www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18964640 Don't you know that taking cash-in-hand is morally wrong and facilitating the hidden economy?!

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18964640 Don't you know that taking cash-in-hand is morally wrong and facilitating the hidden economy?!

It's a lovely attempt to deflect the argument from [url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-18944097large-scale tax evasion[/url.

).

It seems to be a requisite requirement nowadays to make a complete idiotic hypocrite out of yourself on the tv if you're a part of this government.

[url=http://order-order.com/2012/07/24/david-gauke-worked-for-tax-avoidance-firm/Before entering politics, Gauke worked at a firm who advised on tax reduction policies[/url

Two-faced 2@

Don't pay cash. Pay to respectable businesses of integrity like Vodafone, it's the only way to ensure that the country is not ripped off.

In fact, TBF, Mr. Gauke has the answer to paying lowly workers in cash - don't fscking pay them at all. This was his recent advert on W4MP:




He said "Lots of people want to do it. It’s good experience". So that's all right, then.

Can't see the problem. We all know what MPs consider "reasonable travel expenses" to be. The youngster will be made for life after 6 months. If he lives more than a walk away, he'll be able to claim for a house on expenses.

My first thought entirely.

The headlines yesterday were all about HMRC naming and shaming celebs and the stunningly-rich who were using offshore "avoidance" schemes (the likes of Jimmy Carr).

Headlines today are on the lines of "Its ALL of you who are to blame, not just the stunningly-rich, even if you don't know for certain that a cash payment = tax evasion.

They aren't even sneaky with their PR spin these days.

#wecanseerightthroughyou

These tradesmen who take cash in hand are awful. None of them ever spend any of the money they get "in hand" thereby paying tax on the goods and services they buy. Oh no.

Last I heard cash was still legal tender. If I, the consumer, decide I want to pay for something using legal tender then thats my right. Whether the tradesman/cleaner or whoever I pay the cash to pays the correct tax is not my problem so I don't see how his "morally wrong to pay in cash" can stand up.

You are exactly right and it just shows how stupid he was to try and imply it was implicit in paying cash tax evasion was the reason. Discounts for cash can arise for legitimate reasons and always have done.

The other thing is tradesmen not paying tax is tax [ievasion[/i not tax [iavoidance[/i which is what the headlines have been all about recently (Jimmy Carr etc). Tax evasion has always been illegal so why mention it when there is no debate about it being wrong to evade tax? It is taken as a given it is.

Obviously as others have said, to try and deflect the focus of going after large scale tax avoiders is the only reason I can think of.

Maybe it is less sinister and he is just thick and doesn't know the difference?

Thats quite correct and there are good reasons why a tradesman might prefer you to pay him in cash...

1. He is charged for every cheque he banks by the robbing buggahs who run his bank account despite the fact that they all try and depict themselves as his friend.

2. He is also charged for every BACS, direct debit or standing order payment that he accepts (we're talking business accounts here), so no getting away from the fact that if he transacts via his bank then it will cost him money.

3. In such straightened times he might have reached his credit limit with his suppliers and so probably prefers to pay in cash at the trade counter - just spend ten minutes in any electrical/plumbing wholesalers and observe how many traders pay on the nose - its quite a lot.

4. If he has paid up front for the materials and you pay for the work by cheque he has to wait at least four to five days (which often converts to a full calendar week) to have access to your money and this may affect his banking arrangement and incur additional charges (remember, these banks are really friendly with sole traders, they say they are so it must be so).

5. The public can be absolute bast'ards to deal with sometimes and while they wouldn't say boo to your face they'll stop the cheque they've just given you as soon as you get back in your van - they can't do that with cash.



Of course this is all REAL WORLD stuff and not the inside of a politicians head so it probably makes perfect sense but won't to a politician where everything is about mitigating bad news with an alternative target for the newspapers today - I'd be interested in seeing just how many of he and his gentlemen colleagues might appear on the HMRC listings ...

The way I heard it on R4 this morning was ...

1. The guy was asked a straight question ... he couldn't really say, no it's fine, could he?
2. He didn't mean that cash was a problem, just cash-to-avoid-tax.

That being so, I thought "Ah, lot of fuss about nowt".

But now that all this other stuff has come out ... well, the term hypocrite is quite kind really.

that's fine until you have a problem with the workmanship and the trader doesn't give the back up service to repair the problem - assuming there was no written evidence of the work being done or any record of the cash being paid (no invoice etc) then you are up the creek without a spanner !

He could have answered like one of them guys, what is it - oh, yes, "politicians", who are normally so slippery and practised in not answering questions that you might as well try to nail down a glob of oil.


Aye. Not only that but also he's managed to kick up such a shhittstorm with his naivete that if you were his boss, you'd be reaching for the handle.

Yes the guy was an idiot if he refers to all "cash" transactions. But, it is ludicrous for people on here to suggest that people don't pay nannies and cleaners in cash (instead of running a payroll) and how many people pay builders, etc cash to avoid VAT? Of course, if the builder doesn't declare it for VAT purposes he won't declare it for income tax either, which perhaps explains the vast sums some of these guys spend in restaurants, takeaways and pubs? Make no mistake this is all illegal tax evasion (not legal tax avoidance) and the scale is enormous. So, he's right to highlight it and the people on here who are making excuses are very morally suspect in my opinion as they seem to condone illegality and the ramifications in terms of lower expenditure on healthcare, social care, schools, etc.

What is wrong is to suggest that anyone who asks for cash from now on is on the fiddle, its not the case and cash is a perfectly acceptable method of transacting building work, I'd ask for a receipt or even print my own remittance advice detailling what the payment was for and get them to sign it - other than that its not my responsibility as a purchaser to make sure that anyone pays tax on anything that I buy from them - I wish it could be actually because I once had a Vodaphone contract.

Its certainly not "morally wrong" to pay for anything in cash and as I listed above, there are several very good reasons why a trader should ask for cash without tax evasion being on the list at all.

To add to that, has anyone ever heard a cabinet minister openly condemn Amazon, Vodafone or Tesco for their tax arrangements? Or even promise to enact legislation to curtail their avoidance? It's easy for them to bitch about the self-employed builder or plumber dodging tax, but it means fook all when Vodafone can get millions of pounds written off for the price of a posh lunch.

Is it in the billions, like I've heard?

Cameron was pressed about Vodafone and others the day after his comments on Jimmy Carr. He squirmed a bit then said he wasn't going to comment on every individual case.

I was no fan of the last government but this lot really are the scum of the earth.

Actually, now that you mention it, I seem to remember a figure of £6bn being mentioned. Or maybe I've just made that up.

[url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/oct/22/vodafone-tax-case-leaves-sour-tasteNews report from the time[/url

[url=http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-1704527/Taxman-let-Vodafone-off-6bn-bill.htmlAnd a different estimate[/url

Truth is that everyone involved will tell you that they don't really know how much was involved - HMRC had a figure in mind and Vodaphone had another, both were adamant that they were right but they settled at a figure probably somewhere in between, which is strange in itself because when HMRC come after individuals they are absolutely sure how much you owe and they won't be told that they are wrong even when they are wrong - its up to you to prove them wrong, its nothing short of an extortion racket sometimes.

[url=http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/06/10/vodafone-corporation-tax-row_n_1584380.htmlWhat is true is that Vodaphone paid absolutely no corporation tax at all last year[/url

That's because the fault lies with inept politicians and HMRC. It's up to the former to enact legislation that does what they want and the latter to collect it. It's not just me that thinks that - look at the letters page in today's Times.

When did the Vodafone issue arise?

Maybe because a 'problem' that costs the UK economy £2BN (according to the BBC) is still a problem....even if there are in your opinion bigger problems.