Paying tradesmen cash in hand morally wrong - minister
- Thread starter estebanrey
- Start date
Associate
- Joined
- 21 Sep 2010
- Posts
- 1,215
That is true but lets be completely honest here, most people don't carry the hundreds of pounds in cash that most trade bills come to. They draw it specifically because they know said tradesperson will probably give them a discount for cash, as they then don't have to put it through the books. The exact reason is left unsaid but both sides are complicit.
I don't necessarily agree with the minister but lets not cheapen the arguement by pretending we aren't all fully aware of what's going on.
Soldato
- Joined
- 10 Mar 2009
- Posts
- 4,473
- Location
- South West
Exactly, you can see how the media was used by the government to put Jimmy Carr in the crosshairs but this is law.
Various trades being asked to be paid in cash and the onus is put on the customer - glad to see the government is consistent!
I've said it before and I'll say it again - avoidance is different to evasion. Jimmy Carr's example is avoidance (lawful) and non-declaration of income by tradesmen is evasion (unlawful).
Of course if a tradesman offers discount for cash, it MAY well be that rather than doing a fiddle they are doing this to save on paperwork. Much less work not having to do your billing and chase up non-payment. Some people find trading in cash far more honest (no bounced cheques etc).
Last edited:
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
He didn't say its morally wrong to pay cash, he said its morally wrong to pay cash in return for a discount you know is funded by dodging the tax. Though frankly somebody else's tax is not my problem so if offered a discount I would find it hard to refuse as would I imagine most people?
up until recently I was indifferent towards the government and did not really even think about the 1000(ish) tax I pay a month (things gotta be payed for)...
but now I am actually sick of MP's those mother (*$%^£$, scamming their expences, getting us into wars we will never win letting any tom dick or harry into the uk.. <rant/> OHIHEF:HEFF: UEF:OUHEF:UF :WEFWE@UIOQW£R:H@ OEF:UWE$TW$T:$T:BU ASDF:ED:W$T* :ODFJNOD WETOIHT$@*H TUHWETIH FEOIHF@OEIHRF EU @EOUO@EIWFH@UIOEWH EWF@IOEHFO@HIEWWEWEF DF:UDFUO:KLKLKKLKLKLLKLKLF OEFHOWEFOWEFOWEFOWEFH EF{Y*EWFUH EFEFE"£${*JEJNJLFEED ..... <rant>
i
Yes but the point is that the minister is saying that it's morally wrong to offer to pay the tradesman in cash in the hope that he won't declare it as income/revenue, saving you some money in the process. No-one is talking about making cash payments illegal, or offering to pay cash in the hope of getting a discount for prompt payment etc.
BTW, if the tradesman doesn't declare cash payments then that's tax evasion, which is legally as well as morally wrong.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 1 Aug 2004
- Posts
- 12,681
- Location
- Tyneside
Is it morally right that a Tory MP can earn 600,000 as a barrister while working as an MP ?
Is it morally right that they are bankrolled by the likes of Lord Ashcroft who use tax avoidance schemes ?
I would say no to both. I will pay a tradesman how I see fit. Whether he pays tax or not is on his shoulders.
Is it morally right that they are bankrolled by the likes of Lord Ashcroft who use tax avoidance schemes ?
I would say no to both. I will pay a tradesman how I see fit. Whether he pays tax or not is on his shoulders.
Is it also morally wrong that I also use Vodafone as my mobile phone provider and when I wish to purchase something online I check Amazon first? Keeping track of what I can and can't do morally is taking a lot out of me, I might have to leave my job and live off the state.
I prefer not to delve into the tradesman's tax affairs and will continue to ask if he prefers cash or cheque.
I prefer not to delve into the tradesman's tax affairs and will continue to ask if he prefers cash or cheque.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 9 Aug 2008
- Posts
- 35,711
I say it's morally wrong to charge as much interest on Loans, Mortgages e.t.c but I don't complain I just pay it if I have too. This is what you call greed and ripoff.
I think that we should have the best people doing the job, and I'd suggest that someone as intelligent and as well educated to be a £600,000pa Barrister is a much better MP than Dave the crack dealer.
True, but you can't justify thousands of civil service jobs that way...
Also Joe the Plumber probably can't afford the types of accountants that big companies can.
I do agree with you though.
a small builder might have a turnover of 200k, he might spend 5k on diesel and whatever he gets in cash will still be paying tax on a lot of his earnings..
the gov will be getting a lot more tax out of a builder than they would out of most people, so i dont feel its right that they now and then cant keep the cash in their pocket.
a lot of places have stopped through no work, i think the gov would rather see their tax and a lot more business stop before being happy which i thinks wrong
the gov will be getting a lot more tax out of a builder than they would out of most people, so i dont feel its right that they now and then cant keep the cash in their pocket.
a lot of places have stopped through no work, i think the gov would rather see their tax and a lot more business stop before being happy which i thinks wrong
Last edited:
1) how can they put their all into two jobs? I have two jobs I only care about the one that pays the most..
2) they are not the smartest or the best they are the most popular people... the smartest peopel are normally weired and would never get elected...
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 1 Aug 2004
- Posts
- 12,681
- Location
- Tyneside
You have to ask what his first priority is ? Representing the people he was elected to represent should be that priority.
I'm not sure Mr Gauke has his priorities right.
You have to assume that the people that he's representing are happy with the work that he's doing for them or he wouldn't have been re-elected.
However, he's a Tractor Boy so clearly a scumbag.
Associate
- Joined
- 1 May 2012
- Posts
- 359
My misses dad doesnt have his own bank account never has since starting a business over 15 years ago, probably wouldnt know what to do with a chip and pin card.
Hes paid mostly cash in hand and now and then a cheque which goes into his wifes account.
They will never stop it, unless paper and coins stop circulation and goes digital.
And morals, half these jokers don't even know what these are.
Hes paid mostly cash in hand and now and then a cheque which goes into his wifes account.
They will never stop it, unless paper and coins stop circulation and goes digital.
And morals, half these jokers don't even know what these are.
Associate
- Joined
- 29 May 2003
- Posts
- 2,038
- Location
- Cambridge
The real villains are getting away with far bigger 'crimes' against the HMRC. They may be fewer in number than tradesmen, but the entire sum of money that so-called 'celebrities' are hiding via their accountants and their fancy tax avoidance schemes makes the odd £50 here and there that a plumber doesn't declare seem like chicken feed.
But no, as usual with politicians (of all parties, I might add), let's put all the blame on Joe Public and turn a blind eye to what our 'chums' in high places are doing, eh? As usual, the guilty are hidden in plain sight and another convenient scapegoat is found. Does flogging a few bits and bobs on eBay really make me that much of a criminal, when the BBC have been caught putting the salaries of pretty much all their 'talent' through a tax avoidance scheme?
I pay PAYE and NI on my salary and declare my comparatively paltry income from private work to the HMRC, so my conscience is clear.
Speaking of which, slightly off-topic but still on financial matters and on the same theme of an unwillingness to confront the real villains, since when is the manipulation of the LIBOR rate anything other than plain, old fashioned fraud? If you or I get charged with fraud, we go to prison, pure and simple - so when can I expect to see the chief executives of Barclays, HSBC, Lloyds etc issued with a prison uniform?
But no, as usual with politicians (of all parties, I might add), let's put all the blame on Joe Public and turn a blind eye to what our 'chums' in high places are doing, eh? As usual, the guilty are hidden in plain sight and another convenient scapegoat is found. Does flogging a few bits and bobs on eBay really make me that much of a criminal, when the BBC have been caught putting the salaries of pretty much all their 'talent' through a tax avoidance scheme?
I pay PAYE and NI on my salary and declare my comparatively paltry income from private work to the HMRC, so my conscience is clear.
Speaking of which, slightly off-topic but still on financial matters and on the same theme of an unwillingness to confront the real villains, since when is the manipulation of the LIBOR rate anything other than plain, old fashioned fraud? If you or I get charged with fraud, we go to prison, pure and simple - so when can I expect to see the chief executives of Barclays, HSBC, Lloyds etc issued with a prison uniform?
Two wrongs don't make a right. Big corporations should pay and so should everybody else. Us PAYE people pay what we should, my brother earns more than me as a self employed IT person and pays way less tax than me as well due to his accountant helping him. This is not fair or right in anyway but it seems to be how the system works.
It all needs improving not just focusing on this bit or that.
It all needs improving not just focusing on this bit or that.
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
Sigh....
UK Uncut have done a good job unfairly trawling these two companies the through mud when it fact neither did anything wrong.
Vodafone - Did not avoid paying any tax, they just paid it in Germany instead of the UK. Why? Because the tax in question was from the profits on phones sold in Germany! That sounds perfectly fair and reasonable to me.
UK Uncut's argument is that because they are a UK based company all their tax on profits should be paid here, even profits made in other countries which is a fair enough point of view until you see them attack Boots on contradictory grounds. Boots are based in Switzerland so pay their taxes there which UK Uncut complain about, they can't have it both ways.
TopShop - Phillip Green's wife legitimately owns the companies that supposedly avoided tax. She does not live in the UK, nor wants to but the UK Uncut argument seems to be because she is the wife of a UK businessman, he should take control of her money and pay her taxes here. It's like going back to the Victorian era and trying to claim what the woman has/earns in the property of the man and is sexism pure and simple.
VAT at 20% made some work I wanted done unaffordable when I got quotes from a few firms.
How can you blame people for paying cash in hand when they save so much?