the law because they fear getting caught cheating on their taxes; instead, they do so because they believe it is the right thing to do. Notably, altruistic compliers also are among the least likely to display tax fatigue (ahead only of underground economists).
In terms of their psychographic profile, altruistic compliers are the least likely to articulate hedonistic attitudes. In addition, they are less likely than average to express elite perspectives or to feel that control is more with others than themselves and more likely than average to lean towards traditional values.
Figure 17: Altruistic Compliers
20% of Canadians, up 5% versus 2011
Demographics
Members of this segment are more likely to be:
Risk of Tax Cheating: LOW
Key Factors - where Altruistic Compliers rank
| Rationalization | LOWEST | ||
| No big deal | LOWEST | ||
| Consequences | HIGHEST | ||
| Responsible behaviour | HIGHEST | ||
| Risky business | LOWEST | ||
| Tax fatigue | 2nd lowest | LOWER THAN AVERAGE | |
| Others | AVERAGE |
Demographically, members of this segment are more likely to be:
Altruistic compliers continue to be overrepresented by Canadians with higher household incomes and university degrees. In contrast to 2011, however, members of this segment are more likely than average to be older and retired. In 2011, altruistic compliers were more likely to be working full-time and to be between the ages of 45 and 64 years.
This group, the rationalizers, represents 14% of Canadians. Rationalizers are more likely to pursue tax-cheating behaviours when compared to law abiders and altruistic compliers, but they should only be considered a low risk overall and with respect to paying cash to evade taxes.
The defining characteristic of this group is that they embrace rationalizations about tax cheating more than the other segments with the exception of outlaws. Across all the rationalization measures, rationalizers were more likely than the general public to think it is okay to cheat on taxes for various reasons, with the most significant differences reported for “It’s OK to cheat on taxes since governments waste taxpayers’ money” and “It’s OK to cheat there are plenty of other people paying their taxes”.
Similarly, members of this group are among the most likely to think that tax cheating is not a big deal (only outlaws ranked ahead of rationalizers). Rationalizers were the most likely to strongly agree that the money saved is worth the risk and that tax evasion is not a real crime. In short, this segment does not appear to be deterred by the penalties associated with tax cheating.
Perhaps not surprisingly, rationalizers are among the least likely to think there are consequences that flow from tax cheating and to embrace responsible behaviour when it comes to taxation (only outlaws rank lower). In addition, rationalizers are less likely than average to think that tax cheaters will get caught.
In terms of their psychographic profile, rationalizers are less likely to lean towards traditional values and more likely than average to feel that control over their lives lies elsewhere. When it comes to elitism and hedonism, rationalizers sit right in the middle.
Figure 18: Rationalizers
14% of Canadians, down 3% versus 2011
Demographics
Members of this segment are more likely to be:
Risk of Tax Cheating: LOW
Key Factors - where Rationalizers rank
| Rationalization | HIGHER THAN AVERAGE | 2nd highest | |
| No big deal | HIGHER THAN AVERAGE | 2nd highest | |
| Consequences | 2nd lowest | LOWER THAN AVERAGE | |
| Responsible behaviour | 2nd lowest | LOWER THAN AVERAGE | |
| Risky business | 3rd lowest | LOWER THAN AVERAGE | |
| Tax fatigue | HIGHER THAN AVERAGE | 4th highest | |
| Others | 3rd lowest | LOWER THAN AVERAGE |
Demographically, this segment is older than average and the lowest-income. Specifically, members of this segment are more likely to be:
...and less likely to be:
One notable difference between 2011 and 2019 is that members of this segment are more likely than average to report having completed a college or other non-university certificate or diploma in 2019. In contrast, in 2011, rationalizers were the least educated of all the segments.
This segment comprises 16% of Canadians. Almost half of underground economists present a high risk of paying cash for goods or services to evade taxes (behind only over-taxed opportunists).
The factor of most salience to underground economists is tax fatigue. This segment was more likely than the general public to strongly agree (scores of 10 on a 10-point scale) that the taxes they pay are fair (19% versus 14%), less apt to think that Canadians pay too much in taxes (15% versus 28%), and least likely to strongly agree that they pay more than their fair share of taxes (14% versus 28%). On this factor, underground economists are very similar to altruistic compliers.
Underground economists also share views similar to altruistic compliers and law abiders when it comes responsible citizenship and taxation. Members of this segment were more likely than the general public to strongly agree that paying taxes is a responsibility people should willingly embrace (60% versus 61%), that it is their responsibility to pay their fair share of taxes (30% versus 56%), and that taxes help governments do worthwhile things (42% versus 36%).
Like altruistic compliers and law abiders, underground economists do not buy into rationalizations to excuse tax cheating and they tend to view tax cheating as a serious issue with consequences. Conversely, underground economists are less likely than average to think that most people who cheat on their taxes will eventually get caught. While they acknowledge the consequences of tax cheating, they also do not think there is a high likelihood that one will get caught. Such views on taxes may result, at least in part, from this group’s preference for cash transactions. It may be that underground economists do not think paying cash to avoid paying tax is as serious as other forms of tax-cheating.
In terms of their psychographic profile, underground economists are less likely than average to articulate attitudes related to any of the psychographic factors. Notably, they are the least likely to feel that control over their lives lies elsewhere and, together with outlaws, they are the least likely to hold elite perspectives.
Figure 19: Underground Economists
16% of Canadians, up 3% versus 2011
Demographics
Members of this segment are more likely to be:
Risk of Tax Cheating: MEDIUM
Key Factors - where Underground Economists rank
| Rationalization | 3rd lowest | LOWER THAN AVERAGE | |
| No big deal | 2nd lowest | LOWER THAN AVERAGE | |
| Consequences | HIGHER THAN AVERAGE | 4th highest | |
| Responsible behaviour | HIGHER THAN AVERAGE | 2nd highest | |
| Risky business | 2nd lowest | LOWER THAN AVERAGE | |
| Tax fatigue | LOWEST | ||
| Others | 4th lowest | LOWER THAN AVERAGE |
Demographically, underground economists have a similar profile to 2011: they are younger, higher income, and more educated. Specifically, members of this segment are more likely to be:
...and less likely to be:
In addition, underground economists are more likely than average to report paid income as their main source of income.
In total, 10% of Canadians are members of this group. While this group exhibits the highest risk when it comes to paying cash, it is also the smallest segment (smaller than outlaws, the segment at most risk of tax cheating).
Over-taxed opportunists are the most likely of all the segments to believe that a lot of people think it is OK to cheat on taxes. They are also more likely than average to exhibit attitudes indicative of tax fatigue. Over-taxed opportunists tend to think that Canadians pay too much in taxes (32% strongly agree vs. 28% of the general public) and that they, personally, pay more than their fair share (32% strongly agree vs. 28%). Note the lack of differentiation between Canadians and them personally. Over-taxed opportunists were also least likely to strongly agree that the taxes they pay are fair (6% versus 14%) and less likely than average to think that most people who cheat on their taxes will eventually get caught (24% versus 27%).
With that said, they do recognize the consequences of tax cheating (unlike rationalizers and outlaws). In particular, they were more likely than underground economists to say they would feel ashamed if they got caught cheating on their taxes (67% versus 63%) and to acknowledge that they will have to pay more if their neighbours cheat on their taxes (33% versus 22%). It may be that members of this segment do not consider paying cash to avoid paying taxes as “high risk tax cheating”.
In short, members of this segment think they are over-taxed, look for opportunities to pay cash to evade taxes, and, most importantly, think that others do the same (perhaps this helps them rationalize their behaviour).
Behind only law abiders, over-taxed opportunists are among the most likely to lean towards traditional values. In addition, members of this segment are the most likely to express hedonistic attitudes and elite perspectives. Together with outlaws, over-taxed opportunists also are the most likely to feel that control over their lives lies elsewhere.
Figure 20: Over-taxed Opportunists
10% of Canadians, down 2% versus 2011
Demographics
Members of this segment are more likely to be:
Risk of Tax Cheating: HIGH
Key Factors-where Over-taxed Opportunists rank
| Rationalization | HIGHER THAN AVERAGE | 3rd highest | |
| No big deal | HIGHER THAN AVERAGE | 3rd highest | |
| Consequences | HIGHER THAN AVERAGE | 3rd highest | |
| Responsible behaviour | HIGHER THAN AVERAGE | 4th highest | |
| Risky business | 4th lowest | LOWER THAN AVERAGE | |
| Tax fatigue | HIGHER THAN AVERAGE | 2nd highest | |
| Others | HIGHEST |
Demographically, members of this segment are more likely to be:
Over-taxed opportunists are less likely to be:
In 2011, members of this segment were also more likely to be female and living in Ontario.
This is the highest-risk segment in terms of the likelihood of cheating on taxes, comprising 13% of Canadians. While they represent a high risk of tax cheating, they rank behind over-taxed opportunists and underground economists in terms of their propensity to pay cash to avoid taxes.
Important factors for this segment are responsible behaviour and consequences. Outlaws are less likely than the general public (and the least likely of all the segments) to see consequences flowing from tax cheating and to view taxation, and paying one’s fair share of taxes, as part of responsible citizenship.
Outlaws are also the most likely to think of tax evasion as no big deal, to use or accept the various rationalizations put forward to excuse tax cheating, and to experience tax fatigue. In fact, they were the most likely of all the segments to strongly agree that Canadians pay too much in taxes (42% versus 28% of the general public). They were also the most likely of all the segments to say that it is OK for a self-employed Canadian to be paid in cash for some of the work they do in order to avoid paying taxes on that income (47% versus 14% of the general public). Outlaws were also the least likely to place the threshold for serious tax cheating at under $1,000 of unclaimed cash income.
In short, little has changed among this segment over time. Outlaws continue to be high risk in terms of adopting all forms of tax cheating, have the rationalizing mindset to support this, see limited consequences flowing from their actions, and likely think tax cheating is justified because of unfairly high levels of taxation.
The one noteworthy difference is that outlaws are no longer among the least likely to be concerned about getting caught tax cheating. In 2011, they were second only to altruistic compliers. Now, underground economists and over-taxed opportunities are also more likely than outlaws to hold this view—that most people who cheat on their taxes will eventually get caught.
In terms of their psychographic profile, outlaws are the least likely to articulate traditional values and they are among the most likely to feel that control over their lives lies elsewhere. Together with underground economists, outlaws are the least likely to lean towards elitism and they are slightly more likely than average to express hedonistic attitudes.
Figure 21: Outlaws
13% of Canadians, down 1% versus 2011
Demographics
Members of this segment are more likely to be:
Risk of Tax Cheating: HIGH
Key Factors-where Outlaws rank
| Rationalization | HIGHEST | ||
| No big deal | HIGHEST | ||
| Consequences | LOWEST | ||
| Responsible behaviour | LOWEST | ||
| Risky business | 5th lowest | LOWER THAN AVERAGE | |
| Tax fatigue | HIGHEST | ||
| Others | 2nd lowest | LOWER THAN AVERAGE |
The demographic profile of outlaws is similar to that of 2011: members of this segment continue to be younger than average, male, less educated and from lower income households. Specifically, outlaws are more likely to be:
...and less likely to be:
In addition, compared to member of other segments, outlaws were more likely to report income from self-employment as their main source.
This section discusses the taxpayer segmentation in terms of its opportunities for potential government actions and communications.
Looking first at actions, respondents were asked to assess the effectiveness of a number of potential government actions in terms of reducing tax cheating. The potential government actions that were assessed were:
The table below presents the results in this area for each of the segments. The scores represent the proportion of respondents who indicated that each action would be very effective (i.e., scores of 9 and 10 on a 10-point scale).
Figure 22: Potential government actions to reduce tax cheating
| Action | Total | Law Abiders | Altruistic Compliers | Rationalizers | Underground economists | Over-taxed Opportunists | Outlaws |
| Better informing Canadians of the penalties | 34% | 54% | 28% | 25% | 22% | 35% | 23% |
| Increasing the use of audits and penalties | 27% | 40% | 30% | 17% | 20% | 29% | 19% |
| Publishing names of people caught cheating | 32% | 42% | 37% | 24% | 27% | 38% | 18% |
| Increasing fines or jail time for cheating | 35% | 46% | 37% | 27% | 26% | 43% | 24% |
| Educating people earlier about tax obligations | 57% | 74% | 58% | 43% | 49% | 55% | 45% |
| Publishing the names of businesses caught cheating | 55% | 67% | 57% | 45% | 48% | 63% | 39% |
Law abiders were more likely than the other segments to view all of these as effective measures. Altruistic compliers and over-taxed opportunities were similarly likely to view as effective various types of penalties, including audits, publishing the names of tax cheaters, and increasing fines.
In contrast, outlaws, underground economists, and rationalizers expressed similar views with respect to the effectiveness of these proposed measures-that is, members of these segments were less likely to rate these measures as effective in terms of reducing tax cheating.
Respondents were also informed that there are a number of things that might motivate or encourage people to pay their full share of taxes. They were then asked to rate six items in terms of how big a motivator each is to them personally. The potential motivators were:
The table below presents the results in this area for each of the segments. The scores represent the proportion of respondents who indicated that each item would be a very big motivator to pay taxes (i.e., scores of 9 and 10 on a 10-point scale).
Figure 23: Potential motivators to pay taxes
| Motivator | Total | Law Abiders | Altruistic Compliers | Rationalizers | Underground economists | Over-taxed Opportunists | Outlaws |
| Understanding the responsibility I have as a Canadian to pay taxes. | 58% | 78% | 67% | 41% | 49% | 57% | 32% |
| Concern about the impact on my reputation if I'm caught cheating on taxes. | 50% | 71% | 54% | 37% | 41% | 53% | 25% |
| Seeing how government services I use might be impacted if there is more tax cheating. | 41% | 58% | 42% | 25% | 39% | 44% | 19% |
| Fear of embarrassing my family and friends. | 43% | 62% | 46% | 32% | 36% | 42% | 24% |
| Fear of having to pay heavy penalties. | 54% | 72% | 58% | 44% | 45% | 56% | 35% |
| Because it is the law, and I won't break the law. | 62% | 80% | 73% | 52% | 51% | 63% | 31% |
| Knowing that wealthy people and big companies are paying their fair share. | 38% | 53% | 38% | 33% | 28% | 44% | 24% |
The potential motivators are most effective with law abiders, followed by altruistic compliers. In contrast, each of the potential motivators performed least well with the group that appears to be most in need of perceptual and behavioural change outlaws. Among the other segments, these motivators were more likely to resonate with underground economists and over-taxed opportunists than with rationalizers. Perhaps it is the rationalizing mind-set of the latter segment that limits the effectiveness of these types of consequences.
In total, 79% of respondents completed the survey in English and 21% did so in French. The tables below present the characteristics of the respondents who participated in the survey. Characteristics include age, gender, region, parental status, education, employment status, household income, primary source of income, and immigration status. All data are weighted.
| Age | - |
| Base | n=3,001 |
| 18-24 | 11% |
| 25-34 | 16% |
| 35-54 | 33% |
| 55-64 | 17% |
| 65+ | 20% |
| Refusal | 4% |
| - | - |
| Gender | - |
| Base | n=3,001 |
| Male | 48% |
| Female | 51% |
| Other | <0.5% |
| - | - |
| Region | - |
| Base | n=3,001 |
| British Columbia | 14% |
| Alberta | 11% |
| Saskatchewan | 3% |
| Manitoba | 4% |
| Ontario | 38% |
| Quebec | 23% |
| Newfoundland and Labrador | 2% |
| New Brunswick | 2% |
| Nova Scotia | 3% |
| Prince Edward Island | <0.5% |
| North | <0.5% |
| - | - |
| Children under 18 in the household | - |
| Base | n=3,001 |
| Yes | 28% |
| No | 72% |
| - | - |
| Education | - |
| Base | n=3,001 |
| Grade 8 or less | 2% |
| Some high school | 5% |
| Completed high school | 20% |
| Some college/vocational/trade school/CEGEP | 5% |
| Completed college/vocational/trade school/CEGEP | 24% |
| Some university | 7% |
| Undergraduate university degree | 22% |
| Graduate or professional university degree | 15% |
| Refusal | 1% |
| - | - |
| Employment Status | - |
| Base | n=3,001 |
| Working full-time (i.e., 35 or more hours per week) | 44% |
| Working part-time (i.e., less than 35 hours per week) | 8% |
| Self-employed | 6% |
| Unemployed, but looking for work | 3% |
| A student attending school full-time | 7% |
| Retired | 23% |
| Not in the workforce (e.g. homemaker, unemployed, but not looking) | 4% |
| A small business owner | 4% |
| Other | 1% |
| Refusal | <0.5% |
| - | - |
| Household Income | - |
| Base | n=3,001 |
| Under $20,000 | 8% |
| $20,000 to just under $40,000 | 13% |
| $40,000 to just under $60,000 | 16% |
| $60,000 to just under $80,000 | 12% |
| $80,000 to just under $100,000 | 12% |
| $100,000 to just under $150,000 | 15% |
| $150,000 and above | 12% |
| Refusal | 11% |
| - | - |
| Primary source of Income | - |
| Base | n=3,001 |
| Paid employment | 54% |
| Pension | 20% |
| Self-employment | 9% |
| Social assistance payments | 3% |
| Investments | 3% |
| Spousal support | 3% |
| Insurance | 1% |
| Employment Insurance (EI) / unemployment insurance (UI) | 1% |
| Other | 6% |
| - | - |
| Immigrated to Canada | - |
| Base | n=3,001 |
| Yes | 21% |
| No | 79% |
| - | - |
| Length of time in Canada | - |
| Base | n=511 |
| Arrived within the last 5 years | 20% |
| Arrived five or more years ago | 77% |
| Refusal | 3% |
A more detailed discussion of the methodology is provided below.
A 16-minute telephone survey was administered to 3,001 adult Canadians. The quantitative fieldwork was carried out by Elemental Data Collection Inc. (EDCI), under subcontract to Phoenix SPI, as per our standing offer.
An overlapping dual-frame (landline and cell phone) sample was used to minimize coverage error.
The sample was geographically disproportionate in order to improve the accuracy of regional and provincial results. The distribution of interviews was as follows:
| Sample Size (n) | |
| Canada | n=3,001 |
| Newfoundland and Labrador | 200 |
| Prince Edward Island | 200 |
| Nova Scotia | 200 |
| New Brunswick | 200 |
| Quebec | 500 |
| Ontario | 700 |
| Manitoba | 205 |
| Saskatchewan | 209 |
| Alberta | 275 |
| British Columbia | 245 |
| North | 67 |
Survey results are weighted by region, age, and gender to reflect the actual population distribution in Canada.
A telephone pre-test was conducted in English and French, with 10 interviews in each official language. The pre-test revealed that the questionnaire was too long; as a result, minor modifications were made to the questionnaire (keeping in mind the desire to have results that would be comparable to the baseline results). Specifically, several questions were removed from the questionnaire and/or were edited to improve clarity and reduce the time required to ask and answer the question.
All survey respondents were informed that their participation was voluntary, and that information collected was protected under the authority of privacy legislation.
Sponsorship of the study was revealed (i.e., the Government of Canada).
With the landline sample, a minimum of eight call-backs were attempted to reach respondents before a record was retired. For the cell phone sample, a minimum of five call-backs were made.
Calling was conducted during the days, evenings and on weekends, abiding by the hours and call-back procedures stipulated in the Standards for the Conduct of Government of Canada Public Opinion Research.
The table below presents information about the final call dispositions for this survey, as well as the associated response rates.
| Total | Landline | Cell | |
| Total Numbers Attempted | 159,742 | 40,406 | 119,336 |
| Out-of-scope - Invalid | 99,235 | 16,336 | 82,899 |
| Unresolved (U) | 27,343 | 8,484 | 18,859 |
| No answer/Answering machine | 27,343 | 8,484 | 18,859 |
| In-scope - Non-responding (IS) | 29,999 | 14,034 | 15,965 |
| Language barrier | 766 | 331 | 435 |
| Incapable of completing (ill/deceased) | 380 | 223 | 157 |
| Callback (Respondent not available) | 3,275 | 963 | 2,312 |
| Refusal | 25,029 | 12,281 | 12,748 |
| Termination | 549 | 236 | 313 |
| In-scope - Responding units (R) | 3,165 | 1,552 | 1,613 |
| Completed Interview | 3,001 | 1,500 | 1,501 |
| NQ-Industry | 160 | 51 | 109 |
| Quota Full | 4 | 1 | 3 |
| Response Rate | 5.23% | 6.45% | 4.43% |
The formula used to calculate the response rate is as follows: [R=R/(U+IS+R)]. This means that the response rate is calculated as the number of responding units [R] divided by the number of unresolved [U] numbers plus in-scope [IS] non-responding households and individuals plus responding units [R].
The overall response rate was 5%. Specifically, the response rate for the cell phone sample was 4% and for the landline sample it was 6%. This is consistent with response rates for similar surveys
The potential for non-response bias was assessed by comparing the characteristics of respondents through unweighted and weighted data. The characteristics evaluated were gender and age. As is generally the case, for general population telephone surveys, older individuals (those aged 55+) are overrepresented and younger individuals (those under 35 years of age) are underrepresented in the survey sample. This was corrected through weighting.
In terms of the segmentation work, this included a factor analysis, a regression analysis which predicted the likelihood, or risk, of cheating on taxes in future, and a cluster analysis to develop the segments. The risk profile was two-fold. The first part focused on three types of behaviours (working for cash to avoid paying income tax, knowingly not declaring income on one's tax return, and selling goods or services without reporting the income). The second part focused on paying cash for things like home improvements or car repairs to get a cheaper price by not paying tax. There were two types of higher-risk individuals: 1) individuals who had a higher likelihood of paying cash to avoid paying tax, who but were unlikely to engage in the other tax-cheating behaviours, and; 2) individuals who were more likely to engage in all forms of tax-cheating behaviour.
| Rationalization | 2011 | 2019 | Difference |
| Strongly disagree[9] | 60% | 71% | +11% |
| Somewhat disagree | 24% | 18% | -6% |
| Neutral | 10% | 7% | -3% |
| Somewhat agree | 4% | 3% | -1% |
| Strongly agree | 2% | 1% | -- |
| No big deal | 2011 | 2019 | Difference |
| Strongly disagree | 47% | 51% | +4% |
| Somewhat disagree | 33% | 31% | -2% |
| Neutral | 14% | 13% | -1% |
| Somewhat agree | 5% | 5% | -- |
| Strongly agree | 1% | 1% | -- |
| Consequences | 2011 | 2019 | Difference |
| Strongly disagree | 2% | 3% | +1% |
| Somewhat disagree | 6% | 8% | +2% |
| Neutral | 16% | 17% | +1% |
| Somewhat agree | 37% | 35% | -2% |
| Strongly agree | 39% | 37% | -2% |
| Responsible behaviour | 2011 | 2019 | Difference |
| Strongly disagree | 1% | 1% | -- |
| Somewhat disagree | 2% | 3% | +1% |
| Neutral | 11% | 9% | -2% |
| Somewhat agree | 38% | 33% | -5% |
| Strongly agree | 48% | 53% | +5% |
| Risky business | 2011 | 2019 | Difference |
| Strongly disagree | 5% | 6% | 2% |
| Somewhat disagree | 16% | 18% | 2% |
| Neutral | 26% | 27% | 1% |
| Somewhat agree | 30% | 27% | -3% |
| Strongly agree | 24% | 22% | -2% |
| Tax fatigue | 2011 | 2019 | Difference |
| Strongly disagree | 4% | 7% | +3% |
| Somewhat disagree | 14% | 18% | +4% |
| Neutral | 30% | 30% | -- |
| Somewhat agree | 32% | 28% | -4% |
| Strongly agree | 21% | 17% | -4% |
| "Others" | 2011 | 2019 | Difference |
| Strongly disagree | 19% | 21% | +2% |
| Somewhat disagree | 10% | 12% | +2% |
| Neutral | 28% | 32% | +4% |
| Somewhat agree | 25% | 21% | -4% |
| Strongly agree | 19% | 14% | -5% |
| Traditionalism | 2011 | 2019 | Difference |
| Strongly disagree | .4% | .3% | -- |
| Somewhat disagree | .5% | .4% | -- |
| Neutral | 2% | 4% | +2% |
| Somewhat agree | 17% | 19% | +2% |
| Strongly agree | 80% | 77% | -3% |
| Elitism | 2011 | 2019 | Difference |
| Strongly disagree | 5% | 5% | -- |
| Somewhat disagree | 19% | 18% | -1% |
| Neutral | 36% | 41% | +5% |
| Somewhat agree | 31% | 30% | -1% |
| Strongly agree | 8% | 6% | -2% |
| External Control | 2011 | 2019 | Difference |
| Strongly disagree | 11% | 12% | +1% |
| Somewhat disagree | 28% | 28% | -- |
| Neutral | 32% | 33% | +1% |
| Somewhat agree | 20% | 18% | -2% |
| Strongly agree | 10% | 9% | -1% |
| Hedonism | 2011 | 2019 | Difference |
| Strongly disagree | 1% | 2% | 1% |
| Somewhat disagree | 6% | 7% | +1% |
| Neutral | 25% | 28% | 3% |
| Somewhat agree | 42% | 41% | -1% |
| Strongly agree | 25% | 22% | -3% |
Introduction
Hello, my name is [Interviewer's name]. I’m calling on behalf of Phoenix SPI, a public opinion research company. We are conducting a survey for the Government of Canada on issues of interest to Canadians. Would you prefer to continue in English or French? / Préférez-vous continuer en anglais ou en français?
The survey takes about 15 minutes and is voluntary. Your responses will be kept entirely confidential and anonymous.
[LANDLINE SAMPLE]
A. We choose telephone numbers at random and then select one person from each household to be interviewed. To do this, we would like to speak to the person in your household, 18 years of age or older, who has had the most recent birthday. Would that be you?
[CELL SAMPLE]
B. Are you 18 years of age or older?
C. Are you in a place where you can safely talk on the phone and answer my questions?
D. We would like to conduct this interview with you when it is safe and convenient to do. When would it be more convenient for me to call back?
SCHEDULE CALL-BACK IF POSSIBLE (TIME/DAY): _______________
[EVERYONE]
E. Do you work in any of the following areas? [READ LIST]
Advertising or Market Research or Public Relations The media (i.e. TV, radio, newspapers)
THANK/DISCONTINUE IF ANY OF THE ABOVE
THANK/DISCONTINUE MESSAGE: Thank you for your willingness to take part in this survey, but you do not meet the eligibility requirements of this study.
F. In which province or territory do you live?
PROGRAMMING NOTES:
The focus of this survey is mainly on taxes and related issues. This includes personal income tax, sales taxes, customs duties, and other taxes that people pay. Please answer the questions as honestly as you can your comments will be treated in complete confidence and your participation in the survey is completely anonymous.
1. Please tell me the extent to which you agree or disagree with each of the following statements using a scale of one to 10, where one means strongly disagree, 10 means strongly agree. If something does not apply to you, please say so. [READ/RANDOMIZE LIST.] PLEASE VOLUNTEER THE DOES NOT APPLY OPTION WHEN RESPONDENTS HAVE TROUBLE PROVIDING A RESPONSE TO ONE OF THE STATEMENTS.
2. Did you complete your latest tax return yourself or did someone do it on your behalf, such as an accountant or tax preparer, or even a family member or friend? [DO NOT READ]/
[NOTES TO INTERVIEWER: 1. USE OF TAX SOFTWARE = DOING TAXES ONESELF, AND 2. IF CONFUSION BETWEEN PERSONAL AND BUSINESS/PAYROLL TAXES, FOCUS ON PERSONAL]
3. In the future, how likely would you be to do each of the following? How about...? READ/RANDOMIZE LIST. Would you say very likely, somewhat likely, not very likely or not likely at all?
4. Is it OK for a self-employed Canadian* to be paid in cash for some of the work they do in order to avoid paying taxes on that income? [DO NOT READ]
*NOTE TO INTERVIEWER: IF ASKED WHAT IS MEANT BY SELF-EMPLOYMENT, SAY: This refers to someone who works for him or herself rather than for an employer. Sometimes someone who is self-employed may be referred to as a freelancer or contractor?
5. At what point would you say not claiming a year's worth of cash income becomes serious tax cheating? (DO NOT READ LIST; IF "I DON'T KNOW" READ LIST)
6. Please tell me the extent to which you agree or disagree with each of the following statements using a scale of one to 10, where one means strongly disagree, 10 means strongly agree. READ/RANDOMIZE LIST.
The next few questions deal with issues related to tax cheating. Please remember that your answers will remain completely confidential, like all your answers in this survey.
7. Here are a few reasons some people might give to explain why they think it's OK to cheat on taxes. Please use the same scale of one to 10, where one means strongly disagree, 10 means strongly agree. READ/RANDOMIZE LIST.
8. And to what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements about taxes? Please use the same scale of one to 10. READ/RANDOMIZE LIST.
*NOTE TO INTERVIEWER: IF ASKED ABOUT THE TYPE OF JOBS SAY: Jobs that offer the chance to collect tips are often in the service sector and include professions such as hair stylists, restaurant servers, or tour guides, among others.
9. In your opinion, generally speaking, how likely is it for people who cheat on their taxes to get caught? Please use a scale of one to 10, where one means it is not likely at all, and 10 means very likely.
10. How effective do you think the following potential government actions would be in terms of reducing tax cheating? Please use a scale of one to 10, where one means you think it would not be effective at all and 10 means you think it would be extremely effective. How about..? READ/RANDOMIZE LIST, BUT 10C AND 10G ARE NEVER TO BE READ BACK-TO-BACK.
11. There are a number of things that might motivate or encourage people to pay their full share of taxes. Please rate each of the following in terms of how big a motivator it is to you personally, using a scale of one to 10, where one means it is not a motivator at all, and 10 means it is a very big motivator. READ/RANDOMIZE LIST.
This next question looks at issues of a more general nature.
12. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements? Please use a scale of one to 10, where one means strongly disagree, 10 means strongly agree. [READ/RANDOMIZE LIST].
The last few questions are for classification purposes only.
13. In what year were you born?
Record year: ____________
14. How do you identify your gender? This may be different from the information noted on your birth certificate or other official documents. [READ LIST]
15. Which of the following categories best describes your current employment status? Are you [READ LIST]?
16. What is your primary source of income? [READ LIST IF HELPFUL; STOP READING WHEN A RESPONSE IS PROVIDED]
17. Do you have any children under the age of 18 who live with you at least part of the time? NOTE TO INTERVIEWERS: THIS INCLUDES CHILDREN LIVING WITH RESPONDENT FULL-TIME OR PART-TIME AS PART OF A SHARED-CUSTODY ARRANGEMENT.
18. What is the highest level of education that you have reached? [READ LIST]
19. Did you immigrate to Canada from another country?
IF YES, ASK:
20. In what year did you come to Canada?
Record year: ______________
21. Which of the following categories best describes your total household income? That is, the total income of all persons in your household combined, before taxes. [READ LIST]
22. What are the first three digits of your postal code?
23. RECORD: LANGUAGE
That concludes the survey. This survey was conducted on behalf of the Government of Canada. Thank you very much for your thoughtful feedback. It is much appreciated.
[1] The standard margin of error calculation is based on a simple random sample wherein sampling is geographically proportional to ensure that all members of the population have an equal chance of being sampled. Since this sample was not regionally proportional, the margin of error calculation needed to be adjusted to reflect this.
[2] Unless otherwise specified in the text or graph, all numeric scale questions are based on a 10-point rating scale which has been aggregated for reporting purposes as follows: scores of 9-10 (strongly agree), 7-8 (somewhat agree), 5-6 (neutral), 3-4 (somewhat disagree), and 1-2 (strongly disagree).
[3] This factor was modified with the removal of one variable (If I cheat on taxes, other Canadians have to pay more) and the reformulation of another (marked with an asterisk).
[4] This factor was modified with the removal of one variable (It’s not just important to pay what you owe in taxes, it’s important to pay on time.)
[5] This factor was modified with the removal of one variable (How likely is it for people who cheat on their taxes to get caught?)
[6] This factor was modified with the removal of one variable (Many people would hide income or overstate an expense to pay less tax.)
[7] This factor was modified with the removal of one variable (People should never intentionally harm others even to a small degree.)
[8] The data presented for 2011 have been adjusted to maximize comparability to the 2019 data. In other words, the model used this year has been run with both the 2011 and 2019 data in order to present this comparison over time of the taxpayer segments.
[9] The factors are based on a 10-point rating scale which has been aggregated for reporting purposes as follows: scores of 9-10 (strongly agree), 7-8 (somewhat agree), 5-6 (neutral), 3-4 (somewhat disagree), and 1-2 (strongly disagree).