cash in hand payments - morally wrong?

DervProf

I regularly get customers telling me "I don't want a receipt, you don't want to pay tax on it".

No, I don't want to pay tax on it, but I don't want the tax man on my back either. That's why I insist that they get a receipt, and I do pay tax on my income.

I find this aids restful sleep. Anyway, how do I know that the customer who has just to me to "back pocket" the cash doesn't work for the Inland Revenue ?

bankhater_1965

DervProf wrote: »

I regularly get customers telling me "I don't want a receipt, you don't want to pay tax on it".

No, I don't want to pay tax on it, but I don't want the tax man on my back either. That's why I insist that they get a receipt, and I do pay tax on my income.

I find this aids restful sleep. Anyway, how do I know that the customer who has just to me to "back pocket" the cash doesn't work for the Inland Revenue ?

as long as you put everything in (expenditure) you usually end up working for a reasonable profit anyway, the only snag is when your vat registered and you are charging the 17.5% on top , then it becomes a problem

kabayiri

bankhater_1965 wrote: »

i have been self employed for 14 years and under no circumstances will become VAT registered , just to be unconpetative by 17.5% and a taxmans collector ! i make a habit of not earning enough turnover each year to avoid

Psst, it's 20% now

kabayiri

The local village drug pusher is also the local village wh0re and she insists on "cash in hand". I guess I must be tripley immoral then !

( I think she said 'cash' - it's quite noisy down on those street corners )

Wig

Cash in hand = both parties win

I think they (gov...Cameron) should be more concerned about the trillions of £s held in tax free off shore accounts dodging tax.

Wig

antrobus wrote: »

£13tn?!? UK GDP is only about £1,500 billion or £1.5 trillion. Where is this £13tn hiding and can I have some please?

It's the combined total of all tax haven held cash from the whole population of planet Earth, not just UK.

michaels

But it seem slike most of the posters who mentioned it haven't cottoned on.

Wig wrote: »

It's the combined total of all tax haven held cash from the whole population of planet Earth, not just UK.

The reason it is morally wrong is that under a democracy we chose to allow the majority to select a govt and then that govt to make decisions on or behalf. If each person feels entitled to make their own decisions about which of the democratically introduced laws they can obey or ignore then the whole systemcollapses. For example I might decide that the prohibition on murder is not one I am personally in favour off and chose to follow my own 'conscious' on the matter...

So the choices are embrace democracy and work within that system to get laws you don't support changed or reject democracy and move towards anarchy or dictatorship. I can't see that there are any grey areas.

lemonjelly

What shockingly short memories everyone appears to have!

I'd love to know what Gaukes' exposure was during the expenses scandal when it broke. MP's everywhere made the arguement that they operated within the rules, regardless of morality when they were hard at it. I'm sure pickles & hunt have never ever got anyone to advise them on tax avoidence in any way. We know they always needed the receipts for their expenses claims anyway.

Gaukes tone in lecturing us is offensive. People in glass houses & all that. The arguement made by all MP's was about "within the rules" Morals did not come into it with their actions.

A._Badger

bankhater_1965 wrote: »

it doesnt matter what hmrc want to do , they simply have not got the resorces to police the self employed

Twaddle! It isn't the self-employed they aren't persecuting sufficiently to satisfy the appetite for someone else's money, it's the corporate fat-cats with whom they strike cosy one-one deals over lunches at the Ivy.

And that sidesteps the issue of the general level of ineptitude of the HMRC's staff.... Resources, my backside!

A._Badger

lemonjelly wrote: »

Gaukes tone in lecturing us is offensive. People in glass houses & all that. The arguement made by all MP's was about "within the rules" Morals did not come into it with their actions.

Indeed. And anyone who thinks this and the absurd Leveson enquiry aren't about our elected representatives (sic - elected they may be, representative? Don't make me laugh) having a swipe back after having been exposed as having thieves, liars and humbugs in their midst, really needs to wake up.