Paying in Cash "Morally Wrong" Says Exchequer Secretary.

[Tyndmyr]

There's an enormous jump between getting a discount for using cash during a completely normal business transaction and getting appliances at incredibly cheap prices out of the back of some guy's truck. One of them is the exact, normal situation for paying someone to fix your plumbing and the other is the goddamn poster-child example for shady dealings.

Yeah, it's a stretch. But depending entirely on the truck setup, it might be reasonable. For instance, it's going to be a lot sketchier with iphones than an ice cream truck. So, we can make the example fit...but as we do so, we also make it quite reasonable for a normal person to engage in.

And the odds of them in any case outright admitting to doing criminal acts is...not really normal, nor likely what the secretary was talking about.

[Роберт]

@Роберт: Your iPhone example also depends on context. You can find an enormous amount of used iPhones on ebay for under twenty dollars.

http://www.ebay.com/sch/Cell-Phones-Sma ... one%25204S

Maybe, I didn't find any with a quick search. And I'm talking about a single seller selling multiple iPhone's super cheap. And if you find it on eBay... perhaps it's another example of stolen goods for sale?

[gmalivuk]

It's still a suspicion, not pure knowledge.

If you want to be super pedantic, neither is "stolen goods" on the side of the truck pure knowledge, because they might be lying. And if a reasonable person would strongly suspect that goods are stolen, and you still bought them, and they turned out to indeed be stolen, you might be found guilty in court.

[Tyndmyr]

@Роберт: Your iPhone example also depends on context. You can find an enormous amount of used iPhones on ebay for under twenty dollars.

http://www.ebay.com/sch/Cell-Phones-Sma ... one%25204S

Maybe, I didn't find any with a quick search. And I'm talking about a single seller selling multiple iPhone's super cheap. And if you find it on eBay... perhaps it's another example of stolen goods for sale?

Maybe. But how can you determine the difference between someone selling their old phone and someone selling a stolen phone? In most cases, it looks...remarkably similar, and in any market, there's likely to be resellers moving a number of them.

The "I thought they were lying about it being stolen goods" defense seems remarkably shaky, and not at all equivalent to "people give discounts all the time, how was I supposed to know this one was related to an illegal motivation".

[Enokh]

@Роберт: Your iPhone example also depends on context. You can find an enormous amount of used iPhones on ebay for under twenty dollars.

http://www.ebay.com/sch/Cell-Phones-Sma ... one%25204S

Maybe, I didn't find any with a quick search. And I'm talking about a single seller selling multiple iPhone's super cheap. And if you find it on eBay... perhaps it's another example of stolen goods for sale?

Or it's an example of someone trying to offload their incredibly old (well, relatively for mobile technology) phones after upgrading. Or there's a small business that gives their employees iPhones for field-work, just upgraded to the iPhone 4 (or 5, whatever is out now) and is just trying to dump the old ones off on the cheap. It could easily be a medium-sized family instead of a small business.

Would I ask why they have so many of them or mention that it's a really, really good deal? Absolutely. I've done it before. I've also backed out of deals because they felt wrong, but that was all due to body language and other clues and nothing to do with prices.

It's still a suspicion, not pure knowledge.

If you want to be super pedantic, neither is "stolen goods" on the side of the truck pure knowledge, because they might be lying. And if a reasonable person would strongly suspect that goods are stolen, and you still bought them, and they turned out to indeed be stolen, you might be found guilty in court.

"Reasonable suspicion" of theft is not something to be evoked by strangely cheap prices.

[Роберт]

Would I ask why they have so many of them or mention that it's a really, really good deal? Absolutely. I've done it before. I've also backed out of deals because they felt wrong, but that was all due to body language and other clues and nothing to do with prices.

Exactly. If it's something suspicious, you ask about it, and if the explanation seems reasonable and the body language seems reasonable, I wouldn't think you are ethically at fault.

But if the situation is suspicious and you remain willfully ignorant, saying it's none of your business, people can choose to break the law and it's not your problem, you are acting unethically, even if it turns out that no-one broke the law. I don't think we're in disagreement, are we?

[Tyndmyr]

But if the situation is suspicious and you remain willfully ignorant, saying it's none of your business, people can choose to break the law and it's not your problem, you are acting unethically, even if it turns out that no-one broke the law. I don't think we're in disagreement, are we?

How is it unethical if nobody broke the law?

And yeah...it's inherently true that other people breaking the law is not always my problem. I have no desire to be involved in that, of course...but neither is it my job to police them. I think you're perhaps assuming bit too much of the "willful ignorance" bit...I've known many a person with a genuine lack of ability to determine if a deal is legitimate. My own mother routinely, regardless of all cautioning, clicks all of the "get free stuff" banners on the internet, with predictable results.

In any case, a contractor offering you a discount for cash is not particularly suspicious, and is, in itself, not something that requires investigation.

[Роберт]

How is it unethical if nobody broke the law?

I'm beginning to see the problem with this discussion.

I take it you've never heard of Lawful Evil? http://easydamus.com/lawfulevil.html

[Tyndmyr]

How is it unethical if nobody broke the law?

I'm beginning to see the problem with this discussion.

I take it you've never heard of Lawful Evil? http://easydamus.com/lawfulevil.html

So, if he didn't break the law, gave me a discount, and we both walk away happy, I'm having trouble seeing the evil here, regardless of how much investigation I did into his motives. Nobody was hurt, what makes it unethical?

[Роберт]

How is it unethical if nobody broke the law?

I'm beginning to see the problem with this discussion.

I take it you've never heard of Lawful Evil? http://easydamus.com/lawfulevil.html

So, if he didn't break the law, gave me a discount, and we both walk away happy, I'm having trouble seeing the evil here, regardless of how much investigation I did into his motives. Nobody was hurt, what makes it unethical?

Leaving aside the specifics here, do you understand the concept of being unethical while not ever breaking the law?

[Tyndmyr]

How is it unethical if nobody broke the law?

I'm beginning to see the problem with this discussion.

I take it you've never heard of Lawful Evil? http://easydamus.com/lawfulevil.html

So, if he didn't break the law, gave me a discount, and we both walk away happy, I'm having trouble seeing the evil here, regardless of how much investigation I did into his motives. Nobody was hurt, what makes it unethical?

Leaving aside the specifics here, do you understand the concept of being unethical while not ever breaking the law?

Absolutely. There are plenty of ways to hurt someone without breaking the law.

However, if nobody is hurt, then there's no need to consider it being unethical. No law broken, he's happy with the deal, I'm happy with the deal...what could possibly make that unethical?

[Роберт]

However, if nobody is hurt, then there's no need to consider it being unethical. No law broken, he's happy with the deal, I'm happy with the deal...what could possibly make that unethical?

Can you elaborate specifically on the situation you're asking about?

[gmalivuk]

If I sell you something in a context that would make any reasonable person suspect that it's stolen, then many would argue that by not doing your due diligence to make sure it's legit, you are behaving immorally.

Just like some would argue that driving drunk is immoral even if it's legal and no one got hurt.

[Tyndmyr]

If I sell you something in a context that would make any reasonable person suspect that it's stolen, then many would argue that by not doing your due diligence to make sure it's legit, you are behaving immorally.

You're relying on words that are just not the case for the original example. Someone offering a discount for paying in cash is not something that anyone would reasonably suspect to be causing a crime.

Note additionally that you are not in any way participating in the crime.

Just like some would argue that driving drunk is immoral even if it's legal and no one got hurt.

Only because someone can very reasonably be hurt. There's a third party involved here(random person you hit) who has not agreed to the deal. that is not applicable to the original case in any way.

In short, the examples keep sliding to increasingly irrelevant cases. Comparing a guy offering a discount for cash to a guy selling stolen goods is shaky enough, but adding on the further example comparing it to a drunk driver...we're wildly far from the original case. It is not applicable whatsoever.

[gmalivuk]

You're relying on words that are just not the case for the original example. Someone offering a discount for paying in cash is not something that anyone would reasonably suspect to be causing a crime.

Yup. Do you know what the word "if" means? I'm not claiming to or pretending to literally discuss the original example. Rather, I was responding to the claim you made that if something is not illegal and didn't hurt anyone, it can't be immoral. I'm arguing that such things maybe can still be immoral.

Just like some would argue that driving drunk is immoral even if it's legal and no one got hurt.

Only because someone can very reasonably be hurt. There's a third party involved here(random person you hit) who has not agreed to the deal. that is not applicable to the original case in any way.

So here it's okay to apply a reasonableness standard, but not when it's an issue of stolen goods?

[Tyndmyr]

Just like some would argue that driving drunk is immoral even if it's legal and no one got hurt.

Only because someone can very reasonably be hurt. There's a third party involved here(random person you hit) who has not agreed to the deal. that is not applicable to the original case in any way.

So here it's okay to apply a reasonableness standard, but not when it's an issue of stolen goods?[/quote]

You're using "reasonableness" in entirely different ways. In the first, driving while drunk will indisputably hamper your ability to drive safely. This is scientifically not disputable. The concept that there's a "reasonable" chance of someone getting hurt only means that the odds of harm being caused are fairly high.

The "reasonableness" in yours was merely an appeal to "common sense". Perhaps in your area, people dealing in cash are invariably criminals. In some areas, it's entirely normal, and dealing in non cash may be more costly, or simply not done altogether. It doesn't mean anything like the same thing, and I'm not sure why you'd try to equate them.

[johnny_7713]

If I sell you something in a context that would make any reasonable person suspect that it's stolen, then many would argue that by not doing your due diligence to make sure it's legit, you are behaving immorally.

You're relying on words that are just not the case for the original example. Someone offering a discount for paying in cash is not something that anyone would reasonably suspect to be causing a crime.

Note additionally that you are not in any way participating in the crime.

Maybe this is a regional difference? I don't know where you are from, but here in the Netherlands a tradesman offering a discount if you pay in cash is synonymous with tax evasion. It is something that just about everyone would reasonably suspect as being a crime.

If I remember the article in the OP correctly it was even specifically talking about people asking for a discount for paying in cash. At least here in the Netherlands the understanding is that the source of the discount will be that it is easier to hide the income and thus save on paying tax. There is no other source for the discount, since the bank fees if you pay by bank transfer or debit card (paying by credit card would be very unusual and probably not accepted) are only about a euro at most.

[bigglesworth]

Yeah, in the UK it is incredibly obvious that a tradesman is offering a discount for cash in order that they can avoid being taxed on it. I don't see how there could be any disagreement about that.

Whether it's immoral or not depends on whether you think tax fraud is immoral or not.

[gmalivuk]

Perhaps in your area, people dealing in cash are invariably criminals.

Dude, would you please pay attention to what situation you're responding to. I'm not (nor have I ever been) talking exclusively about the paying in cash situation. When I said

context that would make any reasonable person suspect that it's stolen

What I meant was context that would make any reasonable person suspect that it's stolen. If that context requires more than simply paying cash, so be it. That's not the point. Add what you mentally need to add to make it the context I said it was, in which any reasonable person would suspect that it's stolen.

[Tyndmyr]

If I sell you something in a context that would make any reasonable person suspect that it's stolen, then many would argue that by not doing your due diligence to make sure it's legit, you are behaving immorally.

You're relying on words that are just not the case for the original example. Someone offering a discount for paying in cash is not something that anyone would reasonably suspect to be causing a crime.

Note additionally that you are not in any way participating in the crime.

Maybe this is a regional difference? I don't know where you are from, but here in the Netherlands a tradesman offering a discount if you pay in cash is synonymous with tax evasion. It is something that just about everyone would reasonably suspect as being a crime.

If I remember the article in the OP correctly it was even specifically talking about people asking for a discount for paying in cash. At least here in the Netherlands the understanding is that the source of the discount will be that it is easier to hide the income and thus save on paying tax. There is no other source for the discount, since the bank fees if you pay by bank transfer or debit card (paying by credit card would be very unusual and probably not accepted) are only about a euro at most.

This is very much not the case in the US(at least, everywhere I've lived). Hell, last year at gencon, some merchants were offering cash discounts, because credit card stuff was taking forever for a bit. Last weekend, I went to a major event by the nation's capital that ONLY allowed cash to get in. I know of at least a few permanent local businesses that still only deal in cash, and quite a few that prefer it, and will offer discounts for cash, or restrictions on non-cash purchases(no charges under x dollars is remarkably common, for instance).

That said, credit cards are also considered common here. It would be extremely rare for a place to accept debt cards and not credit cards. Few places even differentiate debit cards, and a lot charge them as credit. Checks are on the way out, so credit card or cash seem to be the normal ways of doing business.

It's roughly as if someone claimed wearing hoodies was morally wrong because criminals like hoodies.

[Zamfir]

Tyndmyr, I still don't see your point. The OP is about situations where both buyer and seller know perfectly well that the transaction is paid in cash to help tax evasion. It's not about other situations where people pay in cash.

[Tyndmyr]

Tyndmyr, I still don't see your point. The OP is about situations where both buyer and seller know perfectly well that the transaction is paid in cash to help tax evasion. It's not about other situations where people pay in cash.

The point is that the original statement is overly broad. Had he clarified a bit, and said something like "helping tax evasion is morally wrong", I'm sure everyone would have shrugged and carried on with their lives. That's it, really.

[Роберт]

Tyndmyr, I still don't see your point. The OP is about situations where both buyer and seller know perfectly well that the transaction is paid in cash to help tax evasion. It's not about other situations where people pay in cash.

The point is that the original statement is overly broad. Had he clarified a bit, and said something like "helping tax evasion is morally wrong", I'm sure everyone would have shrugged and carried on with their lives. That's it, really.

Which original statement?
From the article:

Asked whether he disapproves of the practice, Gauke said: "Yes, I think it's morally wrong. It is illegal for the plumber, but it is pretty implicit in these circumstances that there is a reason why there is a discount for cash. That is a large part of the hidden economy."

Gauke admitted that some of his colleagues may have made cash in hand payments, though he denied having paid cash himself to a tradesman to gain a discount. "I've never said to a tradesman: 'If I pay you cash, can I get a discount?'," he told BBC's Newsnight.

Asked if colleagues had done this, Gauke added: "I don't know, but if people do do that they have to do so with the recognition that means taxes will be higher for the rest."

How, exactly, was Gauke not clear enough?

[Tyndmyr]

There's the implication that "paying in cash" = "tax evasion". That's clearly what he's thinking, but for many people, in many areas, that's a huge jump, and many other valid reasons for such a discount exist, so it seems like a remarkable over-generalization.

[Роберт]

There's the implication that "paying in cash" = "tax evasion". That's clearly what he's thinking, but for many people, in many areas, that's a huge jump, and many other valid reasons for such a discount exist, so it seems like a remarkable over-generalization.

That's not actually the implication.

The implication is "tradesmen giving significant cash discount in the UK is doing so because they can avoided taxes on cash payments".

Do you really think that is a "huge jump" for tradesmen in the UK? Because he was talking about the UK.

[johnny_7713]

There's the implication that "paying in cash" = "tax evasion". That's clearly what he's thinking, but for many people, in many areas, that's a huge jump, and many other valid reasons for such a discount exist, so it seems like a remarkable over-generalization.

The statement wasn't aimed at many people in many areas, it was aimed at people in the UK, where "paying a tradesman in cash" = "tax evasion" is pretty much a given.

[Coyne]

Someone must, if government is to operate; and as the rich are paying nothing, it falls on the working class again.

So: We're the evil ones.

Ya... I can't let this go....

The Rich might not be paying as much tax as you think they should, but:

"The 10% of households with the highest incomes pay more than half of all federal taxes. They pay more than 70% of federal income taxes, according to the Congressional Budget Office."

From: http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/tax ... 50480226/1

Further, this cites that the top 10% had 44% of the income. Yet they paid 70% of federal income taxes.. So, no.. the rich pay a bunch of tax actually. We can argue over if they should pay less or more, and i'm going to come down on the side of more, but, they DO pay a wack load of tax already.

(other info from here: http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/eco ... d-pay-more).

Well, you caught me in my hyperbole.

You're right that the top 10% pay a larger percentage of the overall tax, but that's because they have a larger percentage of the overall income. No group pays an average rate above 24% (see Table 1). In fact, the top 10% average a rate of 18.05%. Of course, the government is no doubt most concerned about this group using cash transactions, rather than those who are poorer.

But whether rich or poor, governments want the tax and to stamp out, what, drugs? Unlicensed roofers? Their arguments for illegality of cash transactions are, also, nothing more than hyperbole. ("Cash transactions are bad because they are always used for tax dodging and criminal acts! Cash transactions must die! Die! Die!") I was trying to make fun of that and, I guess, doing it badly.

[Sockmonkey]

Anybody dead-set on avoiding taxes and who deals with enough money for it to be a serious concern is going to have other ways to dodge them via legal loopholes, offshore accounts, cooked books, etc. You wanna stop tax evasion? Close the damn holes.

[Heisenberg]

Actually, Planet Money did a podcast recently about how easy it was to set up an offshore corporation in Belize to funnel money through (Unbelizeable, Inc!). Their efforts were featured in the New York Times as well, where he explains that anyone with a few hundred bucks can set up an offshore company that is apparently unconnected to you and your business.

[Technical Ben]

There's the implication that "paying in cash" = "tax evasion". That's clearly what he's thinking, but for many people, in many areas, that's a huge jump, and many other valid reasons for such a discount exist, so it seems like a remarkable over-generalization.

The statement wasn't aimed at many people in many areas, it was aimed at people in the UK, where "paying a tradesman in cash" = "tax evasion" is pretty much a given.

I would say "citation needed" for that one. What you mean is "getting a large discount for paying in cash is a given for tax evasion".
Again, while the rest of Europe and probably the USA use electronic means, even getting a cheque out of some people in the UK is near impossible (bad credit = no cheque book). Many people pay in cash, this does not suggest any tax evasion. Discounting the tax amount of a cash payment would suggest evasion. It's the failure to note the small difference, which allows such claims to be applied without restraint.

[johnny_7713]

There's the implication that "paying in cash" = "tax evasion". That's clearly what he's thinking, but for many people, in many areas, that's a huge jump, and many other valid reasons for such a discount exist, so it seems like a remarkable over-generalization.

The statement wasn't aimed at many people in many areas, it was aimed at people in the UK, where "paying a tradesman in cash" = "tax evasion" is pretty much a given.

I would say "citation needed" for that one. What you mean is "getting a large discount for paying in cash is a given for tax evasion".
Again, while the rest of Europe and probably the USA use electronic means, even getting a cheque out of some people in the UK is near impossible (bad credit = no cheque book). Many people pay in cash, this does not suggest any tax evasion. Discounting the tax amount of a cash payment would suggest evasion. It's the failure to note the small difference, which allows such claims to be applied without restraint.

Good point. I stand corrected.