Cash In Hand, Morally Wrong?

ToraToraTora | 11:01 Mon 16th Feb 2015 | News

68 Answers

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18968679
We all do it but is it an innevitable consequence of our punative tax system or imply morally wrong?

Unite Union Avoiding Tax

How To Lose £5Billion

Answers

61 to 68 of 68

First Previous 1 2 3 4

Best Answer

No best answer has yet been selected by ToraToraTora. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.

For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.

-Talbot-

posted this elsewhere but as we are talking morals I will post it here too
look at his eyebrows dance!
.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qjBec3fpBI

Hypognosis

@retrochic (end of page 2)

didn't the bank bonuses become so ridiculously large because they side-step PAYE calculations in some way?

Last I heard the bonuses are several times larger than the 'salary' element of the remuneration? I am basically trying to find out if this rumour was true.

zebo

Isn't it a matter of degree? We had to call out our boiler man earlier in the week, luckily it was a minor problem and we paid cash, about £35, no receipt. When he services the system or does major repairs, we still pay cash but then get receipts etc and I assume it goes through his business accout, the cash is really because most people don't want cheques.

Hypognosis

@TTT

"punative (sic) tax system"

If we went full-libertarian, no taxes, no government to speak of, how much would you be willing to pay the private police force to stop your house being burgled while you are at work, for starters?

What level of road tolls would you tolerate?

How much would you pay to the armed services, to keep Putin (and the rest) at bay?

Private healthcare, prisons, libraries, education system…

Roughly 40% of income, just as now? (PAYE+NIC+VAT+CGT+Duty+ Inheritance+whatever else)

Private contractors have a markup, let's not forget. So that would be another 30% on top. Not looking so free and easy, so far.

As for the unemployed, BIG savings to be made there but where are we going to stash all the bodies?

Hypognosis

But I still feel Ed Balls is playing with fire with this one.

A simple fix would be to give the one-person operators and SMEs of up to 5 employees behave differently to larger firms. They already face a major hurdle in hiring employee number six (forced to start a company pension plan and pay contributions into their employees' pots, effectively a massive pay hike) so maybe give them a break. It is not compulsory to grow into a
major firm, in any case.

The trouble there is that the even-easier rule change would be to take away the VAT-claimback mechanism for outfits that size and the consequent price rises will impact ALL consumers as many small retailers are one/two person setups.

The only distinction, at present, is that the trader who visits you and works on-site isn't compelled to operate a till, like a shop owner does.

That is unless the aforementioned mobile phone technology is brought into play.

Cue obligatory "none may operate or trade without…" Revelations quotes.
;)

Jackdaw33

I think that this has been answered much further down the thread. It depends whether you are talking about customer or trader. From the customer's point of view payment by cash is perfectly legal. If the bailiffs come after you, that's what they want. If a trader then chooses to evade his excise obligations no blame can be attached to the customer.