Null Hypothesis: the definition of null hypothesis is when there is no significant difference between specified populations and any observed difference being sampling or experimental error.
Chi square < less than 0.05: Accept null Hypothesis
Chi square > more than 0.05: Reject Null Hypothesis

Cross Tab 1(Age and planning to avoid tax)

* The Chi square value of 2.375 in comparison to the critical value of 7.81 in the degrees of freedom shows that there is no observable difference. * This is because there is a reliance on the data, whereby we can accept the null hypothesis which signifies a correlation between age and planning to avoid tax. * The majority of people are less likely to avoid tax or less likely admit that they are going to avoid tax. * For example 36 of 57 respondents under the age of 20 have said no to avoid tax.

Cross Tab 2 (Gender and voluntary contribution) * The chi square of 9.613 and the critical value of 9.49 in the degrees of freedom shows that… * From looking at the value we would normally assume that there is an observable difference * However as the values are slightly different we shall reject this statement, assuming that there is no observable difference * Although we have recognised that there is a correlation between gender and their beliefs of voluntary contributions to tax; with females being willing to contribute to tax more than males. * An example 4 females in comparison to 1 male are more willing to pay voluntary contributions to tax

Cross Tab 3 (employment status vs who benefits the most) * The Chi Square is 8.13 and the critical value of 15.51 on the degrees of freedom, * These show that there is no observable difference in employment status in terms of who benefits the most. * Therefore we accept the null hypothesis as it clearly shows that everyone believes that the unemployed are better beneficiaries of the tax system. * For example 12 out of 23 employees asked feel that the unemployed benefit more from the tax system as the data shows that
Cross Tab 4 (ethnicity and reduction in tax to work harder and longer) * The Chi Square of 16.696 and the critical value of 21.03 shows that * We accept the null hypothesis because the majority of the views show that no matter the ethnicity * People are more likely to work harder for lower taxes. * This relationship exists because 26 people have said that they would work harder for reduced tax from combing both figures of 14 and 12
Cross Tab 5(Age and Government intervention) * Chi square of 21.095 and the critical value of 12.53 shows * There is an observable difference because there is no correlation between ages and the governments increase or decrease in their presence of business operations.

Cross Tab 6(Ethnicity and do you consider Inland Revenue literature) * The chi square of 33.943 and the critical value of 21.093; * There is no correlation between ethnicity and how complex people find Inland Revenue literature to be. * This is because there is a fluctuation in people’s views, with their being no correlation or link to ethnicity. * Most of the participants agreed that the question of Inland Revenue literature was complex. * However the only noticeable different is that people classified as other seem to favour the inland revenue literature being useful
Cross Tab 7(Age of respondent and the increase in basic rate of tax) * The chi square of 56.551 and the critical value of 21.03, shows that; * We shall assume that there is an observable difference; therefore we shall reject the null hypothesis. This is because; * This is evident in the table, where under 20’s are likely to disagree with an increase in the basic rate tax band (35 out 57 people). This could be because; we can take an empirical point of view that most of these are likely to be students, and not working full time. Therefore they are not likely to encounter these tax bands. However, * The remainder of the participants are likely to remain neutral in their answers, throughout the age bands. * It is worthy to consider that there is an anomaly, (41 people out of 73) under the age of 30 are also likely to disagree with an increase of basic rate of tax. * We could perceive this to be the middle, hard working class.
Cross Tab 8(Age and voluntary contributions) * The Chi square of 13.861 and the critical value is 21.03. This tells us that; * We shall accept the null hypothesis. * This is because there is a correlation between all ages having a neutral view on there being a voluntary contribution to tax (with 16 out of the 45 in agreement with it.)
Cross Tab 9 – John Webb’s Data
9a. Everyone has a responsibility to support those most disadvantaged * The chi square is 8.130 and the critical value is of 7.81, therefore; * Although we should reject the null hypothesis as there is an observable difference, the difference in numbers are of a miniscule amount, and therefore we would be more inclined to accept the null hypothesis. * This is despite there being an even distribution of figures across rank and gender
9b. Taxes should provide a minimum level of public service * The chi square is .413 and the critical value is of 7.81, therefore; * There is no observable difference; therefore we accept the null hypothesis. * The data shows that it is evenly distributed, but seem to skewer to it being the 4th choice.
9c. A strong business sector should provide an environment to support society * The chi square is 6.161 and the critical value is 7.81, therefore; * There is no observable difference; therefore we accept the null hypothesis. * Although companies are supposed to pay towards the community, it can be voluntarily for them to pay for it – link to Buchannan paradigm #2

9d. Taxes should be used to reform social policy * The chi square is 3.826 and the critical value is 7.81, therefore; * There is no observable difference; therefore we accept the null hypothesis. * The data shows that, although they are evenly distributed, there is 2 peaks, one for it being 2nd choice (40 out of 129) and it being the 4th choice (40 out of 129.)
10a. Age of respondent v introduction of starting rate of tax 10% * The chi square is 50.246 and the critical value 21.03. * Therefore, we shall reject the null hypothesis and that there is an observable difference, because; * 63 respondents agreeing with lowering tax bands.
10b. Age of respondent v increase in basic rate tax * The chi square is 64.24 and the critical value is 21.03. * Therefore we shall strongly reject the null hypothesis, with there being an observable difference. * This is evident with 53 people out of 125 disagreeing with the increase.
10c. Age v increase in employer’s national insurance contribution * The chi square is 47.703 and the critical value is 21.03 * Therefore we shall strongly reject the null hypothesis, with there being an observable difference. * This is evident with 46 out of 130 people disagreeing with the increase.

10d. Age v increase in employee’s national insurance contribution * The chi square is 57.919 and the critical value is 21.03 * Therefore we shall strongly reject the null hypothesis, with there being an observable difference.*
10c. Age v introduction of working family’s tax * The chi square is 52.181 and the critical value is 21.03 * Therefore we shall strongly reject the null hypothesis, with there being an observable difference.*
10d. Age v application of automatic penalties * The chi square is 35.924 and the critical value is 21.03 * Therefore we shall strongly reject the null hypothesis, with there being an observable difference.*

*They all disagree with increases apart from the introduction of working family’s tax