The DT is getting itself into a lather about hypocritical MPs who complain that employing people for cash is immoral – it robs the exchequer of tax income allegedly. But the paper seems to avoid the real issue – that it’s the tradesmen who are doing the cheating, if they don’t declare their earnings for tax purposes.
Cherished reader, there is an important principle at stake here. If a thief sells me the proceeds of his work, am I not an ‘accessory’ to the crime? So if I know that my plumber’s business is or should be tax-accountable, don’t I have the responsibilty to ask for a receipt for my payment, complete with VAT number and stuff? Where is the line between ‘legal’ and ‘moral’? The trader is clearly breaking the law; am I not morally obliged to stop him (if I can)?
Or is the ‘everybody does it’ defence ethically OK? I am not my brother’s (book-)keeper.
Boadicea's Chariot 
Môre Janus
I’m going to assume that these ‘cash deals’ are somewhat cheaper than a purchase / service from a properly registered vendor. Perhaps consumers¹ should simply write the exchequer an annual cheque for the amount of money that they’ve colluded in short paying him, . . . . . . . you first 😉
(¹ those with a guilty conscience that is.)
The main problem with paying ‘cash’ for goods and services is that one has no redress if the goods or services are faulty.
However, since I think the UK VAT, which may be legal but hardly moral, is way, way over the top I can see a very good reason, if neither legal or moral, why people are prepared to turn a blind eye to tradesmen not declaring their income if they themselves benefit from lower prices.
At the end of the day everyone wants a bargain and no one likes to pay tax. ‘Twas ever thus…
I take no lessons in morality from a politician. Last week one of the expense-fiddling barstewards even suggested that it was immoral legally to exploit a tax-avoidance loophole that HMRC had not yet noticed and closed.
I toiled all my working life under the P.A.Y.E system and was royally screwed by the Inland Revenue for my troubles. I now pay as little tax as is legally possible and earn as much pin-money as I can in cash. Morality and/or guilt doen’t even enter the equation.
OZ
Paying tax to this government is about as moral as giving money to a persistent drug addict or a thug demanding it with menaces. You don’t do it because it is the right thing to do, you do it because you have to. I am a better guardian of my money than the government which spends it with reckless abandon.
How dare these politicians lecture us about morals when it is the government that has removed all moral responsibility from the individual and placed it in the hands of the state?
When any government in which I am liable to pay tax, starts spending it with more consideration to the well-being of the taxpayer, only then will I consider payment a moral obligation rather than a legal obligation.
Well said Sipu!
The more taxes a government, any government of any hue, gathers, the more money they piddle up against the wall.
Interesting that the consensus here supports cheating the taxman and is generally anti-gubmint. I wonder how long ago people here believed their elected reps did a good job and deserved support – if ever?
Btw, I suppose cheating in general is now regarded as fair game, is it?
1. Legal tender in the UK: One and two pence coins – any transaction up to twenty pence. Five and ten pence coins – up to £5. 20, 25 and 50 pence coins – up to £10. £1, £2 and £5 pound coins and Banknotes – any amount.
2. There is no legal requirement to obtain a receipt for any transaction, nor is there a general legal requirement to offer a receipt – except upon request for a transaction involving VAT. (And in certain exceptions – bureaux de change, for example.)
3. It is an individual responsibility to declare taxable income to HMRC.
4. Therefore, if I am offered a discount for cash, it is perfectly proper for me to accept it. And I do.
Just as an aside, I am getting a 10% discount at the hotel I’m staying at in Istanbul in September for paying cash… not tax evasion by the hotel, simply avoiding the exorbitant local credit card charges.
Bravo, nice try but your 3. begs the question of your own ethical position. You are encouraging him to cheat, however you interpret the rules.
Not at all, Janus – I’m no ‘nanny,’ I know the rules and to assume that wither the other guy doesn’t, or does and is going to ignore them anyway is a bit ‘superior,’ isn’t it? The other person may, or may not be registered for VAT and that is none of my business I’m not breaking any rules and nor am I encouraging him to break any. Personal responsibility, mate, personal responsibility, not enough of it knocking around – and where lies the fault for that, Harrumph!
Bugrit! ‘Either’
Quite right Bravo
Janus
Today I bought the newspaper from my local service station shop
Then bought a 2 litre milk from a corner cafe (an independent ‘grocer’ I think you call them)
Then a quick lunch and crossword time at my local coffee shop
Then a quick beer @ Dolly’s bar
Then a couple of packets of chips (crisps) from an independent wholesaler friend of mine
Then a fruit and veg shop for a couple of essentials
I paid cash for each transaction (I always do) and received a till slip for just one of them.
Would you have me question each and every one of them about there banking procedures and tax declarations?
I simply couldn’t care less
Soutie, the point is about paying cash for tradesman to do work at your home.
Bravo, personal responsibility is fine but no man is an island either.
I understand that but fail to see why it’s any different I would venture that most businesses are ‘at it’
I was about to make the same point as Soutie’s No. 12. Is it the case that, I should question another adult about their turnover – in case they should be registered for VAT? Or ask them if they are going to declare a particular payment foe tax purposes? It simply isn’t, nor should it be, any of my business.
Surely tradesmen are responsible for their own tax returns? Oddly enough, most of the cheaper for cash merchants are not making enough to register for VAT purposes, so this is a bit of a con. They ask for cash and forget the VAT, but they don’t have to pay it, and shouldn’t charge it!
Sorry, Soutie, but I just do not see the relevance of your argument in comment #12.
Without legalese, as far as I ever can.
In every one of the examples which you give, you received physical goods in exchange for your cash. Your possession of those goods gives overwhelming weight to the presumption that the vendor passed ownership of them to you in exchange for value, whether or not you have a receipt. Were he to try to claim that you had stolen the goods, he would have to be the one to prove it, You are, however, quite right that you should not feel the need to discover what the trader does with the cash you gave him for his tax purposes.
But then, that’s not what Janus was posting about, in my opinion.
It is a very different story when it comes to provision of services. Just because somebody has done work for you, that is no evidence that you have actually paid him and you would have to prove it unless you can produce a receipt to vouch that payment, if you did pay cash.
If I am offered a discount for cash, I am happy to accept it but I would expect a receipt and, where relevant, a guarantee in exchange. I would also expect the total to contain VAT if the trader concerned was VAT liable. I could never guarantee that he will actually pass on the VAT to the Revenue as he should. That is his moral dilemma and not mine. All that matters to me is that my conscience is clear.
I know that I probably sound priggish but I ‘liked’ Janus’ post this morning because I do not indulge in relative morality. Any number of examples of the alleged wrongs and moral failings of others lined up from here to the farther limits of the most extreme self-justification could never persuade me that it is acceptable for me personally to turn a blind eye to deliberate attempts to defraud by traders with whom I am contracting, if I become aware of them.
As ever, I march to my own drum and am perfectly happy that others choose to see things differently.
Am I morally obliged to stop him?
The only moral obligation I have is to keep as much of my and others’ monies out of the hands of the thieving, robbing Government of the day.
I strongly disapprove of the way it is spent on parasites and immigrants and as far as I am concerned the more that starve in the gutters the better. They might go home or stop breeding.
As such I pay virtually every one cash. As for guarantees etc, when you know everyone for years anyway just a phone call, even transatlantic ones gets it put right in no time at all. I just pay them next time I see them! Works a charm amongst honourable ‘thieves’!
But that’s Wales for you! Long may it stay that way!
JM, I’m glad I’m not alone in having a conscience. We’re very unfashionable it seems. 😦
Bravo – The Portuguese gobmunt has just announced that henceforth any commercial transaction will require the supplier to provide an invoice. Get a beer, get an invoice; get a haircut, get an invoice, etc. I suspect the black economy is about to boom.
Good news! Last December the gobmunt introduced tolls on the A22 Via do Infante motorway down in Algarve, one of the most tourist-orientated regions of Europe. Result – an almost total boycott with everyone transferring to the EN125, generally recognised as one of he most dangerous roads in Europe. On the motorway, in high summer, at peak times, it is difficult to get a photograph of the motorway with a car in view with even the authorities admitting that traffic density has fallen by 60%. It is certainly a lot higher than that..
OZ
It’s the same in Cyprus, OZ, with the aded twist that VAT is added automatically to all transactions and it’s up to the trader to reclaim it – the customer just gets shafted.
Evenin’ Bravo. I am wondering why any trader should be obliged to act as an unpaid tax collector for their gobmunt. Passive resistance is the only way forward and that means offering cash and accepting it at a discount whenever possible.
OZ
And making sure you own a very old pre-electronic till! Where the till roll jams with monotonous regularity!!!
Quite so, Christina. We could start a little revolution here. Power to the People!
OZ
You guys will enjoy watching your anarchy on TV from the safety of your country retreats. That’s what I call ethical.
I have no doubt we have paid our dues in the past and can no longer tolerate either the rulers or the ruled.
Don’t do too bad yourself ref retreating to a rural retreat!!
How’s the move by the way? Did it work out, ours hasn’t. Oh well, at least we won’t have to lift the land mines from the drive!
Some of us, of course, are actively involved in working against such ‘anarchy’… I suspect you might call that ethical?
Next. I someone breaks the law and I become aware of it, I think there is a general – JM? – requirement that I inform the relevant authorities – common law offence, Police,statutory law offence, relevant authority – JM?.
Next. If I see someone breaking the law, i think, again, there is a general requirement to attempt to prevent it, if I can. I think that there is also such a requirement to assist the Police if called upon to do so, (posse comitatus, raise the hue and cry?) JM?
Next. I also think there is a ‘common sense’ element allowable. For example, if I am in the path of a couple of hundred rioters, I can see they are breaking the law, I understand that there is a duty to intervene, but common sense says ‘get out of the way, seek help,’ rather than undertaking a more direct intervention. On the other hand, if I see a couple of thugs beating up a women, actual intervention becomes more likely.
Finally. None of the above, carries any requirement for me to actively seek out law-breaking. The case in point is, firstly, a matter of statutory, not common, law, (JM?) and no matter what I might suspect, I see no evidence of wrong-doing, nor is there any legal requirement for me to seek any such. Further, I avoid – not evade, note – any taxes upon any of my income that I legally may – I also, btw, disburse some of my income voluntarily on a couple of causes I have mentioned before in these pages, commonly known as charitable donation. If, therefore, I can, quite legally, as in my No. 8, keep some of my hard-earned in my own pocket, I see nothing un-ethical in doing so.
Bravo, it’s interesting how different people react when asked whether they they are doing the right thing. Innit?
Bravo, good evening.
Your #27. Avizandum
Interesting points but I’ve got an Olympic Games to watch. I’ll get back to you.
It’s now 22.07hrs GMT and against my better judgement I am watching the opening ceremony. From what I’ve seen so far (black 19th Century mill owners and HM the Queen, Queen of the UK, Dominions abroad and Head of the Commonwealth being greeted in fekkin’ French for Gawd’s sake) I hope to see the head of Danny Boyle on a pike outside the Tower of London in the morning.
And the multicultural dancers are too young to know how to dance properly to ‘Tiger Feet’.
Oh Jeez. Now they’re broadcasting Johnny Rotten and Holly Johnson and an eulogy to Danny ‘Trainspotting’ Boyle.
Pass the sick bag.
OZ
So why, FFS, are the competing teams being introduced at the UK Olympics in London in French with a subsequent translation into English for the rest of the world??
My fur is getting very frizzy.
OZ
OZ, good evening,
I refer you to my answer to Bubbles in the Other Place.
‘Hi MM. Hope you don’t mind me using that but it’s been a while.
It’s because Baron de Coubertin who founded the whole stramash was a Frog and got to go first with the two official languages, Be fair and let them enjoy their small triumph. We’ll still have GMT and so much more.
Also, in truth, we should revel in the fact that most people in the world have to wait for the English translation to see which country is actually processing into the stadium.’
The important thing is that we will be last,
If there was a roof, those of us who have bought into this event would be raising it.
Evenin’ JM. Even the Baron de Coubertin bit is contentious as it is also claimed that the spirit of the Games was actually revived somewhere in the deep south of England towards the end of the 19th century, if memory serves me well. I shall try to find a link for you.
OZ