[Closed] Is it 'Morally wrong' to pay cash in hand?

legal form of payment innit.

Just because you pay cash, it doesn't mean they don't have declare it.

Just because you pay cash, it doesn't mean they don't have declare it.

Exactly.

Some people expect me to give them a discount just for paying in cash. They don't seem to understand that I will
Still put it through the books and pay VAT and Tax on it (because I like to do things right) so why would I discount for cash.

neal, hypothetically speaking, how would making cash payments to a tradesman illegal affect you?

I offered a customer 68p off for paying by cash , as thats what i get chrged by sadwest for paying in a cheque.

What I do think is morally wrong is the fact that politicians seem to want us to focus on the tradesmen / working class and conveniently forget that most millionaires and billionaires pay virtually no tax at all.

Still put it through the books and pay VAT and Tax on it (because I like to do things right) so why would I discount for cash.

Well, if you get a cheque you have to take the time to go to the bank and pay it in, and if you have a business account there might be a charge. Also, with cash, there is no question of potential future hassles with cheques bouncing, taking time to clear etc - I'd say all that might be worth a small discount?

And footflaps +1 - as if people paying their plumber cash-in-hand and some of them possibly not declaring it all costs the country anywhere near as much as people like Lord Ashcroft or Philip Green.

And footflaps +1 - as if people paying their plumber cash-in-hand and some of them possibly not declaring it all costs the country anywhere near as much as people like Lord Ashcroft or Philip Green [b]or The Guardian Media group or Ken Livingstone or Tony Blair[/b]

FIFY 😉

I feel quite strongly about this!

as Footflaps says this should be used to divert attention away frommthe real issue which is v rich people using smart ar$e accountants and lawyers to reduce their tax rate to something artificially low.

The bouncing cheques issue is another supporting factor.

On the other hand the conversation does often follow these lines ....

"that will be £1,000 plus VAT"

"what if i pay cash?"

"well OK, that will be £1,000 all in"

Not much getting paid to Gideon that way is there? But the issue is quantum and this pales into insignificance compared to the NonDoms, the Bransons, the Vodaphones etc etc that dress it all up in nice legalities but have the morals of the sewer.

And footflaps +1 - as if people paying their plumber cash-in-hand and some of them possibly not declaring it all costs the country anywhere near as much as people like Lord Ashcroft or Philip Green or The Guardian Media group or Ken Livingstone or Tony Blair

Very clever - except the point here is that it's a member of the current government (who could actually do something about it) moralising about tax avoidance/evasion, when some of the biggest contributors to his party are some of the worst offenders. If your point is 'it's not just Tories that avoid/evade tax' then yes, well done - have a cookie.

Capitalism is morally wrong.

Having spent 26.5 years in tax, including 8 years in investigations "Cash is still legal tender". However HMRC can pick out the idiots who don't think about GPR checks, plus the (based on reasonable experience) good chance of being dobbed in by a bitter ex's, or people who are sick of hearing you say how much money you have, but don't pay tax on, in the pub.....

I'd say all that might be worth a small discount?

Oh go on then, I'll knock the price of a pint off. There is only one reason people expect a discount for cash, and it's not because they're reducing the hassle in your day. My standard answer to "How much for cash?": "Oh, you were thinking of paying by cheque were you?" 😛

except the point here is that it's a member of the current government (who could actually do something about it) moralising about tax avoidance/evasion

unlike Ed who was a member of the last government who does no moralising on tax evasion at all and didn't do anything about it at all

as for tax evasion I think the proposed limit on tax relief for charity donations was actually a step forward, it stopped the rich deciding on what they wanted to fund and stuffing the rest of the tax payers with the boring stuff such as hospitals, roads, education etc

If your point is 'it's not just Tories that avoid/evade tax' then yes, well done - have a cookie.

[i]have a cookie.

thanks[/i]

Hope you declare it 😉

I pretty much pay cash where they don't take a card, as cheques are really not trusted unless you are 'known'.

Is it morally wrong to pay cash? Of course not.

Is it morally wrong to pay cash and not obtain a headed receipt from whoever did the work to help them avoid paying their dies and to save you a few quid? Yes, I'd say so.

AS two wrongs don't make a right it's pointless (not to mention petty and childish) trying to argue 'Well so-and-so doesn't pay all [b]their[/b] taxes'.

Why would people avoid tax? the existence of a 'Laffer curve' is a fantasy made up by right wing loons.

Hope that helps 😉

loum - Member

[i]have a cookie.

thanks[/i]

Hope you declare it

I didn't have to work for it 😉

If all the cash jobs were added up across all the industries where it is common then surely it is a big enough pot to be condemned as morally wrong ? Example if 10,000 people avoid paying £100,000 in tax, but 1,000,000 people avoid paying £1,000 in tax which is worse than the other ??

Zulu-Eleven - Member

the existence of a 'Laffer curve' is a fantasy made up by right wing loons.

Hope that helps

Well I checked, and apparently this is a rare case of you actually being right :

[i]"The term "Laffer curve" was reportedly coined by Jude Wanniski after a 1974 afternoon meeting between Laffer, Wanniski, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and his deputy press secretary Grace-Marie Arnett"[/i]

So thanks for the tip - it did indeed help.

as already said above.... i never used to offer any discount on cash payments. my bill would be the same for a cheque or cash. the only difference being is that i wouldn't declare the cash as it saved me a fortune in tax.

I didn't have to work for it

Like CMD's £250k "donation" dinners for favours?

Why would people avoid tax? the existence of a 'Laffer curve' is a fantasy made up by right wing loons.

Ibrahimovic will be paid more than €1m (£778,000) a month to play for PSG, whose new Qatari owners have made clear that the salary will be raised high enough to soften the consequences of a proposed 75% top rate of tax, due to be imposed by Hollande in the autumn on those earning above €1m a year.
"This is a demonstration that the higher rate of tax won't prevent big players from coming to play in France."

neal, hypothetically speaking, how would making cash payments to a tradesman illegal affect you?

As long as people my customers are happy to pay by Cheque/Online Transfer/Paypal then it won't affect me at all.
(and 90% of them do already as that's my preferred way of doing it anyway)

Well, if you get a cheque you have to take the time to go to the bank and pay it in, and if you have a business account there might be a charge. Also, with cash, there is no question of potential future hassles with cheques bouncing, taking time to clear etc - I'd say all that might be worth a small discount?

Bank charges are an issue, (albeit a small one) but I don't mind it too much as its worked into my prices anyway.

Going to the bank on a Saturday morning to do the banking is one of my weekend pleasures, as there is a cracking bacon sandwich place next door for breakfast.

Plus, if I got paid exclusively in cash I would still have to bank it as I need to pay suppliers and other stuff via the bank anyway.

(never had a customers cheque bounce in 17 years, so won't be too worried about that one.)

I encourage all my clients to pay via online bank transfer - cheques and cash are nothing but a PITA. It also gives me a record of who's paid what, when. These days, there's no reason to mess around with cash. I do occasionally take a £40 portrait booking fee in cash, but clients always get a receipt - again, this means I have a record.

And I've had two bounced cheques in just seven years of trading - both were late payments for wedding photography - neither saw their photos until the cash was in my account...

I don't generally deal with the general joe public, all my clients are businesses themselves so they are hungry for receipts and so am I. There are occasions when suppliers will offer me 'discounts' for off-the-books cash, but without the paper work my tax / vat liability is increased so theres no benefit in it for me.

I have to say - I reckon its online where a lot of the dodgy dealing is happening. When I buy materials and kit from ebay traders or the ebay channel of businesses - stuff is pretty much never arrives with any kind of receipt or vat paperwork.

I recently bought a bunch of fire extinguishers through a company's ebay account, I was on a long road trip so used ebay to find a vendor that was on my route. Made the transaction through ebay but collected and paid in person at their Trade Counter. Arrived to collect and even through the payment was made by card, at the counter with chip and pin - they didn't want to issue a vat receipt because it was 'the ebay price'.

Going back to the original article the guy gave an answer to the straight question.

Mr Gauke was asked specifically about the practice of offering to pay tradesmen cash in hand in the hope of avoiding paying VAT on a bill in interviews with journalists for the Daily Telegraph, Guardian and Daily Mail.

The Daily Telegraph quotes Mr Gauke as saying: "Getting a discount with your plumber by paying cash in hand is something that is a big cost to the Revenue and means others have to pay more in tax.

"I think it is morally wrong. It is illegal for the plumber but it is pretty implicit in those circumstances that there is a reason why there is a discount for cash. That is a large part of the hidden economy."

Speaking the the BBC's Newsnight, Mr Gauke said there was nothing wrong with paying in cash, but doing so to actively avoid tax was wrong.

I would challenge any minister to condone tax evasion.

i say sod the tax , they get enough !!!

Its far easier to chase plumbers or painters than go after large companies who have strong and well paid legal teams to defend themselves. Yes everyone should pay tax but have HSBC or Barclays been called "morally wrong" yet? Apologies if they have. And no I probably don't declare all my jobs but then I occasionaly like to eat food that doesn't come off the reduced counter.

Paying by cash certainly isn't immoral in itself however doing so with a nod and a wink to avoid paying VAT or declaring income is.

IMO of course 🙂

Don't do discount for cash but add a premium for anything else. Thats exxcatly what I do even in small sales. PP costs you more.
I also believe that we should do all we can to slow down the advance of everything going electric. The day will come when we can't hide anything from the state when we should hide all we can. It's my money not yours.
In this day and age we should be taking money from those who don't deserve it. Note I say deserve not earn. Branson deserves it more than the lazy sod up the roadwho I KNOW is signing on and goes to Florida every year.

This one is so easy to answer I owe my sons life to tax payer funded care so personally I do believe tax evasion is wrong .
I also resent the attitude of those who come into my home to quote for work and openly suggest that I join in their tax fraud . One double glazing sales man apologised for part of his quote explaining that because part of the work needed a safety certificate then that would mean that VAT was payable on that element, ie the whole quote had been provided on the assumption that it would be off book.

on line banking is now very common, for all age groups. yes quite a few ask how much off for cash.. to which my reply is always .. nothing.. everything goes through the books it makes life simple and i sleep nights.

Paying cash in hand, in itself, isn't morally wrong.

Paying cash in hand in order to gain benefit as a result of others not paying tax is morally wrong.

Accepting cash in hand is not, in itself, morally wrong

Accepting cash in hand with the intention of not declaring it, is morally wrong.

The existence of larger examples of tax evasion does not make smaller examples morally superior, it merely differentiats between the scale of the problem. It's like saying shops lifting is ok simple because large scale theft is occurring at the same time.

Politicians using smaller scale problems to divert attention from larger scale ones is not morally wrong, but it is objectionable and sadly predictable.

Politicians using smaller scale problems to divert attention from larger scale ones is not morally wrong, but it is objectionable and sadly predictable.

Read the other articles - he was asked about Paying Cash in hand to avoid VAT. Paper lead the question to make the headline

But on the other side of the coin we have politicians decide to change their residences and fiddle their expenses.... Perhaps if they showed more of an example?

Is illegally underdeclaring your own earnings to avoid tax morally wrong? If so, then surely knowingly assisting someone else to do the same - in return for a financial benefit to yourself - is also morally wrong?

There really doesn't seem to be a lot to discuss here. The guy was asked a straight question, and gave a straight answer. As far as I can tell, he didn't bring it up, nor did he suggest plans for any new measures to clamp down on it.

So David Gauke has said something that sounds entirely reasonable in response to a question about paying cash in hand, whilst talking actively about clamping down on tax evasion for the super rich...

Why have the media taken this angle on it?

This sort of cr@p really annoys me. Its why politicians are so evasive on TV, they can't answer anything without it being dragged across the media out of context.

WTF?

Mike, I am aware of what he said vs the headlines and hence the distinction that I am drawing. There is a separate issue of deliberate media distortion to address the perceived need to feed the insatiable (sic) hunger for 24 news as the "Cav can leave Sky" headlines also showed.

The only place I regularly use cash is the pub.

Is it morally wrong to have a pint or two of decent ale without checking the establishment's tax returns?

This paying cash story is a non-issue.

Now is it wrong to evade or avoid tax or even to assist others in doing so? Legally only for one of them, but morally? Well now we decent question, but wording it that way might cause members of this government (and the last) some embarrassment. To say nothing of a whole load of highly intelligent accountants and lawyers.

How about the tradesman who works a 40 hour week, all monies through the books. Clear and above board.

Said tradesman decides to do some small cash-in-hand jobs at the weekend. Is it morally wrong not to declare this? I'd argue not.

What I would say needs changing is our current tax system so that there are not the loopholes etc for people to exploit.

Here's a theory for the Tories to take on. Seeing as they're so keen on Trickle-down economics, which we're being told exists in something other than Tory Think-tank literature

How about Trickle-down tax morality.

We'll all promise to pay the appropriate amount of tax on every transaction when:

1. All members of the front bench declare their tax affairs - in the interests of seeing that those in glass houses....
2. Tory Peer Lord Ashcroft pays the estimated £130 million he avoided in tax by exploiting his non-dom status
3. Tory MP Zac Golsmith pays the estimated £8 million he avoided in tax by exploiting his non-dom status
4. They pay more than lip-service to collecting the correct level of tax from Vodaphone, Barclays, Goldman Sachs, HSBC and all the rest of their friends in the city

Until then they can * right off with their monumentally hypocritical moral posturing!!! We hear them saying they are 'aggressively targeting' tax avoidance? Oh... really? I'll believe it when I see the remotest evidence of that actually happening!!

*s!!!

Coyote - agree with you last point, but my mind boggles at where applying the tradesman logic would lead us! Sorry, I am 100% kosher (can you say that we days?) most of the time, so please forgive me for the occasion that I am not (m'lord).....!

Binners, interesting ideas. Out of interest why are they Tory specific?

Is it also morally outrageous to purchase things from the continent avoiding paying VAT on them and moving money out of the UK economy?

Just a thought

Why is it only VAT which is taken off whenpayment is off the books, surely it should be that and some share of the income tax due.

Binners, interesting ideas. Out of interest why are they Tory specific?

Because they're the ones in power. And more importantly: they're the ones lecturing everyone else! And they're a party of well known tax avoiders.

I think it should apply to everyone though. Lets see the accounts of everyone in government if they're going to lecture us all. I'm sure Blairs would have made interesting reading. At least he had the good sense to keep his head down on the subject. How many of the present front bench's tax affairs would stand up to close scrutiny? Seriously? George osbourne and his offshore trust fund?

Anyway... I eagerly await the first press story with a tradesman coming forward saying a Tory MP asked to pay cash to avoid tax. I'll give it until..... 4 o clock maybe? Idiots!

THM. Adopting the example I gave involves common sense and a bit of give and take. Unfortunately it will never be practical as certain people will always exploit an opportunity. The only real answer is a complete review of the whole system that makes it easier to understand and contains more absolutes and less gray areas.

Binners, as ever on the button and nothing there to disagree with.

Is it also morally outrageous to purchase things from the continent avoiding paying VAT on them and moving money out of the UK economy?

Oh, controversial!

Oh, controversial!

It's the STW NIMBY test

And they're a party of well known tax avoiders.

[IMG] [/IMG]

Coyote, I understand that (ie comon sense and give and take *) and it is an interesting argument. In essence, that is the core of any consequential versus categorical moral argument.

Binners, what wil it be? Cash payment to paint the duck house or the nanny!!!

The whole au pair industry seems to rely on this principle. So if the payment of cash to an au pair facilitates someone (even a nasty Tory Binners!!) going out to do a job that provides a bigger benefit to others, is that ok? Discuss....

Oh here we go: the usual tory defenders pop up. They ARE a party of well known tax avoiders. Thats just a fact. I'm sure there are plenty at it in the labour party too. But are you seriously suggesting its as endemic as it is with this lot

So for them to have the bare-faced gall to start lecturing others on the their tax affairs... it defies belief! The hypocrisy truly is breathtaking.

This from a party who's last election campaign was bankrolled by someone who's resident, purely for tax reasons, in Belize. Then appointed Phillip Green as a business advisor. That'll be the same Phillip Green who funelled £1.5 BILLION through his wife's Monaco bank accounts, therefore not paying a penny in tax

Like I said: they can **** right off with their monumentally hypocritical moral posturing!!!

Stimulating growth in the trades helps our economy far more than buying Taiwanese-made bikes from a German supplier. It's lunacy to be charging 20% on services that directly protect UK jobs...

Apologies Binners,

Oh here we go: the usual tory defenders pop up. They ARE a party of well known tax avoiders. Thats just a fact. I'm sure there are plenty at it in the labour party too. But are you seriously suggesting its as endemic as it is with this lot

This makes no sense 🙂

On this topic I reckon there are very few who should be throwing stones (and I hate quoting religion)

Zulu-Eleven let me point out an undeniable truth which you clearly find highly uncomfortable and would like to prefer wasn't true.

Which is that whilst the Labour Party often behaves in a very simular manner to the Tory Party, specially since the leadership of Tony Blair, and which something that leads to people like myself unable to support it, it is still relatively rare for it to "out Tory" the Tory Party.

Tax avoidance will never be one of those areas, however much you might like to imply that it is Zulu-Eleven. The Tories will always be absolute masters of tax avoidence. Even at the very highest echelons of the party :

[url= http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8542744.stm ]Lord Ashcroft admits 'non-dom' tax status[/url]

[b][i]"Conservative donor and deputy chairman Lord Ashcroft has admitted he does not pay UK tax on earnings outside Britain".[/i][/b]

So you can post as many pictures of Labour politicians as you like Zulu-Eleven, but it will never change the fact that if the problem is [i]tax avoidance[/i], then the answer will never be Tory.

Looking at the bigger picture of this on a national basis, I think there are some fairly clear examples of where a national aversion to paying tax leads - Greece for example.
It is clearly morally wrong (not to mention illegal!) to pay or receive cash, at a discounted rate, with the clear purpose of avoiding VAT, Income Tax & NI. It doesn't matter how little it is.

The UK needs to stick to the higher standards of collective national good - along with Germany and the Scandinavian countries - and not join the road to ruin followed by Greece, Spain, Italy et al. who all have very significant "black" economies.

Why is it only VAT which is taken off whenpayment is off the books, surely it should be that and some share of the income tax due.

If you find a trades person who is willing to risk doing cash work to avoid the VAT and TAX due.
Why would you expect him to take all the risk, while you gain all the benefit ?

One of the reasons I don't do it at all is because I like the risk/stress free element of doing everything by the book.

Why would you expect someone to take that risk without anything in it for them.

If you find a trades person who is willing to risk doing cash work to avoid the VAT and TAX due.
Why would you expect him to take all the risk, while you gain all the benefit ?

That is why i said 'a share'

So he takes [b]all the risk[/b] while you take none at all.
And you get all the VAT and some of the TAX as well

That seems fair.

How about the tradesman who works a 40 hour week, all monies through the books. Clear and above board.

Said tradesman decides to do some small cash-in-hand jobs at the weekend. Is it morally wrong not to declare this? I'd argue not.

How about the local LBS. It doesn't normally open Sunday's but has decided open due to the demand created by Wiggo mania. They decide not to pay VAT on the bikes they sell on Sundays or NI and tax on their wages on Sundays.

Or the assembly line worker who takes on some overtime at the weekend. Should they be paid cash in hand to avoid NI and income tax.

Tax evasion is tax evasion whether it is small cash in hand job or a multinational company registering in Switzerland*. I'd argue is morally dubious to see exceptions in your own line of work but condem others who do the same thing in other areas.

*[i]The swiss thing isn't actually tax evasion, its tax efficiency which while maybe being morally wrong is totally legal. I'd put it in the same category as buying a mountain bike on the bike to work scheme, not illegal but against the intent of the rules.[/i]

Lord Ashcroft admits 'non-dom' tax status

"Conservative donor and deputy chairman Lord Ashcroft has admitted he does not pay UK tax on earnings outside Britain".

So you can post as many pictures of Labour politicians as you like Zulu-Eleven, but it will never change the fact that if the problem is tax avoidance, then the answer will never be Tory.

and remeber a condition of him getting his peerage was that he would become a UK taxpayer. so a liar as well as a tax cheat

E_L (and Z11) still cant see why this is a party political issue? But let's assume that you are correct. The Tories (all?) are the masters of tax avoidance. Ok, so hypocritical to stand on moral high ground. The Labour Party (excluding the evil Uncle Tony and his mates) are by implication not masters of tax avoidance. Indeed they stand for the opposite position. So when they evade tax they are hypocritical especially the well cited example. Ergo, this is not a party political issue. Phew, we can put that to rest! Politicians in hypocritical shocker!

So adultering Tory MPs versus adultering Labour MPs - which is worse? Or is the "party" bit irrelevant? Hmmmm.....

It really annoys me that I am on PAYE whereas self employed friends (and people on here) claim riudiculous things and regularly exaggerate expenses to offset against tax to reduce tax bills and pay far less tax than me on similar incomes. That annoys

Ernie Lynch - Member

Blah blah, Evil Tories, Thatcher, blah

In which case Ernie, why on [b]earth[/b] didn't Labour do something about the evils of tax avoidance in their [b]thirteen[/b] years in power, with a huge political majority and mandate to do something about the evil rich?

Zulu - - cowardice - fear of the right wing press in the main part

It really annoys me that I am on PAYE whereas self employed friends (and people on here) claim riudiculous things and regularly exaggerate expenses to offset against tax to reduce tax bills and pay far less tax than me on similar incomes. That annoys

I would imagine self employed people find it ridiculous and annoying that you get a gold plated pension, virtually unlimited sick pay and paid holidays, all funded by their taxes 🙄

The practice of paying workmen “cash in hand” was condemned as “morally wrong” today by a Treasury minister.

David Gauke’s comments came...

...as unsurprising from someone who's never been self-employed and wouldn't understand why cashflow is important to small businesspeople.

The idea that some Tory lawyer from Hertfordshire should have the nerve to preach about the immoral tax practices of tradespeople is unreal. If he wants to find out about tax practices that reduce the Revenue's take, he should go and chat to the partner in charge of the "Tax and Structuring" practice at his old law firm: http://www.macfarlanes.com/practice-areas/tax-and-structuring.aspx

Re the fat cats with their hard working accountants avoiding tax vs hard working tradesmen being paid cash in hand and being a little "efficient" with the truth - I accept that the numbers that the big boys are "saving" are massive but surely there are a tiny number of them in comparison to the tens (possible hundreds) of thousands of lower paid people "saving" much smaller amounts? In terms of total loss to the government (i.e. our) coffers which costs us more - lots of folks scamming a bit or a small number scamming a lot - my hunch would be the former.

On the "how much for cash" question - As an honest tradesman who declares all earning and pays all VAT owed etc I'd be wanting to stamp it out more than anyone as they must loose so much trade to those who are less honest. The pressure to play fast and loose from potential clients much be huge just to keep the work coming in.

It really annoys me that I am on PAYE whereas self employed friends (and people on here) claim riudiculous things and regularly exaggerate expenses to offset against tax to reduce tax bills and pay far less tax than me on similar incomes. That annoys

When as a child your felt that you were unfairly disadvantged against a friend or sibling did your parents not tell you "life's not fair, get used to it".

You may be more content if they had.

Re the fat cats with their hard working accountants avoiding tax vs hard working tradesmen being paid cash in hand and being a little "efficient" with the truth - I accept that the numbers that the big boys are "saving" are massive but surely there are a tiny number of them in comparison to the tens (possible hundreds) of thousands of lower paid people "saving" much smaller amounts?

Well... when Vodaphone sat down over a nice lunch with the big cheeses at HMRC they apparently 'negotiated a settlement' that meant they effectively avoided £6 billion in tax

Thats one **** of a lot of leaking taps.

Perhaps Alan the Plumber should try negotiating with HMRC himself regarding how much they're saying he should pay, against what he'd [i]like[/i] to pay. I'm sure they'd be just as receptive as they were to the MD of Vodaphone

So he takes all the risk while you take none at all.
And you get all the VAT and some of the TAX as well

That seems fair.

So, the alternative where you 'get' the VAT and they 'get' the tax is fair is it?

It really annoys me that I am on PAYE whereas self employed friends (and people on here) claim riudiculous things and regularly exaggerate expenses to offset against tax to reduce tax bills and pay far less tax than me on similar incomes. That annoys

Become self-employed then? No body likes a tax cheat but to claim you're annoyed about not having the same benefits as self-employed people is clutching at straws to start an argument!

Well... when Vodaphone sat down over a nice lunch with the big cheeses at HMRC they apparently 'negotiated a settlement' that meant they effectively avoided £6 billion in tax

I was under the pretty distinct impression that the 'six billion' had been shown up to be bullsh..

in the words of an HMRC spokesman:

“We cannot comment on the detail of the settlement but we can confirm that it was reached by HMRC following a rigorous examination of the facts and an intensive process of negotiation that tested the arguments of both parties... As a result it was agreed that Vodafone’s liability was £1.25 billion and at no point was a liability greater than that established. There is no question of Vodafone having an outstanding tax liability of £6 billion. That number is an urban myth.”

There's a pretty succint breakdown on why the claim was rubbish here:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2011/12/02/uk-uncut-vodafone-and-the-6-billion-tax-bill-that-never-was/

still, lets not let facts get in the way of good old left wing moral outrage, eh 😉

Well... here's another article from that well known outlet for foaming lefty pinko outrage [url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/epic/vod/9322368/Vodafone-paid-zero-UK-corporation-tax-last-year.html ]the torygraph[/url]

pointing out how Vodaphone (like a lot of other huge UK based companies) pays the grand total of absolutely eff all in tax.

The point is that the government could close the tax loopholes that allow this to happen in no time. Most of the offshore tax avoidance goes through British colonial outposts. They won't though

Instead they'll lecturer plumbers and plasterers about doing the odd cash in hand job. Try and convince people thats the reason we're in the shit! I mean... seriously?

Its insulting to everyone's intelligence!!!

EDIT: And Forbes as a non-biased, impartial news source? Seriously? 😆

The point is that the government could close the tax loopholes that allow this to happen in no time

The point is that no it couldn't, the reason that vodaphones tax bill was so small, is that the transaction was registered in Luxembourg through a subsidiary, and that it was the EU rules that override UK taxation law that meant that Vodafone didn't have to pay...

So the only way for the Tories to close the loophole, is for us to pull out of Europe - sounds like a win-win situation to me 😈

Where does tipping restaurant staff fit into the morals of cash payments for services received?

Is it 'Morally wrong' to pay cash in hand?

So the only way for the Tories to close the loophole, is for us to pull out of Europe - sounds like a win-win situation to me

The point is that no it couldn't, the reason that vodaphones tax bill was so small, is that the transaction was registered in Luxembourg through a subsidiary, and that it was the EU rules that override UK taxation law that meant that Vodafone didn't have to pay...

Not true. We have UK regulations that are supposed to prevent the use of tax havens as a means of tax avoidance, and the Court of Appeal has ruled in the past that this does not conflict with EU law.

You quoted a highly partial source to dismiss the "£6 billion claim". It does however seem clear that Vodafone expected to pay more than they eventually did, as Richard Murphy notes. http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2010/10/23/vodafones-tax-case-leaves-a-sour-taste/