Treasury Minister thinks paying with cash is wrong

[toppstuff]

eccles said:

So every figure ever published comes with all research and evidence to back it up?

Get real, people don't believe figures when it suits them (or their ideology).

You seem very naive about politics and the role of foundations, think tanks and NGO's.

The timing of this is highly suspicious. Media is getting all hysterical about tax evasion,then all of a sudden a little known research organisation produces a report with big headlines and gets into the news. Given how these groups are funded , they have an agenda of their own. They are absolutely not doing his in a search for truth and justice and with political independence, thats for sure.

[TheEnd]

I think a lot of people are being quite naive when they get a quote for an extension, or new windows, and the builder says "It's £2500, or I'll do it for £2000 cash"

You aren't getting that discount because he doesn't like to walk to the bank to put a cheque in.

[P-Jay]

eccles said:

P-Jay said:

I find it strange that so many claim there's nothing morally wrong with seeking / agreeing to save money by paying cash for things - knowing full well that they're enabling someone else to avoid income tax and or VAT on it.

On the same forum a member was torn to bits and supposedly reported to HMRC for asking how much of his cash sales he should put through the books.

Double standards?

Of course you are assuming when you pay cash to a tradesman that he's not putting it through the books. He may well be above board.

He could well be, the point I'm making is the 'cash discount' doesn't come out of thin air, I accept that some might use it as a throwaway term in the negotiation - but in real terms, if you ask a builder to build you a wall, and he quotes £1000, and you umm and ahh and he says "well, call it £800 cash" he isn't giving you £200 off for the sake of saving him a trip to the bank or because he's got some linen fetish. It's because the chances are not all that money is going to be reported in his accounts, self-assessment or VAT return.

In my experience, very honest and above board businesses would rather take payment by electronic means as it's a dam sight easier to account for, and less hassle to handle.

But I don' think anyone needs an education in the difference between a Tesco Metro that has complex EPOS system whereby every penny is accounted for, or the milkman / window cleaner where it's just plain impractical to do door to door collections by card and the Garage Owner that will "forget the VAT on the labour mate" if you don't want a receipt and the builder that will knock off hundreds in exchange for a paper trail free transaction. It doesn't take a genius to work out what's going on.

As I've said above I've paid in cash for things in the past in exchange for a bit of a discount, but I won't take the moral high ground on it.

[toppstuff]

ViperPict said:

But you are not being scientific.

You obviously haven't read the report but are refuting it.

Rather subjective and non-scientific if you ask me.

I remain open-minded about it. But I'd like you to tell me SPECIFICALLY why I should not believe the numbers. You can't say they're bkes just because you don't know enough about the report.

If you want to take a hypothesis type of approach, the report is stating a certain position (i.e., providing a hypothesis or a starting point of discussion). Now over to you to objectively try and disprove the hypothesis based on specific issues.

I do not believe it. But that doesn't mean I am not prepared to. I just don't see any evidence as to why I should believe it.

I looked at their website and all I can find are lists that seem to have collated the publicly available data on assets under administration, custody or management in offshore jurisdictions.

I don't see any white paper offering the methodology for calculation. I hope there is one. I would happily read it with an open mind.

But the apparent absence of this basic information is a massive red flag in terms of the reliability of the data supporting the claims made. Any hypothesis should lay out the basis of its construction. I can't find anything here that does that. So the position of the data does not get past that of simply shouting out opinion to a receptive audience.

To put it another way - if I issued a report claiming that every member of the Labour Party pays 10% of their salary to a secret society run by David Icke where the wearing of turquoise tracksuits is compulsory, people would ignore me unless I show the evidence to support my hypothesis.

All that seems to have happened here is that some bunch of people with an agenda, have put some BIG numbers out there that play to the crowd right when people are shrieking about it, without any attempt to explain their hypothesis.

It is not hard to make a list of offshore financial institutions and the amount of assets they publicly claim to have under custody or management. I can do that myself. But they don't appear to know where the money originates from, how long it has been there, what it is invested in, in which currency etc etc... In this respect it is no more credible than me saying that Ed Balls is David Icke's half brother.

If you can find anything that sheds light on the claims, I'd love to see a link and I would happily adjust my position. Surely the only default position it is possible to take, therefore, is disbelief until the methodology is properly explained?

[thinfourth2]

BluePurpleRed said:

Well, if we take a position on where the UK is now albeit knackered its waaaay better than Greece. So anything where people are evading tax as a matter of course then I think this is wrong. They have a hard time collecting their taxes as its so corrupt and I'd rather be where we are then where Greece has got to. I know there are other issues but if people pay about £100 a year in tax each on average you know its gonna be difficult for the govt to deal with. :P

It wouldn't be a problem if they only spent 99 pounds per person

[Murph7355]

TheEnd said:

I think a lot of people are being quite naive when they get a quote for an extension, or new windows, and the builder says "It's £2500, or I'll do it for £2000 cash"

You aren't getting that discount because he doesn't like to walk to the bank to put a cheque in.

And what if said tradesman gives you a receipt?

Your take on events is an explanation for why some do it. But it won't apply to all. Saying it does is as bad as saying all bankers are evil baby killers.

If your tradesman says I'll knock you 500 quid off so I can dodge the VAT (ignore his mathematics ability for now), then you have a choice to make (break the law or not). Otherwise, a discount's perfectly allowable. Thankfully wink, wink, nudge, nudge is yet to count for much in law (though with the way our policitians, media and baying masses behave it can only be a matter of time).

[anonymous-user]

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/tradesm...

[BoRED S2upid]

TheEnd said:

I think a lot of people are being quite naive when they get a quote for an extension, or new windows, and the builder says "It's £2500, or I'll do it for £2000 cash"

Im pretty sure if they had asked for a £500 discount on his original quote cash or no cash they would get it.

[Mermaid]

Does the UK government have a slush fund & do they get receipts for all their payments especially when arms/defense deals are involved.

[B17NNS]

roachcoach said:

These arrogant aholes have the audacity to lecture people on morals?

It's like fking Adolf Eichmann lecturing the Dalai Lama on ethics.


Yeah, I godwined it, it's fking asking for it.

I think this is more the point.

Were politicians as moral and pure as driven snow as apposed to pigs at the trough people might take them a bit more seriously.

The politicians are to blame for the culture. If George the MP thinks its acceptable to screw the public over for a moat around his duck house then I'm pretty sure Bob the plumber doesn't feel too bad about the £50 cash job he gets on the odd Saturday. Afterall he probably spends the money down the pub anyway and gets heavily taxed on it.

I bet the amnesty phone is ringing off the hook

[Eric Mc]

And you can claim we get the politicians we deserve.

For the last 30 plus years, probity, honesty and honour have not been atributes that renderred a political candidate particularly electible.

[toppstuff]

ViperPict said:

But I'd like you to tell me SPECIFICALLY why I should not believe the numbers.

Simple. You should not believe the numbers because:

1. The publishers do not know where the assets in offshore jurisdictions are attributed to. This is because this is protected information. How much comes from UK taxpayers? How much from Saudi Arabian Pension Funds? How much from Russian Oil Companies holding their cash reserves, for example? No-one knows. They don't know.

2. Given that no-one knows how and where the offshore money is attributed, how can they therefore extrapolate how much may normally have "belonged" to any given country and is therefore subject to tax? How can the publishers possibly understand the tax affairs of billions of people in aggregate?

3. If they instead used base assumptions and modelled the outcomes accordingly, there is no explanatory thesis as to how they arrived at the numbers they claim and the methodology used.

4. The numbers seem to have miraculously appeared right at the time when the media are getting all hysterical about the subject. Considering that even if it were possible to collect this data accurately ( and I do not believe it is ) it would take months even years to do so.


This is politics. We are being played. Surely that is obvious.

[Johnboy Mac]

The Minister should really be talking about the offshore tax havens & tax avoidance by major PLC's instead of cash-in-hand jobs by tradesmen. The whole scenario is a bad joke.

Edited by Johnboy Mac on Tuesday 24th July 14:04

[Mermaid]

Johnboy Mac said:

The Minister should really talking about the offshore tax havens & tax avoidance by major PLC's instead of cash-in-hand jobs by tradesmen..

Unintended consequence. CEO's at major PLC's are wishing the Minister had kept his mouth shut.

[B17NNS]

Out of interest Eric where does the Revenue/law etc stand on trading of services.

For example last month my van needed some hefty repairs and as normal I took it to my friend who ownes a garage.

It just so happened that he needed the bathroom replacing in his rental property.

The two bills were withing £20 of each other. He is VAT registered, I am not.

Just to keep everything above board I gave him an invoice and he gave me one and we swapped a £20.

I'm assuming it would be wrong for him to fix my car at the weekend and in exchange I plaster his lounge with no paperwork or money changing hands?

[Alex]

Johnboy Mac said:

The Minister should really talking about the offshore tax havens & tax avoidance by major PLC's instead of cash-in-hand jobs by tradesmen. The whole scenario is a bad joke.

The UK should become an off-shore tax haven.

[Murph7355]

toppstuff said:

...
This is politics. We are being played. Surely that is obvious.

You're talking to someone who's been suckered in by Alex Salmond. Of course he doesn't know when he's being played and, more over, he doesn't care as the stance suits his ire.

[Gene Vincent]

Middle-class angst... all this debate over trifling amounts, whilst a few scant years ago people in the City were yahooing millions and celebrating their bonuses with Champagne for tossing the economy off a bridge.

This is very much a divisive issue, the wealthy have taken a kicking, not enough of one in my opinion, no banker to date has entered a prison, and now they want their friends in high places to get the chattering classes to shun the lower classes through this engendered angst.

This economy is in the st, it will only come out of it through entrepreneurial skill, with that skill comes a bit of cost cutting, and as said here plenty of times, the entrepreneur is a far better judge of where to put money than any Gov't ever, elected or not.

The City didn't have any qualms, yet the easily found middle earners feel guilt if they don't feel the pain.

Madness, keep paying however you want, don't give the idiot in office another thought, he is precisely that... an idiot.

[TheEnd]

BoRED S2upid said:

TheEnd said:

I think a lot of people are being quite naive when they get a quote for an extension, or new windows, and the builder says "It's £2500, or I'll do it for £2000 cash"

Im pretty sure if they had asked for a £500 discount on his original quote cash or no cash they would get it.

The original bill was £3k then, and already had it knocked down.
The point is the discount "for cash" isn't because of credit card or cheque handling fees.

As for receipts, I don't think you'd get one, and for the same matter, any problems and the guy could just say he never worked for you, open his accounts book and say it must have been someone else who put doors in upside down and walk away.

[Eric Mc]

B17NNS said:

Out of interest Eric where does the Revenue/law etc stand on trading of services.

For example last month my van needed some hefty repairs and as normal I took it to my friend who ownes a garage.

It just so happened that he needed the bathroom replacing in his rental property.

The two bills were withing £20 of each other. He is VAT registered, I am not.

Just to keep everything above board I gave him an invoice and he gave me one and we swapped a £20.

I'm assuming it would be wrong for him to fix my car at the weekend and in exchange I plaster his lounge with no paperwork or money changing hands?

Money, or money's worth, should always be accounted for through the books. If a swap deal is undertaken - as long as the values are properly reflected in the records, there are no issues.