tell me I've dreamt this - DC proposing to give tax breaks to the middle classes (who can already afford this) to help them pay for their cleaners/nannies/gardeners????

[ssd]

surely not?

what planet is he on??

How is it tax evasion to pay someone cash. Cash is perfectly legal tender.

What the person does with it afterwards is a cause for concern if they are avoiding declaring it - but to say that the person paying them is committing a crime or doing anything underhand is wrong.

Should market stall holders be forced to accept cheques only, shops refuse to handle cash, taxi drivers only take credit cards?

To accuse anyone paying in cash of committing a crime is simply ludicrous.

And to assume that anyone being paid in cash is a criminal is wrong too.

Honestly some people, see bad in everyone, think everyone's on the fiddle. Takes one to know one, is what I think.

Nowt wrong with paying cash, but if the employee doesn't declare their earnings......

I think it's a great idea, for all the reasons Quattrocento gave.

The griping on this thread is really ridiculous. It seems to range from "it's DC, therefore it must be bad" (despite him getting the idea from lefty paradise Sweden) to "even if it's a good idea, it sounds unfair so we shouldn't do." .

Actually about 5 years ago my children's primary school stopped taking cash for fees. Money laundering regulations, to stop those Norty bankers. The only people it stopped were the parents involved in cash in hand businesses.

So Cash, isn't always legal tender.

?

Are you implying that the people who were paying the school in cash were acting illegally?

Are you saying that this school stopping taking cash, has rendered it not legal tender?

Do you really believe, as others on this thread, that paying someone with cash is a criminal act?

Cash is legal tender.
It is not illegal to use cash to pay for goods or services.
In case anyone reading this is getting confused.

Money laundering regulations aren't there to stop bankers, they are there to stop criminal gangs.

Bankers don't need to launder their money.

It is up to the receiver of the cash to declare it.

Exactly.

Is the argument here really that cash-in-hand unregulated employment is good and that a move that will incentivise people to use services that pay tax is a bad thing?

Otherwise I'm not really getting the "cash is legal tender" crankiness.

Surely if there is a net gain to the exchequer, and it brings cleaners etc. who currently do not have NI contributions, right to sick leave, or insurance, into the system, that is a good thing for all concerned? Particularly if it creates more work?

What I mean to say is that cash-in-hand workers have no rights and are actually in a very precarious position. I would support a measure that gives them more legal protection and e.g. the right to a pension or SSP if they are unable to work.

I do understand people's reservations about seemingly giving to the middle class, but this is the way the welfare state always works. The middle class get the most out of the NHS, education, culture etc.

My point was that it is very easy for everyone to point the figure at one/two individuals and corporations and insist that they are tax evaders. However, as a result of the so-called shadow economy, hmrc loses approx £70bn per year. Everyone who enables a deal so that the VAT isn't paid (eg builders), or employs someone but doesnt pay do paye or who comes through Customs but doesn't declare goods is contributing to the growth in the shadow economy.

The point of this idea isn't to give a tax break at all, it is just to dress it up as such as the real point is to try and claw back some of that £70bn.

quite, teatimesthree. I am not bloody middle class, but I work ft and have a cleaner. My cleaner is excellent. She is much better at cleaning than i am. The system means she is fully protected and gets all her "stamp" paid, so her pension etc etc. That is much better surely than me handing over a couple of notes?

Well the 'griping' is that the better off will be better off while the rest of us are struggling to buy food and take pay cuts.

I'm confused as why it is a middle class issue - does the proposal say the tax break will only be given to employers earning more than a certain amount? Will it make typical cash-in-hand jobs more expensive or complicated to hire?

I ask because the only people I know who use "domestic staff" (cleaner/window cleaner/a one off with a gardener to make the garden minimal upkeep friendly) are very working class, low income/on benefits, or state reliant pensioners. They all have disabilities that make housework difficult to impossible so use their money to maintain their homes.

i bet they won't be the ones to get a tax break

You're a bit hard of finking to surmise that

Buy the point is that this cost neutral for taxpayers. And actually protects people doing low paid work. It takes nothing away from anyone else.

Sardinequeen has been spot on
Not much add

How is this cash neutral for tax payers? Surely it means that employers of cleaners pay less tax?