Paying tradesmen cash in hand morally wrong - minister

estebanrey

estebanrey

estebanrey

Soldato
Joined
8 Mar 2007
Posts
10,938
It is "morally wrong" to offer to pay tradesmen in cash in the hope of avoiding tax, Treasury Minister David Gauke has said.
Click to expand...

Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18964640


How else are you supposed to pay them? It's not like they carry a swipe machine around with them.

I tend to pay them with a cheque but even with that the tradesman can still not declare it when it comes to his tax return, the Inland Revenue don't have access to people's personal bank accounts do they?

What a silly and petty thing to go about.
 
HMRC have been stepping up checks on tradesmen over the past 18 months or so. Checks are becoming more common and once they start digging there is not much a person can do to hide undeclared income.
There have been several high profile plumber investigations and convictions reported, and electricians are now in the firing line.
Ebay users are next :)

Oh, and while HMRC don't have direct access to bank accounts, they have the power to request access and can go back as far as 20 years if tax evasion is suspected
 
Last edited:
I can see where he is coming from, i work 40 hours a week, i pay my taxes, and so should everyone else. This includes personal tutors, cleaners, and craftsmen.

The only benefit i can see to the whole thing is there is no paper trail if you're employing somebody you really shouldnt be.
 
name89 said:
I can see where he is coming from, i work 40 hours a week, i pay my taxes, and so should everyone else. This includes personal tutors, cleaners, and craftsmen.

The only benefit i can see to the whole thing is there is no paper trail if you're employing somebody you really shouldnt be.
Click to expand...

The onus is on the tradesman to pay his tax. I should be able to pay him any way i please, if he then doesnt pay tax he, is in the wrong - not me.
 
On the few occasions I've had work done for me, there has always been an offer of discount for cash rather than paying the company. It kind of bothers me, but not enough for me to stop doing it.

If he is doing that to avoid tax, then that's his issue - nothing to do with me.
 
I look forward to all the papers setting up stings on the MP's

the angle MP's have put on this seems wrong, its NOT morally wrong to offer to pay cash for a deduction..... it may well not be declaired but thats up to the tradesman... so its the trademan thats in the wrong if anyone...
 
As and when I'm not longer paying vast sums of money to feed and house the underclass (Yes, if you CHOOSE not to work, you are by definition, the underclass) then I may have more consideration, but as it stands right now, I pay MORE than enough. Until that changes, if I have the opportunity to save some money legally, at the expense of the tax man, I will do it.
 
Why don't they sort out the big boys like play and amazon who both snake their money through jersey.? They must be two of the biggest UK retailers. Certainly avoiding more tax than bob the builder
 
I don't deny for a second that cash-in-hand jobs remove revenue from the government coffers but I would really like to see some data comparing this with the amount lost from aggressive tax avoidance schemes.*

On the one hand, you've got a large amount of small transactions and on the other you've got a small amount of large transactions.

I wonder which is the most detrimental? I also wonder how much it would cost to police the two instances, and whether this would provide value for money.

*I appreciate it would be incredibly difficult to estimate the amount of cash-in-hand transactions that take place in a tax year but I'm sure it wouldn't be impossible
 
Linkex said:
As and when I'm not longer paying vast sums of money to feed and house the underclass (Yes, if you CHOOSE not to work, you are by definition, the underclass) then I may have more consideration, but as it stands right now, I pay MORE than enough. Until that changes, if I have the opportunity to save some money legally, at the expense of the tax man, I will do it.
Click to expand...
It's not legal having an undeclared income.

I pay my fair share of tax, I fail to see why it should be considered acceptable for people who earn well above the national average to avoid it.

If it was cleaners & bar-staff pocketing a few tips here & there I'd understand, but these are well paid already (compared to the average).

I do agree that we should focus on the big scale avoidance, as it will be significantly easier to police.

But what I don't like is the kind of person who illegal avoids tax (via cash in hand) then starts harping on about benefit fraudsters - they are both the same kind of scum.

Any changes put in place to stop the trades people from doing this should be put in AFTER they have closed the myriad of corporate tax avoidance methods if they want to retain any respect on the matter.

Edit - Note, while I'm aware tax avoidance is legal & what's mentioned in the article is evasion (which is illegal) the term immoral was used (which opens it up-to subjective interpretation as to what constitutes immoral).

Evasion & avoidance in my view are both immoral (as they take money which is needed for services & maintenance of the infrastructure of the country) those avoiding or evading force up the tax for the rest of us.
 
Last edited:
They like to bring up Morality into an argument which they lose from the word go, don't they?

Ben Wright said:
I pay a builder for a new patio. Crazy paving and all. Knowing he has to pay VAT on my bill I make a suggestion: How about I pay him in £20 notes?

That would enable him to slip the cash into his pocket and out of sight of the tax man. It would also make my bill smaller.

It's illegal for my builder not to declare all his earnings. But what's my responsibility for his action?

According to Treasury minister David Gauke it's "morally wrong" to want to offer cash for that purpose.

Hear that? The sound of cabinet ministers shuffling uncomfortably as they remember years of paying cash to their builders, plumbers, gardeners, nannies and cleaners.

In its assault on the tax-avoidance practices of the rich, the government has been ready to use the rhetoric of morality. It's about fairness.

But at a time when people feel stretched, telling people they have a moral responsibility to pay top whack is a slightly sticky place for a minister to be.
Click to expand...

It's nice they're starting somewhere with tax, but starting from the working class won't help their morality argument when they let bigger companies like Vodaphone or TopMan/Burton owners avoid tax payment through clever accounting.

Poor taste tbh.
 
I had some carpentry done recently and paid by cash. It's not as if the guy stashes it into an overseas account! Eventually the money will go back into the economy though. MP's need to sort their own house out before having a go at everyone else. If they got paid cash in hand for what they did they'd be skint.
 
Panzerbjorn said:
I don't deny for a second that cash-in-hand jobs remove revenue from the government coffers but I would really like to see some data comparing this with the amount lost from aggressive tax avoidance schemes.*

On the one hand, you've got a large amount of small transactions and on the other you've got a small amount of large transactions.

I wonder which is the most detrimental? I also wonder how much it would cost to police the two instances, and whether this would provide value for money.

*I appreciate it would be incredibly difficult to estimate the amount of cash-in-hand transactions that take place in a tax year but I'm sure it wouldn't be impossible
Click to expand...

Nail on the head.
You have maybe 100 or so massive companies who probably like to use as many loopholes as possible, and millions of tradesman who get cash in hand. It's quite obvious that looking at the major companies would be a better use of time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom