Cash in hand morally wrong

[pink_triangle]

Says the treasury minister who used taxpayers money to fund a second home for himself in London, who used to work for a company involced in reducing tax bills for the super rich and whos wife is currently works to help millionaires pay less proportion of their wages in tax than the normal man. Why go after the millionaire party donors who will mainly vote tory, when you can attack the tradesman who mainly will not. Of course the current financial mess in this country was caused by plumbers, gardeners and baby sitters not rich tory city workers. David Gauke like most of his other cronies is a complete hypocrite, we are all in this together as long as his cronies get a free pass.

Edited July 24, 2012 by pink_triangle

[feral chile]

He's right though. Why should self employed people be allowed to avoid tax, when people employed under PAYE have no choice but to pay up?

It's estimated to cost the UK £2b each year.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18964640

Edited July 24, 2012 by feral chile

[pink_triangle]

He's right though. Why should self employed people be allowed to avoid tax, when people employed under PAYE have no choice but to pay up?

Edited July 24, 2012 by pink_triangle

[Rufus Gwertigan]

He's right though. Why should self employed people be allowed to avoid tax, when people employed under PAYE have no choice but to pay up?

It's estimated to cost the UK £2b each year.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18964640

[feral chile]

I agree he is right but it is a big case of pot and kettle. What incentive is there for these self employed people to want to play fair when they see those at the top who will make no contribution at all if they can get away with it.

Selfishness from the top filters down, people cant afford the accountants to exploit the loopholes that the super rich use and take the attitude if they arent playing faif, then why should I. To me targeting the plumbers and the babysitter should be way down the priority list when compared to those who are hoarding their millions away from the pot. It may not be illegal but it is defintely "morally wrong" the term he used about the cash in hand people.

[kaosmark2]

Cash in hand is morally wrong. But as has been mentioned, what's far worse is rich finding ways to not bother paying tax.

[feral chile]

Cash in hand is morally wrong. But as has been mentioned, what's far worse is rich finding ways to not bother paying tax.

[Yoghurt on a Stick]

The government should go after the big businesses and individuals who rely on tax avoidance schemes to get even richer. I don't mind people having wealth but to not pay the appropriate taxes so that schools, hospitals etc all suffer is morally bankrupt. There's a report out today that says that the worlds super rich have 21 trillion in off shore accounts. Some of them are going to be from the UK (Phillip Green springs to mind) and need to be brought to task way before we start looking at the plumbers of this world.

[kaosmark2]

It's difficult with the big tax avoidance schemes though - if it boils down to cost, should the government go after tax avoiders if the court case costs more than the tax collected? And when it's a high risk case to start with?

[feral chile]

The government should go after the big businesses and individuals who rely on tax avoidance schemes to get even richer. I don't mind people having wealth but to not pay the appropriate taxes so that schools, hospitals etc all suffer is morally bankrupt. There's a report out today that says that the worlds super rich have 21 trillion in off shore accounts. Some of them are going to be from the UK (Phillip Green springs to mind) and need to be brought to task way before we start looking at the plumbers of this world.

[feral chile]

Yes. Not just on the moral issue, but if they go after them and collect the tax that's owed, it suggests they'll do so again, and should, long-term, eventually justify it financially.

[grumpyhack]

I find that a fair bit of cash in hand work isn't so much the self employed as the unemployed who want to protect their benefits. (That's not a judgement one way or the other just an observation).

[lost]

cash in hand is tax evasion isn't it, not tax avoidance, same as buying your tabacco/fags off some guy down the pub so not morally wrong rather illegal.

[Yoghurt on a Stick]

The government can't go after people benefitting under tax avoidance schemes because they're legal. That's why they're trying to guilt trip people into manning up to their civic responsibilities. All they can do is try to close tax loopholes.

Tax avoidance schemes are legal methods to avoid tax which go against the state's intentions. So the government is trying to change public perception.

Apparently they account for nearly 14% of the UK tax gap.

http://www.guardian....amed-and-shamed

[feral chile]

cash in hand is tax evasion isn't it, not tax avoidance, same as buying your tabacco/fags off some guy down the pub so not morally wrong rather illegal.

Edited July 24, 2012 by feral chile

[feral chile]

Yes, but governments should have been addressing these tax loop holes way before now. I personally knew of the Jimmy Carr one years ago because Michael Winner blatantly said he did it in an article he wrote. The government seem to want to change people's perceptions at the lower end of the economic scale and aren't doing much about it at the top, in my opinion.

[Yoghurt on a Stick]

That may be so. They probably think we're more amenable to being told what to think though.

[lost]

Yes, but governments should have been addressing these tax loop holes way before now. I personally knew of the Jimmy Carr one years ago because Michael Winner blatantly said he did it in an article he wrote. The government seem to want to change people's perceptions at the lower end of the economic scale and aren't doing much about it at the top, in my opinion.

Edited July 24, 2012 by lost

[Yoghurt on a Stick]

It probably isn't the same scheme. They did close one about a year or two ago and then the one Carr used was changed ever so slightly so that it was legal again. I had the chance to join in August last year and was told they expected the new one to last between 1 and 2 years before it was closed. Looking at both schemes I couldn't tell the difference ( I asked and was told but I forget now) that seems to be the problem the government has, they are thought up more quickly than they can be closed.

[feral chile]

You mean now the City folk have robbed the economy the Tories are now brazen enough to ask us not to do the same. Some gall that is.

[feral chile]

It possibly isn't the same scheme but one very like it. I don't see why the government can't pass laws that are more encompassing in this general area. They manage to do it in other areas.

Edited July 24, 2012 by feral chile

[pink_triangle]

I think the nature of tax avoidance shemes makes it difficult - the government's always playing catchup.

[Yoghurt on a Stick]

http://www.bbc.co.uk...siness-17665780

[feral chile]

They are always playing catch up but could move a lot quicker if they wanted. The fact is that they are funded by people who make huge fiancial benefits from tax avoidance, so why would they bite the hand that feeds them.

Edited July 24, 2012 by feral chile

[feral chile]

This part of that article is exactly what I'm on about - ' The test should be clearer - did Parliament intend for this tax not to be paid when it set out tax laws?' Just because the tax avoiders may object doesn't mean the government shouldn't try - even a single (possibly expensive) test case could do the trick.