UKH

Recently received an estimate for painting the side of the house. It included the following

I have a quote for scaffolding from (name withheld) £870.00 plus vat or £870.00 for a cash payment.

This means that the tradesman is colluding with the most blatant tax evasion. I have no intention of colluding with this crime myself. What are my chances of having HMRC pursue the criminals, and how would I go about it? If anyone on here works for HMRC I'd be most interested to hear their view. I'd also be interested to hear if anyone has any idea how much this kind of tax evasion costs the nation. I guess it is a huge amount.

Probably significantly less than the billions 'avoided' by the mega corps. 

Now whilst I don't wish to defend any sort of avoidance/evasion of tax it is however worth considering that the money will be going in to the pocket of a local businessman, who will employ mostly young people (in this instance, scaffolding isn't an old folk job) potentially with families and who will spend that 'extra' cash in their local community. So yes, whilst it won't be going to the exchequer, it will be kept within the economy and not spirited away to an offshore bank account to pay for some billionaires next play thing.

I suspect you are correct. Don't use them and report them. If they did this twice weekly that would be £18k per annum and whatever you views on how the govt spend our money, this is not inconsequential in terms of schooling, hospitals etc.

My only concern would be that they get mad with you. I suspect many such episodes go without comment due to fear of some form of comeback.

https://www.tax.service.gov.uk/shortforms/form/CusConf_InformB

Quite right. People should pay the tax that is due. If they don't like it or think it unfair then they should campaign to change it, that how democracy works. Or should work at least.

Here’s the link for you:

https://www.gov.uk/report-an-unregistered-trader-or-business

Is it worth the hassle for you? Probably not - especially as you might have to go to court and identify yourself to provide evidence if the case goes ahead.

I’m sure he’d argue that dealing in cash meant he could buy supplies the same day ect hence the discount.

Personally I’d look the other way and go for another tradesman who wasn’t so blatant.

Thanks. If anything will put me off reporting this it'll be the form to fill in! What I'd prefer to do is just tip off the authorities. Not keen to get bricks thrown through my window, though.

It is pretty awful isn't it. Perhaps it stops people just being malicious which must be a risk of such as system and tip offs are likely not the way to go. 

"Now whilst I don't wish to defend any sort of avoidance/evasion"

So you don't use ISA's, or contribute to a pension then (these are both avoidance)? It might seem pedantic, but it isn't. Tax evasion is illegal, tax avoidance is legal, and they shouldn't be used as if they are the same or similar. 

No, actually  

But point taken on avoidance. 

Pension contributions could more accurately be termed "tax postponement ".

Admittedly , only 75% is taxed on retrieval , but large withdrawals can be subject to higher tax rates.

True, but if you are lucky enough to be comfortably off you can minimise the amount of tax you will need to pay, especially if you retire early. That 25% means a couple will have an effective allowance of 34k pa. Even above that, many will have avoided paying 40% tax and only have to pay 20% back.

I think this is where the furlough scheme for self employed was very clever. You only got 80% of declared earnings, so if most of your income was off the books you got very little.

False equivalence between ISAs and tax avoidance. The difference is absolutely stark, and those who can't see it are wilfully blind because that justifies their deliberate freeloading.

Using ISAs is in line with the policy intent - to use the tax system to encourage behaviour that benefits the individual and society.

Tax avoidance is acting in a way that contradicts the policy intent and is behaviour that benefits the individual at the detriment of society.

There's a subtle point here that we have governments whose policies have a surface level intent to collect tax, but with a hidden intent for them to be avoided by themselves and their friends. So those who engage in tax avoidance (which is still distinct from ISAs etc, whose surface intent is all there is) can on some level claim that they are acting both in the letter of the law, and also the real spirit. (This is of course not a valid moral argument, but it's not a bad response to the accusation that they are acting in the letter but not the spirit of the law).

Nobody should mistake what I'm saying for an argument that people should volunteer taxes that are not required by law for moral reasons. The responsibility is on governments to close loopholes, to play the cat to the mice of tax avoiders, not on the mice to magically stop liking cheese/gold plated toilets/speedboats etc.

"£870.00 plus vat or £870.00 for a cash payment."

Sorry for being naïve, but I'm struggling to see how the tradesman benefits from this, except in the time saved in filling in his VAT return.

As you are clearly an honest and conscientious citizen, just take the former option.

Exactly as VS says, I'd just look for someone else who's paying their taxes (or is at least less blatant).

I would think about it this way: by turning the guy in you can potentially do a lot of damage to his life and probably his family. In terms of benefits to the country, you'll do none, since it won't make anyone else pay their taxes. FWIW I don't think it's the right thing to do.

Undoubtedly but that’s not really the point.

I suspect that he condones or colludes because he expects most of his potential customers to not care whether the tax is collected or not, and would lose business for occupying the moral high ground.

I think the VAT is a bit of a red herring. I could say I will tutor for £40 an hour + VAT or £40 for cash. Its not VAT that I'm avoiding. 

Edit sorry evading in this case 

I'm interested in the likes/dislikes of this post (sort of, I'd be much more interested if the people who clicked dislike indicated what it was they disliked, because it's totally unclear to me).

The language used is balanced, not making a case for or against anything controversial, just adding relevant context, and the factual content is correct. The two reasons for "disliking" I can think of is that any slagging off of mega-corp tax avoiders is seen as beta cuck leftist wokeism; or that there's a moral disdain for what (despite the qualifying first sentence) is seen as condoning law breaking. Bizarre!

He would benefit by keeping his income off book and so avoid income tax of any sort.

Personally I'm sick of tradesmen avoiding tax, and I know several in my family. The argument about why non graduates should pay for higher education is easily answered; pay your taxes. 

If it goes through a VAT invoice it goes on their taxable income, cash it doesn't. It isn't the VAT they are trying to avoid.

Or is he just one of the 3 million of us "excluded" from any Government help during the pandemic??

He might be on the breadline, every contract is vital when you're self employed, more so now when you haven't been able to get work.

Before you report him have a think about what he might have been through!!

I'd say using the same "avoidance" word when using tax allowances in the way they are designed as to the alternative of rich people using legal loopholes not intended in the rules is a major part of the UK tax problem. We need a system where new tax methods require Inland Revenue permission or the clients are liable for repayment.

Tax evasion is illegal tax practice but in many ways loophole based avoidance is worse in terms of damage to the Exchequer.

On the subject of avoidance we had these depressing news stories in the last days:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/oct/30/shell-and-bp-paid-zero-tax...

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/oct/31/osbornes-google-tax-on-ove...

Why did that matter? Most who were already that dishonest would simply claim they had been badly affected by covid, collect the extra money and then carry on working whilst declaring even less.  A win win for them, extra money and less tax the following year. 

It was worked out as the average of your last 3 years of income as listed on your tax return.

The thing that it seems was really abused was the small business loans with a fair bit of evidence of fake companies being set up to claim loans of upto £50k and then vanishing / being mothballed a bit later. However a lot of that appears to have been from career criminals rather than tradesmen.

How did they do this? Like Jenny, I thought payment were based on previous tax returns. 

You wouldn't believe how many people I heard phoning in to the radio to complain about this. The general gist was "They will only pay me 80% of the £20k I declare but I normally earn £60k. I can't survive on what they are paying me"

You would like to think they will see the error of their ways and now pay their fair share but I bet they don't.

The money given out was based on your previous 3 years tax returns. 

But like the rest of the furlough scheme, self employed people could just say 'Oh, business is slow because of covid I'll make a claim' and for many that was totally truthful. But many others claimed work was slow or stopped when it wasn't so they claimed the money and carried on working or got additional jobs without declaring it. Effectively three wins for them, but as Dax pointed out, some weren't very smart about trying to hide it. 

Probably doesn't apply in this case as he has so much work that he can't do my job until next spring.

I'd not heard that proposal before, it sounds sensible on the face of it. I wonder what those who think there's no difference between tax avoidance and tax allowances would say to it?

Makes me want to throw up.

So the system was more beneficial for those who had previously been honest with their returns? 

Plenty of grey areas as well, probably my age, but I know a lot of people who intended to retire 12 to 18 months ago. Most decided not to, most had to do some work during covid but a couple retired as soon as they had to return to work. 

OK, I can see how some people will have done that, but if they had engaged in that type of behaviour previously the amount of furlough they would be eligible for would at least have been limited. 

You mean some rules like this? https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/tax-avoidance-general-anti-abuse...
 

Yes.

Oh yes, I'm sure there was plenty of grey areas as well. 

Yes, but it was a triple win for them. 1,They got the furlough money. 2.Carried on earning without declaring it. 3.Then had a lower tax bill the following year as a result. 

that's the tricky bit morally isn't it. Every human being has a story.

If we were discussing whether shoplifters or burglars should be let off, there might be different responses, but the root cause may still be someone struggling to make ends meet.

He’s a scaffolder, so for simplicity let’s say £100 in on-going replacement tube, boards & fittings, £300 to pay two lads and the business gets the other £470 for overheads, & owner profit etc. 

If it’s a cash payment / undeclared income, he gets the following benefits :

1. Claim back the VAT on his diesel. Maybe £10.

2. Pay no CITB levy. About £1

3. Claim back the VAT on material purchases. £16.66

4. If he’s paying his lads cash too - Pay no employers NI. £33, they pay no personal NI another £33, they pay no income tax, £60. 
(even if the lads are on the books, he can benefit from lower profits and equivalent tax saving for himself)

5. No corporation tax on any profit, say £89.

6. Any costs incurred, eg buying PPE, diesel, truck servicing can be fully charged to other jobs on the books, lowering the overall declared net profit.

7. From a consumer perspective, he can easily be cheaper than his legitimate competitors (by 20% VAT), before any of the other benefits above are taken into consideration.

8. The cash goes in the owners pocket, he doesn’t have to pay any dividend tax, NI (personal or company), income tax, student loan repayments. That’s another £100+ tax evaded. 

Looks like a start - we'll see how effective it is in time I guess. I wonder what will and won't be regarded as "reasonable". Let's hope it works out better than the Google tax (which was presumably an entirely insincere exercise from the outset).

I'm not disputing that it happened, but it does require a change in behaviour.

Only if they had previously declared some of their income. I'd like to think the greater risk of getting caught would put some off. Claiming furlough and working seems on a par with claiming benefits and working.

They were already doing this

Furlough pay was taxable? They could have a lower tax bill if they claimed significantly less income, but this option was possible without the scheme?

If you declared nowt you got nowt. It was 80% of profits so not even comparable to the 80% furlough since many still overheads to pay. The legit, honest self employed were royally screwed over. That’s before we get to the forgotten 3 million. 

Hire an alloy tower or small Mewp and do it yourself. This will be way cheaper. Guess if you climb mountains your fit enough to use a paint brush.

You mean for a small job the government would have taken £422,66 if he booked it correctly and will anyway take ca. 50%.

In your calculation you have forgotten that their scaffold would be in use so not available to make a profit elsewhere.

Complicated this tax evasion!

I think we're confusing two very different things here, unless I've missed something. 

SEISS and Furlough are not the same, SEISS being taxable income coming in lump sums based on the past 3 years declared income. Also there was a cap of 50k profits, over which you got nowt, which I don't think was the case for furlough.

It’s the U.K. domestic market. In all likelihood, the scaffold will be 20years+ old and previously been owned by a firm that has gone bust owing HMRC a load of VAT, PAYE, NI and CT several times before. He probably bought it off himself for a dime whilst it was still in use on site. It’s a weird business where the cost of carrying is everything. Half the cost to strike a scaffold and take directly to another similar job than it does to shift it back to the yard and pay to store. Hence, they’re always either late delivering or late stripping. Needs another job to shift it to.

He is a commercial idiot simply for stating the benefit of a cash payment so blatantly.

On that basis alone I would just go somewhere else. 

Any decent scaffolder or somebody in the building trade will just not do this.

It implies he will also do a poor scaffolding job. 

If someone's burgling my house, I'll call the police because I want my stuff. No moral quandary there. Similarly, if it's anyone else's house, I want to address the harm that's being done to them. Shoplifting's a bit of a different case where I still think it's right to dob them in, I think that has the best consequences all round: I doubt that getting caught shoplifting is going to unravel someone's life in a way that's disproportionate to the amount of harm they're causing.

What I would think carefully before doing is having a huge negative impact on someone else, without any balancing benefits that I can identify, for the sake of principle.

The other approach of course is to have principles and to stick to them. I am extremely sceptical of such (deontological) approaches to morality.

They probably paid zero tax as North Sea oil has been hit severely by the reduction in oil prices.  Devestating  effect on the Aberdeen economy. So they probably did not make any profit in those years!! Nothing of course is mentioned about the low oil price in the article  

As to the second it just illustrates how careful you have to be when constructing taxes and international guidelines.  

Not if your're already the sort of person who hates paying tax and will go out of their way to avoid paying or pay as little as possible. 

All self employed people would declare some income. As the first £12,570 is tax free (or 0%) there's no reason not to.  I'm sure the risk of getting caught did put a lot off, but a government giving away free money...that must have been a big temptation too. 

True, but now they had to claim even less to give the illusion that their work was affected by covid.  

True, but now there's a very good excuse why their income is seemingly so low. 

The whole furlough scheme was extremely unfair. It undoubtedly kept people in jobs but while some used it as an opportunity to cash in others did get shafted.   

I suppose that is one major difference, nobody  gets really shafted by tax, compared to others in a similar position. It won't solve everything but I can't help think moving to cashless will help a lot 

OK, I'll come clean - I've had no income this year so I chose to cash in a small pension pot knowing that as a result I could avoid tax by reclaiming almost all tax taken off it by using this year's tax allowance (no income, which has made things hard - living from savings)

If I hadn't engaged in this tax avoidance decision and delayed taking the pension till next year I'd have had a bit of a struggle this year and would have my tax allowance next year taken up by my state pension.  This is clearly Tax avoidance and entirely sensible, necessary and legal and ethical.   However, Tax evasion, entirely different kettle of fish.

You could avoid tax by restricting your income - that is hardly immoral as tax avoidance.  Avoidance means avoidance of liability. An ISA is precisely the same, no distinction

I don't get your point. Your examples don't fall into the category "contradicting the policy intent" ‐ they're not tax avoidance.

Very good point. I'm afraid I have no sympathy for these crooks who were cheating the rest of us before Covid.

And to the OP. Good for you, it takes guts to stand up to cheats, I suspect that they respect the privacy of whistle blowers, and  can carry out a spot investigation anytime on anyone without having to give any reason for it. As for prosecutions, the figures will be all the evidence they need, as they speak for themselves.

That's a very weak argument, his dishonesty and the effect it has on his life and family is his problem not yours. Would you use that argument for a burglar or pick pocket? Because dishonesty is just that regardless of how you wrap it up. It is both legally and morally unacceptable.

It's just an argument you don't agree with, you didn't say why it's weak. Does it contain a contradiction? Are the premises wrong?

I've answered your questions further down the thread, here for convenience:

If someone's burgling my house, I'll call the police because I want my stuff. No moral quandary there. Similarly, if it's anyone else's house, I want to address the harm that's being done to them. Shoplifting's a bit of a different case where I still think it's right to dob them in, I think that has the best consequences all round: I doubt that getting caught shoplifting is going to unravel someone's life in a way that's disproportionate to the amount of harm they're causing.

What I would think carefully before doing is having a huge negative impact on someone else, without any balancing benefits that I can identify, for the sake of principle.

The other approach of course is to have principles and to stick to them. I am extremely sceptical of such (deontological) approaches to morality.

I could probably chat about consequentialism vs deontology (aka why Kant's full of crap) instead of doing other stuff this evening, but it'll need a new thread!

You can't compare tax evasion with burglary. One targets an individual, the other society. One has a very notable result on the victim, the other is largely incalculable at the same level. Both can be legally and morally unacceptable but they are regardless, very different beasts.

They are the same beast in as much that there is a conscious decision made to break the law by defrauding other people either as individuals or as a society. 

The key part to this is your statement "I've had no income this year" this allowed you to use your tax allowance.  Nothing wrong there. If though you have been working cash in hand and not declaring it that's bad, if you also then used your unused allowance that's double bad.

I'm not sure how the customer would benefit from this, and thus be persuaded to be complicit in VAT evasion: the rate with VAT is the same as the rate cash-in-hand, thus presumably evading VAT.

[edit: got it: plus VAT, not inc. VAT...]

Helps when you separate your upstream and downstream activities...

I think the usual distinction made is between the type of tax avoidance that is encouraged because it is activity which is seen as benefiting society, pensions, ISAs, etc. As opposed to the type of aggressive tax avoidance as used by Gary Barlow el al. Legal, but very much using loopholes an not encouraged. Both avoid tax, the intent is very different.

I once heard a story about someone who was a tax inspector. He had a contractor do a job and the contractor offered to settle for say £1,000 including VAT or say £900 cash. Apparently the conversation went something like “that’s very interesting but I should inform you that I’m a tax inspector, so I’ll pay you £900 including VAT”.

FFS This is Britain and it's 2021

If you want a fairly new car, a roof over your head and maybe a holiday you need to work 60 hours a week.

I'm in France where you can have all these things for 35 hours a week.

Give the guy a break.

E

And of the countries that have these desirables how many have a strong black economy, versus everyone paying their share? It's just a race to the bottom, £20 caah for a 10 min job is fair enough, but the scaffolding is likely half a days work. 

Note: some insurance companies won't pay out unless you can evidence that plumbing, electrics etc.. were carried out by those qualified. 

The guy hiring the scaffolding out should factor in his tax into pricing, plus consider his employee's wages and their tax. Even if he's not the cheapest a good scaffolder will be in demand from contractors, building it quickly, safely, platforms at the right height for that job, access stairs ideally positioned etc.. can all speed up building work. 

Cutting tax corners often causes pain long term, as mentioned above all those people trying to claim furlough, or one person directorship companies. 

We have a massive black economy here. But also we're classed as one of the highest tax paying countries in the world.

We also have massive shortages.................. of potholes, litter, feral kids and tories.

E

Agreed, but it is, absolutely and genuinely the case, not my choice!

But when I was analysing the situation in the early summer I was debating with myself eking things out and delaying taking the pot until it hit me that there was a significant avoidance of tax liability by taking the pot this year and not after starting state pension age.

I don't know whether the terminology has changed in the last 20 years but avoiding unnecessary tax liability was what professionals were employed for in earlier decades and that is why there is such a moral and legal distinction.  Evading tax is evading tax which ought to be due rather than honest avoidance of liability.  Obviously in the case of very wealthy people there can be a grey area and morality is harder to plead.

I think something close to that is in place.  There is something on the tax return about "are you using non-approved tax schemes" (not the exact wording).  So, while you don't need explicit approval, you do need to tell HMRC you are do something contrived, and presumably that makes them more likely to look at you in detail.

Here

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/disclosure-of-tax-avoidance-sche...

The point I was making above was we need rules with concrete outcomes. When you look at the Panama papers,  Paradise papers and now the Pandora papers (only a fraction of which is clearly evasion) do you think the money is being used well for the benefit of the UK under what is implied in the HMRC rules?

ThInk what a tenth of £400 billion annually could fund:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/nov/20/427bn-a-year-lost-to-tax-a...

Plus our overseas territories are still the biggest enablers in the world:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/mar/09/uk-overseas-territories-to...

Yes, I agree, but I don't think it can by writing down every possibility and stating whether it is allowed or banned - there are too many possibilities.  Something along the lines of banning "taking the piss with tax rules" and simple court decision for deciding outcomes perhaps?

I think most of that was entirely legal and mostly nothing to do with UK tax so it doesn't seem very relevant to HMRC approving schemes.

You also have  exemptions on the much lauded 35 hours week.......

I think Marie Le Pen and that other guy do a good job for you as your own Tories.......

I am self employed.

There;s a big assumption by you that by asking for cash you are breaking the law or trying to avoid tax.  

Do you have ANY evidence this person is breaking the law?


This is sometimes done simply to get customers to pay up when you ask for the money, for the work you've done and not have to wait until their next pay day, or be told various excuses as to why they've suddenly developed an inability to pay out for what they've asked you to do.  Sometimes cash is asked for because you, yourself are short of cash and there's no sensible reason why you would want to go and pay in one cheque just so you could get cash out.  I don't live in a town so that would be an hours wasted time.  Time's money sometimes.

It's 2021, not 1971, just email/WhatsApp an invoice and bank transfer. 

Just search for UK and EU government responses to those papers..... there was everything from perfectly legitimate tax vehicles through a majority of the super rich taking various levels of dirty avoidance schemes not available to ordinary citizens (things which should be stopped according to the likes of the fair tax foundation) through to blatent evasion. Governments immediately said "we must and will do something" about what they always knew about, once it became embarrassingly public.

Crikey....

In the last year or so every tradesman I have used- plumber , builder, decorater and scaffolder- does it via internet banking.Far quicker.They do not want cash.

Cash for skilled trades people is yesterdays practise.

It would save you considerable time and in all honesty reduce your exposure to a knock on the door from HMRC.

Dirty tax evasion is now being tackled by this specific question in your tax return as MG explained.

Blatant or criminal evasion is a different kettle of fish.

Always the issue with the excellent Panama or Pandora papers is that they do not reflect current practises. They are in effect old records.

its the clear implication in the OP's version of the quote given. "£870 plus VAT or £870 for a cash payment". If the quote was for "£870 if payment is made in cash, or £1,044 for any other form of payment" then there is no explicit implication in writing that there is any tax being evaded, but clearly showing that the payment method discount equals the VAT amount does raise suspicion........

Again, I refer you to government responses.

As an aside, traders doing this probably aren't insured with a cash payment as there won't be a record of any contract.

Beyond general hand-wringing, what's your point?  The scheme you proposed above pretty much exists in the UK.  You can keep referencing the Panama papers but that won't alter anything.

The release of the papers is good, but they are in effect old news already as govts catch up with practises from the previous releases.Its not an instant fix every time, just a slow methodical grind.

What sort of a business in 2021 18+ months into a COVID pandemic only deals in cash and cheque??????

Edit: several posters got there first.....haha

This is nothing to do with method of payment and everything to do with timing of payment. By all means ask for a deposit / payment up front or whatever, but don't pretend that requiring payment in cash has anything to do with it.

I can think of several.

Our local drug dealers have a cash only policy and if you try and buy an unlicenced gun with a credit card they just laugh at you.

Roll on Bitcoin so I can get out of lugging around hold-alls full of cash whenever I want the local hitman to do a job

Getting a strong urge to do the Jimmy Hill chin stroke from your post. Yeah everyone wants/ needs a Grand in cash in their pocket for a job. If you do its probably so you can dodge paying VAT yourself next time you need to buy something 'for cash'.

I'm sure I'll get flamed and I'm also sure you're an upstanding member of society that pays your dues but don't act like the entire residential construction industry isn't riddled with tax dodgers.

And yes I've paid cash in hand plenty of times but also yes I'm currently chasing a roofer to provide me with an invoice rather than the £300 cash he wants knowing full well I'll suddenly see a miraculous 20% increase in price when the invoice shows up.

I think this is the nub of it. Businesses don't want to pay more than they have to and customers don't want to pay more than they have to. Ergo those who have limited financial resources will always be drawn to the dodgy dealer as they hope to get a bargain.

A cashless society will make it difficult for these little people but won't make a blind bit of difference to those who already move large sums of money around illegally.

Internet banking is fine.  But I don't do it.  I don't want scaming.  And neither of the two quarries I buy stone from have any internet connection and the owner, if I gave her a cheque would have to drive 10 miles into town to cash the thing.

Yes - agree.

The argument about why non graduates should pay for higher education is easily answered; pay your taxes. 

Why should non graduates pay for something they don't have - we're not all tax-avoiding so-and-so's like "several of your family".

How do you get cash?  Beyond a couple of hundred pounds or whatever the cash machine gives, it's pretty hard.  Banks don't keep much on hand and are suspicious of anyone who wants a lot.  If you have to drive to cash a cheque, surely you have to drive to bank cash?

Online banking is almost certainly less risky than cash handling.

Where do you stop?  Should I pay for schools with no children?

Handling  forged notes- is just as much a risk.

And I bet they all use mobile phones in the quarries......not difficult. I have my business acounts all through to my mobile.Its really pretty easy.I will bet you use your mobile constantly every day.

You can also pay her on internet banking.Makes it far easier for her.

Start exploring it as its going to be happening.Its a question of when not if.

You will in the end wonder what all the fuss was over.Appreciate that it can be daunting.

He/she doesn't have a smartphone - to lay their bets then ? And peruse pron at quiet times ?

Well they had barcodes tattooed on the backs of their necks in the late 90s so I'm sure contacltless isn't too much of a leap ;p

Makes me think of the chip shop in my parent's village last year when takeaways were allowed to open.

Refused to do anything electronically. No idea whether it was unfamiliarity of net banking witchcraft  or wanting to keep everything cash for dodgy tax reasons (tbf it's most likely to be the former...)

Their "Infection control measures" required customers to hold up exact change/modern plastic notes to a staff member behind a window Lion King stylee, throw it into a big mixing bowl full of bleach once they received a suspicious nod of approval and get their order placed on a small shelf in front of a hatch, which was slammed shut before the customer could approach and collect their chippy.

Nice one

what, like saying £870 in cash or £870 + vat otherwise? That means  tax fraud to me.

being extremely charitable he could be offering to give you a price inclusive of vat for £870, ie covering the vat himself.

My father in the 1970s just after VAT was introduced in the 1970s and when the threshold for registering was comparatively high compared to the income of jobbing painters took a very dim view of a painter he employed trying to charge him VAT.

I don’t climb mountains any more, though did walk up Orrest Head today.

So what you’re saying is because some people don’t pay what they should, other people end up paying more than they should.

How do you get cash?

By keeping it under the mattress.  And of course by asking for cash payments.

She is in her 70s at least, drives an ancient ex army landrover - the same one she had when  I first met her 40 years ago.  She wears clothing that looks like its been robbed off a scarecrow.  Her and her husband run the  old farm they own (the quarry is on a hillside on their land) and she does most of the quarrying.  A mobile phone wouldn't last 5 seconds up there.  She did have an old Nokia one year, but it got crushed by mistake.  She has moved with the times though as I noticed recently she was wearing neoprene safety wellies.

You don't remember the banking crisis all them years ago then.  Carnt trust them bankers and they don't give interest these days.  People likes cash up here.

Yeah. 

But aren't they the same banks you get your cash from or put your cheque into that also carry out electronic transaction? Different medium, same bank! Cash machines were turned off at Northern Rock.

Whilst I have sympathy for the position. You are facing an almost inevitable  uphill struggle to keep that cash side of things going.The bank branch network in rural areas is closing down. I assume you are below 60.You really need to start getting familarr with the technology or you will be struggling in a couple of years time, whether you like it or not.

I assume the farmer still farm and use fangled things like computers to submit returns to DEFRA etc. You really cannot avoid digital technology in the farming community. My sister married into it ( her father in law just passed away and he was 94 and had to cope with computers until he stopped farming a few years ago) . .My brother in law who is embedded into the farming community has his own agricultural merchants business.he resisted the change for year until Covid struck, and swithced effortlessly to online payments etc. So I do not buy that type of farming etc story.

And before I forget. She will be entitled to a state pension at that age. I bet its paid into her account digitally and that she does not pop down to the Post Office and queue for the cash.

Not saying that at all. I've been paying into the French tax system for nearly 20 years. We all know how it works. Everyone, and I mean all my tradesmen buddies down the bar.
Personally I'm happy with whatever they do, happy with how much tax I pay and generally just happy, even though our French business pays more tax than out UK business.

Why? because like I said higher up. We've no potholes, no litter, our village sports facilities are immaculate, sending my daughter to creche was 60 cents and hour (True that!) and if I want to speak to my GP face to face without an appoitment I could do as soon as 9am tomorrow morning.

E

Did those same trade people not instigate a backlash when Macron etc proposed an increase in petrol duty..............

Thats why its a good idea to keep cash under bed.  Only 2 banks now in our nearest town.

Accountant deals with all that stuff.  Pay him cash too.  You don't get Luck Money back if you pay with cheque or Direct Debit - only cash.

"Only foreigners and criminals use cash" . Heard in Sweden,  who are few years ahead with going cashless.  Which are you !?

Heard in Sweden?  I live in the UK. So it doesn't apply here.  Are you aware that shops normally accept cash??  Are they criminals too?  

I accept what you say but some firms doing this will also be paying those young people in cash and not paying NI contributions leaving them proteconless if injured etc

Our tills threw a little wobbler recently so we could only take cash payments for a short while until IT came into work at 9am. There's a cash machine in store but for some customers it was an assault on their personal dignity. Never mind people are dieing, they must tap their little card at all costs.

I am with you Bill. I much prefer cash for some transactions. If we ever go cashless then I aim to either buy gold and silver for exchange and/or set up a barter system.

My local village shop which sells just about anything and is a popular stop for morning coffee, filled bread rolls, fags and beer amongst the real working population has no electronic payment facility whatsoever and long may it continue (the shopkeeper is 94 though so I'm not too optimistic!). F#cking tap and pay yuppies!

Post office, what’s that ( or, where’s that )

Don’t think they pay state pension into a Post Office any more. As of a few months ago it needed to go into a bank account. They even offered to close your Post Office account for you.