Paying tradesmen cash in hand morally wrong - minister

[LOAM]

In all the times I've received a reduction from paying a trades person cash I always assumed it was due to the omission of guarantee for the work undertaken and never once considered that they wouldn't pay the tax on it. In the same way that I don't worry if the chap behind the counter at the post office is going to use the money I pay for stamps to fund his drug habit. Once its out of my hands I have no control over what happens to it.

 

[estebanrey]

No it doesn't.

You are only complicit if there is an explicit understanding that the saving is passed on to you as a portion of the taxes he will potentially avoid.

You obviously haven't read the posts from the person I was replying to. He was saying that he knows the discount is so the tradesman can avoid paying tax but he just didn't care, so that makes him complicit in the scheme.

 

[elmarko]

No it doesn't.

You are only complicit if there is an explicit understanding that the saving is passed on to you as a portion of the taxes he will potentially avoid. For example, the tradesman gives you a discount equal to the VAT and he tells you that the discount is dependent on his not paying the required taxes. There are other savings to be had from cash payments, such as bank charges and the ability of the tradesman to use cash to fund savings on materias etc.....which could account for such savings.

It is not at all like knowingly recieving stolen goods.

While I agree that in many cases people won't know - a fair few times I've heard them openly suggest cash in hand to "avoid the tax-man", in these cases the complicity is clear.

I don't think it's a good situation that a cleaner on £15k could be paying the same amount of tax as a decorator on £30k who declares only half of it, how to solve this issue on the other hand isn't that easy.

 

[Greebo]

No it doesn't.

You are only complicit if there is an explicit understanding that the saving is passed on to you as a portion of the taxes he will potentially avoid. For example, the tradesman gives you a discount equal to the VAT and he tells you that the discount is dependent on his not paying the required taxes. There are other savings to be had from cash payments, such as bank charges and the ability of the tradesman to use cash to fund savings on materias etc.....which could account for such savings.

It is not at all like knowingly recieving stolen goods.

Really? Cash is more expensive for a trader to process than a cheque or bank transfer. Our bank charges 56p per £100 banked so £2000 in cash would cost £11.20 to pay into the account as opposed to paying in a 50 p cheque so he should be offering you a discount if you DON'T pay him cash

 

[Hatter The Mad]

No it doesn't.

You are only complicit if there is an explicit understanding that the saving is passed on to you as a portion of the taxes he will potentially avoid

And that's what the minister said...

 

[Amp34]

Totally agree, a higher tax free allowance (set at a living wage, with higher overall tax rates to compensate) would be a good start.

So I'll pay a bit more tax, some things are worth paying for.

What's your idea of a living wage though? That's why I suggested it be linked to minumum wage. My idea of a living wage was £7k last year...

 

[Castiel]

You obviously haven't read the posts from the person I was replying to. He was saying that he knows the discount is so the tradesman can avoid paying tax but he just didn't care, so that makes him complicit in the scheme.

He said that he knows that is the case by implication (take you own advice and read who Ahleckz was replying to) not that the tradesman has made an explicit and defined expression that the discount is dependent on his avoiding VAT. for example the plasterer offers to do the job for £500 instead of £600 if you pay cash....he doesn't say, of you help me avoid VAT, I'll give you a discount.....you may well understand that the discount is likely to enable the plasterer to avoid paying VAT and Income Tax himself, but that is only implied, not explicit.

People's tax liabilities are their individual responsiblity, no-one else's.

 

[bitslice]

. If you had said full time cleaners then I wouldn't have picked you up on the point

What you seem to be suggesting either way however is that it's ok to break the law as long as you are poor? It's less wrong than a "rich" person not breaking the law?

The role isn't important, point relates to poor people vs corporations, I've covered this several times now.
No, not suggesting that it is OK to break the law.

) but suggesting some people should be allowed to evade tax while others shouldn't is wrong.

Still not suggesting that, you were implying I was then continued to assume.

All tax should be paid, but declaring that non payment is a moral wrong but specifically naming a particulary low paid group isn't a moral position, it is a vindictive and self serving one. If tax evasion by people who should be paying a significant amount was sorted then he would have a point, however making out the amount owed by cleaners is such that it is detrimental to his way of life, isn't the high ground.

It's the eternal political stance, claim that your fellow worker is stiffing you and they will ignore the greater crimes done by corporations. Just like single mothers were vilified during thatchers time. Easy scrapegoats.

Had he kept his comment to plumbers and the like then I would find less to object to.

No more quoting please, stuff is just being repeated.

 

[elmarko]

What's your idea of a living wage though? That's why I suggested it be linked to minumum wage. My idea of a living wage was £7k last year...

Well, higher than minumum wage (Which is too low anyway).

 

[realBabelfish]

Everyone is up in arms when rich folk avoid tax - rightfully so. Why is it any different for anyone else?

Rather hypocritical to say one type of avoidance is fine to do because it's an Average Joe, and the other isn't because it's a fat cat/ celebrity.

it is slightly different.

if i pay a joiner 1000 cash to do a job as opposed to 1200 cheque than i have another 200 to spend. this will go straight back into the economy

if a rich celeb avoids tax and sticks it in the caymen islands, the money is lost from the economy and we all suffer.

in principle the same but the effects are quite different. it also might mean i can afford to do the work that i might not have been able to afford otherwise.

 

[Castiel]

Really? Cash is more expensive for a trader to process than a cheque or bank transfer. Our bank charges 56p per £100 banked so £2000 in cash would cost £11.20 to pay into the account as opposed to paying in a 50 p cheque so he should be offering you a discount if you DON'T pay him cash

Only through his business account...not if he shoves in his pocket, uses it to buy materials, uses the cash personally or puts in his his personal account in lieu of wages....

 

[Amp34]

Just to clarify something here... Are you talking about tax evasion in the colloquial (and wrong) sense and adding avoidance in there or do you really think the IR aren't going after other ricker people EVADING taxes (the few companies with dodgy agreements aside).

 

[Castiel]

And that's what the minister said...

I have yet to have any tradesman give me an explicit statement that any discount is due to avoiding his tax liabilities.

 

[Amp34]

Well, higher than minumum wage (Which is too low anyway).

It's a liveable wage, depends how you want to live as it would be hard to buy the latest computer... That's a whole 'nother argument though! And the issues with inflation.

But yep, a tax free limit of £12-15k I'd agree with, then say a flat 25% afterwards.

 

[ubersonic]

Amazon don't 'snake their money through Jersey'. Firstly, their European operations are based in Luxembourg. Secondly, they legitimately run all their European operations from there...

Their UK operations are based in Slough, they have headquarters/warehouses in the UK they just make sure them money doesn't come through in a taxable way, just because something is legitimate doesn't mean its not an exploit.

 

[Hatter The Mad]

I have yet to have any tradesman give me an explicit statement that any discount is due to avoiding his tax liabilities.

I am sure most people have been given 'one price' for cheque, 'one price' for cash. Also, your lack of experience doesn't change what the minister said.

 

[Hatter The Mad]

amazon who both snake their money through jersey.?

 

[Castiel]

I am sure most people have been given 'one price' for cheque, 'one price' for cash. Also, your lack of experience doesn't change what the minister said.

That is not an explicit offer of a discount due to explicit tax avoidance. It has nothing to do with lack of experience (assumption on your part) but in the difference between implicit and explicit and how that defines your responsibilty. He could be paying the VAT himself to secure the work, he may be making savings in other ways, unless he saying specifically that the discount is because he will not be paying statutory taxes then you are not complicit in his tax avoidance.

 

[Woden]

Aren't people taking this out of context? He was talking specifically about the 'Ok, how much if I pay cash wink wink?' cash-in-hand payments.

I'm going to try this is McDonalds

 

[Hatter The Mad]

That is not an explicit offer of a discount due to explicit tax avoidance. It has nothing to do with lack of experience (assumption on your part) but in the difference between implicit and explicit and how that defines your responsibilty.

Or what you're saying is, when I am offered a lower price by a tradesman if I pay cash and that discount ends up being around 20% of the cost, funnily enough, I'll put up my SHIELD OF NAIVETY? Come off it