Treasury Minister thinks paying with cash is wrong
Discussion
Eric Mc said:
Adrian W said:
But I thought his comments were about morals, sorry BP,Vodaphone and the banks might be legal but they certainly arn't moral
Paying cash to a trader per se is neither immoral nor illegal. It's what the trader does with the cash that causes the problem.If the customer is COLLUDING with the trader to defraud - that is both ILLEGAL AND immoral.
pacman1 said:
The concept of one of our government ministers telling us what is, or is not morally wrong has no credibility whatsoever, imo.
A new gold standard in pious rhetoric! If we had all paid cash in the first place, there'd be no bloody credit crisis!
There's so much innacuracy in your post I don't know where to stand.A new gold standard in pious rhetoric! If we had all paid cash in the first place, there'd be no bloody credit crisis!
powerstroke said:
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.
How does he avoid tax ??? its cash and will be spent again in the pub ,in a shop etc all that happens is it misses a trip thru the tax system, most likley benifits the economy as it gets spent on other goods and services rather than being just put in the bank ......."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.
I think your maths is a bit off the mark if you think it has no impact.
oyster said:
pacman1 said:
The concept of one of our government ministers telling us what is, or is not morally wrong has no credibility whatsoever, imo.
A new gold standard in pious rhetoric! If we had all paid cash in the first place, there'd be no bloody credit crisis!
There's so much innacuracy in your post I don't know where to stand.A new gold standard in pious rhetoric! If we had all paid cash in the first place, there'd be no bloody credit crisis!
martin84 said:
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.
Are you just using semantics for an empty argument?
I agree, I'd rather have them working etc - but they are another slap in the face for the PAYE worker otherwise known as 'the government's cash cow'.
I'm slightly baffled by the attitude of Gauke.
There isn't a true black economy in the UK, pay someone cash-in-hand and the only effect is that the money goes to the government earlier than any other way.
Simple example, tradesman takes £5k without paying Income or Value Added tax, we'll call that £2,500 not paid.
£800 in vat which is paid in 3 months, £1700 not paid for about a year.
Because you can't buy fuel or food in the black economy any money that is spent 'living it up' is paid instantly through taxes at that time and because of the size of these businesses, the tax stream is monthly.
So the tax is paid quicker, meanwhile the lubricating effect of the partial black economy, means that those businesses are bolstered by the extra spending at the tills, this contrasts to giving the money to the state which doles it out rather badly, losing a huge part of the potential goodness in the machine itself.
I would say that in reality, this is far superior to 'big business' taking the money out of the Country to avoid tax, cash-in-hand bolsters the economy, because the black economy is not endemic, it is limited and that is why it is actually an essential part of it.
The is only a detrimental effect on the economy if the circle of the black economy becomes complete, it isn't and so it has only the benefit of improving the flow of money in the real economy.
Why, I ask, is this moron Gauke in such a position to talk the rubbish he does without having the intellectual rigour to understand simple free-state economics? That is the big question here.
There isn't a true black economy in the UK, pay someone cash-in-hand and the only effect is that the money goes to the government earlier than any other way.
Simple example, tradesman takes £5k without paying Income or Value Added tax, we'll call that £2,500 not paid.
£800 in vat which is paid in 3 months, £1700 not paid for about a year.
Because you can't buy fuel or food in the black economy any money that is spent 'living it up' is paid instantly through taxes at that time and because of the size of these businesses, the tax stream is monthly.
So the tax is paid quicker, meanwhile the lubricating effect of the partial black economy, means that those businesses are bolstered by the extra spending at the tills, this contrasts to giving the money to the state which doles it out rather badly, losing a huge part of the potential goodness in the machine itself.
I would say that in reality, this is far superior to 'big business' taking the money out of the Country to avoid tax, cash-in-hand bolsters the economy, because the black economy is not endemic, it is limited and that is why it is actually an essential part of it.
The is only a detrimental effect on the economy if the circle of the black economy becomes complete, it isn't and so it has only the benefit of improving the flow of money in the real economy.
Why, I ask, is this moron Gauke in such a position to talk the rubbish he does without having the intellectual rigour to understand simple free-state economics? That is the big question here.
Adrian W said:
Eric Mc said:
Adrian W said:
But I thought his comments were about morals, sorry BP,Vodaphone and the banks might be legal but they certainly arn't moral
Paying cash to a trader per se is neither immoral nor illegal. It's what the trader does with the cash that causes the problem.If the customer is COLLUDING with the trader to defraud - that is both ILLEGAL AND immoral.
Hiding and suppressing cash sales is illegal - end of story.
martin84 said:
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 f
king 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.
Absolutely agree with this post. 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 f
king 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.'t
ts.How dare this politician who lives in and represents Chorleywood, which straddles the M25 and is 30 miles from Westminster, but claims upwards of £20k per year to pay for a property in London on his expenses, open his weasly mouth on the subject of morals.
Let him use the train to get to work in the morning like many of his constituents and if working late, claim for a mini cab home on expenses. Only then can he spout off about morals.
In the past fifteen years I've grown to loathe politicians of all political hues. The self serving, arrogant, selfish and morally bankrupt pontificating, second rate chancers. Come the revolution, I'll be there lining them up against the wall.
Gene Vincent said:
I'm slightly baffled by the attitude of Gauke.
There isn't a true black economy in the UK, pay someone cash-in-hand and the only effect is that the money goes to the government earlier than any other way.
Simple example, tradesman takes £5k without paying Income or Value Added tax, we'll call that £2,500 not paid.
£800 in vat which is paid in 3 months, £1700 not paid for about a year.
Because you can't buy fuel or food in the black economy any money that is spent 'living it up' is paid instantly through taxes at that time and because of the size of these businesses, the tax stream is monthly.
So the tax is paid quicker, meanwhile the lubricating effect of the partial black economy, means that those businesses are bolstered by the extra spending at the tills, this contrasts to giving the money to the state which doles it out rather badly, losing a huge part of the potential goodness in the machine itself.
I would say that in reality, this is far superior to 'big business' taking the money out of the Country to avoid tax, cash-in-hand bolsters the economy, because the black economy is not endemic, it is limited and that is why it is actually an essential part of it.
The is only a detrimental effect on the economy if the circle of the black economy becomes complete, it isn't and so it has only the benefit of improving the flow of money in the real economy.
Why, I ask, is this moron Gauke in such a position to talk the rubbish he does without having the intellectual rigour to understand simple free-state economics? That is the big question here.
Once again,full agreement.(and far better put than i am able!)There isn't a true black economy in the UK, pay someone cash-in-hand and the only effect is that the money goes to the government earlier than any other way.
Simple example, tradesman takes £5k without paying Income or Value Added tax, we'll call that £2,500 not paid.
£800 in vat which is paid in 3 months, £1700 not paid for about a year.
Because you can't buy fuel or food in the black economy any money that is spent 'living it up' is paid instantly through taxes at that time and because of the size of these businesses, the tax stream is monthly.
So the tax is paid quicker, meanwhile the lubricating effect of the partial black economy, means that those businesses are bolstered by the extra spending at the tills, this contrasts to giving the money to the state which doles it out rather badly, losing a huge part of the potential goodness in the machine itself.
I would say that in reality, this is far superior to 'big business' taking the money out of the Country to avoid tax, cash-in-hand bolsters the economy, because the black economy is not endemic, it is limited and that is why it is actually an essential part of it.
The is only a detrimental effect on the economy if the circle of the black economy becomes complete, it isn't and so it has only the benefit of improving the flow of money in the real economy.
Why, I ask, is this moron Gauke in such a position to talk the rubbish he does without having the intellectual rigour to understand simple free-state economics? That is the big question here.
Blib said:
Absolutely agree with this post.
How dare this politician who lives in and represents Chorleywood, which straddles the M25 and is 30 miles from Westminster, but claims upwards of £20k per year to pay for a property in London on his expenses, open his weasly mouth on the subject of morals.
Let him use the train to get to work in the morning like many of his constituents and if working late, claim for a mini cab home on expenses. Only then can he spout off about morals.
In the past fifteen years I've grown to loathe politicians of all political hues. The self serving, arrogant, selfish and morally bankrupt pontificating, second rate chancers. Come the revolution, I'll be there lining them up against the wall.
And replacing them with.....??How dare this politician who lives in and represents Chorleywood, which straddles the M25 and is 30 miles from Westminster, but claims upwards of £20k per year to pay for a property in London on his expenses, open his weasly mouth on the subject of morals.
Let him use the train to get to work in the morning like many of his constituents and if working late, claim for a mini cab home on expenses. Only then can he spout off about morals.
In the past fifteen years I've grown to loathe politicians of all political hues. The self serving, arrogant, selfish and morally bankrupt pontificating, second rate chancers. Come the revolution, I'll be there lining them up against the wall.
Maybe it is but so is, lying to a whole country that you can sort out an Economic mess, lying you'll tough with Bankers, lying about relationships with the press.
The bottom line is this government has woken up and realised that they have made poor choices regards austerity and the resultant fall in tax collected now what they are doing is saying that it's not their fault but some cash in hand builder. The whole cash in hand thing should have been clamped down on years ago but their not doing it now just for money but it like the Jimmy Carr thing is a way of diverting blame.
The bottom line is this government has woken up and realised that they have made poor choices regards austerity and the resultant fall in tax collected now what they are doing is saying that it's not their fault but some cash in hand builder. The whole cash in hand thing should have been clamped down on years ago but their not doing it now just for money but it like the Jimmy Carr thing is a way of diverting blame.
smegmore said:
oyster said:
pacman1 said:
The concept of one of our government ministers telling us what is, or is not morally wrong has no credibility whatsoever, imo.
A new gold standard in pious rhetoric! If we had all paid cash in the first place, there'd be no bloody credit crisis!
There's so much innacuracy in your post I don't know where to stand.A new gold standard in pious rhetoric! If we had all paid cash in the first place, there'd be no bloody credit crisis!
Can we pay tradesmen in gold then instead?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff