'Would you 'pay in cash' to help people avoid tax?' poll

harryhound

I remember talking to a German colleague, who was self building a home: out there both buyer and seller end up in court.
No wonder the Germans are getting so upset at being forced to bail out the fiddling Greeks.

C_Mababejive wrote: »

Hang on..as usual we are slandering tradespeople...dont so called professionals also take back handers? What about doctors/consultants and all the rest of them? Lets not assume that they are incorruptible.

I seem to remember having to swear quite a few documents.
Why was the first question usually "have you brought the postal order?"

malgooo wrote: »

I wonder how the discussion would go if you all were familiar with the
FREE MAN ON THE LAND
Google it if you wonder what that is

I have a sad feeling that this translates into
"Freedom means nothing left to lose"

harryhound

Gareth_Lazelle wrote: »

Unfortunately it comes down to a game-theory problem,

If you are the only person cheating the system then the system doesn't really suffer, and you do OK for it. Of course, those that did contribute get diddled,

But once everyone realises that they can cheat the system, the system collapses, because it can't cope if no-one is contributing,

In other words, by not cheating the system I am actively making life easier for those who do cheat the system,

Kind of makes you wonder why we ever bothered with the "Great" in "Great Britain",

Once the system has got to the point of spending 50% of GDP on our behalf, the logical game theory solution is to invest half of your effort trying circumvent tax.
Get a job as an accountant and do it legally.
If it makes sense to have some of the best paid brains in the country trying to collect more tax and another group of very clever people trying to find loop holes and avoid paying - well I will let you be the judge.

Gareth_Lazelle

harryhound wrote: »

Once the system has got to the point of spending 50% of GDP on our behalf, the logical game theory solution is to invest half of your effort trying circumvent tax.

The point of my argument was that by doing that we all pay more (i.e.: it is only at 50% of GDP because of these sorts of problems),

Tax may be at 50% of GDP, but GDP doesn't include moneys paid off the books. We would all pay less tax if this was done legally,

harryhound wrote: »

Get a job as an accountant and do it legally.
If it makes sense to have some of the best paid brains in the country trying to collect more tax and another group of very clever people trying to find loop holes and avoid paying - well I will let you be the judge.

I don't think that is the solution (not a long-term solution anyway).

Personally I think the way to close loopholes and put those accountants out of work is to simplify the tax system. The loopholes only exist (and remain hidden) because of the complexity of the system, if we where to pare back the exceptions and minority-case rules the problem-areas would become much more apparent and could be addressed (plus we could all spend much less money on taxation),

That and tax-havens of course - and the UK has a big hand in ensuring their survival (a ludicrous number of tax havens are linked back to the UK one way or another),

And by-the-by, your argument holds as true for 10% taxation as it does 50% - there will always be an argument for avoiding tax, it doesn't make it any more or less acceptable,

pingua

Whats going to happen when the cheque books go?

I reckon there will be a load more cash jobs.


We do alot of 'small' jobs but as we send invoices get cheques. The amount of people who ask - do you want cash - whilst on the job probably 90% of them.
We do take cash now and then - not everyone has a cheque book. But we still write them an invoice and put it through our books .
On the other hand we pay almost everyone who comes to do jobs in our house cash - what they do with it is up to them.

Infact the more I think about it the more we do pay cash to everyone.

Internet_Explorer

I don't wait for them to offer a cash discount, I ask them for a cash discount.
If cheating and lying is good enough for our politicians then it's good enough for me
I'm on PAYE and currently pay 40% tax, as far as I am concenred I'm contributing quite enough to the economy - never claimed benefits (OK I'm lucky) minimal use of education and health system - as far as the economy is concerned I've paid in far more than I've taken out.

spiro

If the government was that worried about the black economy the would legalise 'professions' like escorts who earns lots of money but probably can't pay any tax because they cant explain how they earned it. Other countries legalised it and not only does tax revenue go up but the criminal elements get slowly driven out which to me appears to be a win-win situation.

amy_love

I think, like me, most people answer that they would be fine with it because most of the examples given by Martin are market stall/cleaner £10-20 jobs. Therefore people really haven't thought about tax fraud and whatever. In these cases it's not the biggest of deals.

harryhound

Gareth_Lazelle wrote: »

The point of my argument was that by doing that we all pay more (i.e.: it is only at 50% of GDP because of these sorts of problems),

Tax may be at 50% of GDP, but GDP doesn't include moneys paid off the books. We would all pay less tax if this was done legally,

I don't think that is the solution (not a long-term solution anyway).

Personally I think the way to close loopholes and put those accountants out of work is to simplify the tax system. The loopholes only exist (and remain hidden) because of the complexity of the system, if we where to pare back the exceptions and minority-case rules the problem-areas would become much more apparent and could be addressed (plus we could all spend much less money on taxation),

That and tax-havens of course - and the UK has a big hand in ensuring their survival (a ludicrous number of tax havens are linked back to the UK one way or another),

And by-the-by, your argument holds as true for 10% taxation as it does 50% - there will always be an argument for avoiding tax, it doesn't make it any more or less acceptable,

It is not worth it for 10%, most tradesmen could make more money by getting on an doing another job.
But if you are (say) a plumber on a marginal rate approaching 50% ; don't forget the NI and the IR35. Then it must be very annoying to have struggled all of a long day to fix a flooding problem; only to know that half the time you have been working for nothing. It makes sense to accept half the price for the job in cash.
Give the politicians extra money and they will only spend it on some self aggrandising scheme - Spending other people's money is why they got elected.

spiro wrote: »

If the government was that worried about the black economy the would legalise 'professions' like escorts who earns lots of money but probably can't pay any tax because they cant explain how they earned it. Other countries legalised it and not only does tax revenue go up but the criminal elements get slowly driven out which to me appears to be a win-win situation.

I don't think you need worry - certainly in the old days the tax man was only too happy to take the tax from prostitution - Its not illegal so the biggest risk faced is prosecution for tax evasion.

Hopefully the new government is going to swing back in the direction of self reliance.

musicmaker29

I don't understand where the debate is here. Salesmen say a lot of things to get quick sales, doesn't mean I believe them. If they offer a discount for cash I'll take it (I know that paying in other ways can incur charges so can see why avoiding electronic payments can save people money!).

It's up to the trader to make sure he/she is operating within the law and paying tax, all I want is the best deal, its not my problem and I don't make it my problem.

Now if they refuse to give me a reciept when I want one, that would be a different story....

CutTheJargon

welshkatie wrote: »

The key issue here is the actual question in the poll...we were asked what we would do if the tradesperson told us that they weren't going to pay tax on the payment. In this case I would refuse to pay in cash - partly because I would be assisting them in undertaking a criminal offence (failure to pay tax due) and also because, as a public sector worker, I know that our taxes are needed to run the NHS, Education, social services, planning departments, etc...and help pay my wages!

QUOTE]

And pensions, of course! Sorry, could not resist that - and yes, it was very naughty, but some of us feel that we are being overly taxed in order to pay for the pensions of the Public Sector workers who can retire earlier than the rest of us. (Not blaming you personally, as you are only doing your job), but when we hear that up to 30% of our Council Tax is going to pay the pensions and we can't afford to fund one of our own, then some people are going to find ways to avoid their general tax as they feel unfairly treated. Not saying it is right, but there it is.