Treasury Minister thinks paying with cash is wrong

[martin84]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance...

Why is he targeting tradesmen specifically? I paid cash in a restaurant last week, was that morally wrong?

The last time I looked it was legal to pay somebody with cash.

[martin84]

TheEnd said:

That's because you haven't quite understood the point.
"It is 'morally wrong' to pay tradesmen cash in hand, says David Gauke"


It's the "in hand" bit, doesn't go through the books so the customer gets a discount, and the builder doesn't declare it for tax and pockets the lot.

No. If he was talking about off the books businesses paying cash in hand he'd have a point. But the first paragraph clearly says David Gauke, a Treasury minister, told The Daily Telegraph that home owners who allow workmen to evade VAT or income tax were forcing others to pay more.

Home owners who 'allow' workmen to evade tax? I'm sorry when did it become my responsibility to handle the tax affairs of the self employed individual who carries out work on my home?

He's talking about when a Plumber comes to your house, or you get a tradesman to put up a fence or build you a wall. He's not talking about companies but rather the general public, the customer. If I have a plumber round and I pay him in cash, I'm not paying him 'cash in hand' because I'm not his employer. He is his employer. Whether he declares it or not is up to him and not my responsibility. Are Vodafone customers responsible for Vodafones tax avoidance?

Technically anybody or any business paid in cash can avoid tax which is almost everybody. Restaurants, taxis, buses, corner shops etc you name it. So why is he focussing purely on the tradesman? Not only that, but what right does a fking Government minister have to lecture anybody on Planet Earth about morals? They didn't seem to buy into morals when they were fiddling their expenses 'within the strict confines of the rules.'

tts.

[martin84]

davepoth said:

Got it in one there. The only time it's morally wrong to pay in cash is if the tradesman says "Pay me in cash so I don't have to put it through the books", and then you're fully aware what the situation is, and I imagine probably legally complicit in a tax fraud. Other than that there's no obligation on the buyer to make sure a business is managing their tax affairs appropriately.

Well what tradesman is going to openly state to their customer (a stranger, who could be anybody, Police Officer for all they know) they intend to avoid tax? Even if they did tell you, it's still not your problem. I'd wager half of those Lithuanians/Poles etc who built extensions for the British on the cheap didn't pay any tax. Do we care?

At the very least I'd rather them be working and avoiding tax than claiming off the state. Even the 'hidden economy' has its benefits somewhere down the line you know.

[martin84]

davepoth said:

Quite often you hear stories of people doing "cash in hand" work and still claiming benefits too, so maybe not the best choice of words.

Well there's always an example of everything. Personally if I was able to stick a few hundred quid a week into my pocket without the taxman knowing I wouldn't bother with all the hassle of claiming £50 a week off the Government. Those people get found out though, if a person cannot make an appointment at the Job Centre and fail to give a reason they're instantly marked as suspect. Then the JC starts moving their signing time around in unpredictable fashion to try and catch them out.

[martin84]

TheEnd said:

HMRC are watching ebay closely now.

Yes I heard they've got some used Philips speakers on their watch list but they can't stretch to more than £25.

[martin84]

toppstuff said:

Bloody hell, I can't begin to think how you could get that much cash into the bank system without it attracting attention. At least not without spending a lot of time doing it.

We should give Ken Livingstone a bell because I'm sure he'd have some tips*

• Allegedly

[martin84]

rs1952 said:

This sort of thing has been going on for years. All those "shop your neighbours for benefit fraud/ drink driving/ domestic violence/ whatever" hotlines than have sprung up.

It raises an interesting moral question. Where do you draw the line when you think that somebody else is doing something illegal?

I'd report drink driving, domestic violence or indeed any sort of violence but I wouldn't report anybody for simply stealing money. The criminals which provoke the most hatrid are ones who've killed children etc, nobody particularly cares about the Bernie Madoffs because all they did was nick some cash.

[martin84]

elster said:

You wouldn't report anyone for stealing money?

This shows how low society is in the UK.

I think the definition of a low society would be one where everybody is a state spy and snooping on their neighbours all the time. I'd report a serious crime if I had information such as violence, drink driving etc because those are things serious enough for a third party to intervene in. If I suspected Joe Plumber down the road wasn't paying his taxes however thats none of my business.

[martin84]

elster said:

So you wouldn't report a robbery? Seriously?

You think it is a low society if you know someone has committed theft and you report them over people being free to thieve away.

Ah a robbery is different. That's something I have actually witnessed therefore it is fact that it happened. I would not report anybody based on unfounded suspicions (ie the plumber joe scenario.)