The Student Room Group

Paying with cash is wrong say top taxman.

Scroll to see replies

Reply 60
Original post by jacketpotato
If you are getting a 5% cash discount, that's fine because there is a legitimate reason for that discount. But if you are getting a 20% discount for cash-in-hand, you know that the whole purpose of paying cash is to enable the trader to commit tax fraud. You might as well be an accountant who lies about his client's tax returns or forges fake receipts so that his client can use them in his tax return.

Its fraud, plain and simple.


Even if you were to pay more in cash, you're still trusting the tradesman to pay tax on it. It's his responsibility to pay his taxes - your responsibility ends once you pay him what you agree on for the work he did.
Reply 61
Call a waambulance!

Dave Hartnett doesn't exactly have a great record, look at pretty much any copy of Private Eye.
So, the plumber was going to be £70, or £200.

Which one would Mr Hartnett choose?
Original post by Dr Good Manners
Wrong. Its diverting money from the full time unemployed (by chioce), unskilled, irresponsible baby making machines, foreign aid to countries with their own space program and the EU. Good. Long live cash in hand


I still don't understand why India decided a space programme would be a good idea, when everything else needs to be sorted out first.
He can **** off considering what they do with the money we already give them.
Original post by Hopple
Even if you were to pay more in cash, you're still trusting the tradesman to pay tax on it. It's his responsibility to pay his taxes - your responsibility ends once you pay him what you agree on for the work he did.


People who pay in cash are fully aware of why its cheaper. For example, my dad was getting a roof done and a guy priced it up, my dad thought it was a little much and asked him for a deal with cash, the guy said he would knock off all the vat. It is obvious to anybody what is going on. My dad of course shouldn't be legally responsible if the guy got caught for tax evasion but if you believe that tax evasion is wrong then you are going against your beliefs by doing this.
Original post by Hopple
Even if you were to pay more in cash, you're still trusting the tradesman to pay tax on it. It's his responsibility to pay his taxes - your responsibility ends once you pay him what you agree on for the work he did.


I don't see how you can claim not to be responsible if the VAT is being knocked off. You know that the trademan is evading tax, and you know that he can only evade tax because you are paying cash. Its a bit like buying a second-hand bike from a known thief and claiming that you shouldn't get done for handling stolen goods.

If you were only getting a 5% discount, then thats different because there is a legitimate reason for it and you don't know if VAT fraud is going on. But if the VAT is being knocked off you are deliberately taking advantage of VAT fraud.
Reply 67
Original post by limetang
Are Her Majesties revenue and customs not getting enough? We pay income tax and national insurance on what we earn. Let's assume you earn 30k. Of this over 7k goes away in tax which is just over 23% of your earnings. Then if you want to spend it generally speaking you'll have to pay another 20% tax on it. And if you're buying alcohol or petrol or anything like that. Then you'll be paying duty on top of that as well.


So with that amount of tax. Do you really think a things done with cash where the person receiving it probably isn't going to pay tax on it are really going to make a difference?


Do you like roads?
Reply 68
Original post by Hypocrism
Do you like roads?


My point was that the amount of revenue lost due to this pales into insignificance when compared to the amount of tax revenue that is gained. And that paying in cash and having a few people doing some off the books transactions is not destroying anything.
Guys, if you don't like how the government is spending your money, you vote for a new government, you don't dodge paying tax and pretend it's a political act.
Out of all the people "diddling the country" he chose that particular group? Really?
paying with cash is wrong? last time I checked cash, was a form of currency used in trades for the exchange of goods!?!...my bad for using it to buy stuff!!! :rolleyes:
Original post by viksta1000
paying with cash is wrong? last time I checked cash, was a form of currency used in trades for the exchange of goods!?!...my bad for using it to buy stuff!!! :rolleyes:


are you being deliberately thick or just trolling ?


the thrust of the argument from HMRC is that people who will commission works 'cash in hand' are active participants in criminal tax evasion...
Original post by Bax-man
Except they're not "free" at all, are they? They're financed by taxation - by coercion. What has happened is you've already been charged for them, whether you use them or not.


It's a kind of insurance - if you get really ill you are going to be paying much less than you would have done and only what you can afford, and if you are never ill you will help those who are only with what you can afford. God help us if we had America's system ($3000 for an uninsured night in hospital?).

I think cash in hand is wrong - why should that bloke pay less and then be funded by other hardworking people? I see why people think about themselves, and I suppose you can't blame someone for doing so, but if you don't want the EU to get the money, campaign for independence rather than just not giving money that will then mean more is diverted away from libraries etc.

Although, tbh I suspect the losses from this are a drop in the ocean. We need to go after the big rich tax evaders.
Reply 74
Original post by Redreynard
quite right. the plumber is a good bloke. i'm a good bloke. no need for any of the money to be stolen by the state and turn up in the hands of some chav on benefits with 20 children.


Or your mother's doctor, your cousin's teacher or the guy fixing the potholes in the road.
Original post by zippyRN
are you being deliberately thick or just trolling ?


both :wink:
Original post by Mbob
No, but if a tradesman offers to do the job a bit cheaper for cash in hand then you're colluding with him to break the law.


Not really - you have no evidence that he's intending to break the law. Unless the tradesman says something like, "I'll do it for a tenner less if you'll pay it in cash so I can carry out some tax evasion," it's perfectly reasonable for you to expect him to declare his earnings.
Reply 77
Original post by Octohedral
It's a kind of insurance - if you get really ill you are going to be paying much less than you would have done and only what you can afford, and if you are never ill you will help those who are only with what you can afford. God help us if we had America's system ($3000 for an uninsured night in hospital?).

I think cash in hand is wrong - why should that bloke pay less and then be funded by other hardworking people? I see why people think about themselves, and I suppose you can't blame someone for doing so, but if you don't want the EU to get the money, campaign for independence rather than just not giving money that will then mean more is diverted away from libraries etc.

Although, tbh I suspect the losses from this are a drop in the ocean. We need to go after the big rich tax evaders.


Except it differs from all other insurance policies in that you're given no choice on whether you assent to it or not. You could make some kind of argument that you can vote for your government and in so doing actually have a choice, but I think that's flawed for a number of practical and philosophical reasons. I'm willing to discuss it if you like, but it seems tangential.

The US system is hardly a good example of a system absent the NHS. The American system is this weird, inefficient and expensive hybrid between regulators, the government and large insurance companies. It's hardly a laissez-faire pariah.
(edited 12 years ago)
Original post by Octohedral
It's a kind of insurance - if you get really ill you are going to be paying much less than you would have done and only what you can afford, and if you are never ill you will help those who are only with what you can afford. God help us if we had America's system ($3000 for an uninsured night in hospital?).

I think cash in hand is wrong - why should that bloke pay less and then be funded by other hardworking people? I see why people think about themselves, and I suppose you can't blame someone for doing so, but if you don't want the EU to get the money, campaign for independence rather than just not giving money that will then mean more is diverted away from libraries etc.

Although, tbh I suspect the losses from this are a drop in the ocean. We need to go after the big rich tax evaders.


i don't think there are that many rich people. the bulk of tax will always come from everyday middle class folk. if you want to reduce tax, don't look to the rich, look to the scrounging lazy-arsed poor who suck up all the money in benefits.
Businesses that evade tax would be shut down in an ideal world. Obviously it's not an ideal world and to do so would only make the situation worse and cause mass unemployment.


Tax is pretty low as it is. I'd prefer a slight cut in income tax to boost AD, but seriously people need to understand that not all tax money goes on the unemployed, immigrants, "baby making machines" and the EU. It mostly is used to fund necessities like our armed forces, education, healthcare and yes social security for those unable to work or looking for a job(which isn't easy).

And yes, the shadow economy is a real drain on resources.

Quick Reply

Latest