Thin end of the wedge

[octave]

Just getting back to the original subject, and I know many will disagree with me.    

 

I  am just having some work done on the outside of my house.  Our neighbour was going to have some work done, and we said, "We need that too" We suggested that they do our place at the same time. Because of this, we did not really get too involved as we normally would have.

The job finishes today, and I asked them when we would receive a bill.   "Got to be cash, mate" Apart from a mad scurry to the post office (we usually don't use cash and in any case would not keep this much lying around the house), it does raise many issues for me.

The original quote had an amount for GST. When I expressed surprise that they only take cash, the GST portion suddenly disappeared. This suggests to me that if I hadn't questioned it, they would have charged GST and not passed it on to the ATO.

Are they going to willingly give me a receipt? What if the repair turns out to be faulty?

Do they even have their own liability insurance?

Are they unfairly competing with businesses that take a more professional approach?

 

Had we been organising this ourselves, we would not have chosen these people, although the work does look good.

When people are told that they must pay cash, I think this leads them to believe they are actually getting the same job done cheaper; this may or may not be the case, but perhaps you shouldn't assume without comparing it to legit tradespeople.

When I was teaching music, I did get some of my pay in cash (although this was always a pain), but I certainly never would have NOT declared it. To me, this is like shoplifting, sure, you get something for nothing, but your fellow shoppers, or, in this case,  fellow taxpayers, are paying for it.

 

[facthunter]

The Bulk of the tax evasion is done legally by the RICH. Kerry Packer said it was OPTIONAL. GST gets it from people who may already be on an Aged Pension or disability. and NOT living very high on the Hog. With an ABN you don't Pay it. It's the TAX rich People Love. LOOK who introduced it and WANT to Increase it. Look where it is in the UK?.  A dead hand on everything and heaps of Paperwork for everybody. Nev

[octave]

I accept that tax evasion amongst the wealthy is far more costly to society.   If these particular tradies do all of their work cash in hand and therefore pay no or little income tax, isn't this unfare to nurses and teachers and other PAYE workers who pay taxes on their wages?

Edited 17 hours ago by octave

[facthunter]

 Octave , I'm not disputing it would be unfair to PAYE People and others who obey the Law. The same if they were not Paying their workers the right Wages, or stealing the Materials used on your job

  They would be running serious risks if their Invoices don't tally up with what they claim to be Happening. Supply companies in the Main, don't do unrecorded transfers. It's not worth the risk. Nev

[octave]

8 minutes ago, facthunter said:

They would be running serious risks if their Invoices don't tally up with what they claim to be Happening.

I have no idea if they will even issue an invoice.  I didn't organise these people but the work is not exactly rocket science, and thus far, the work seems reasonable.  To me bending tax rules makes me wonder what other rules are being bent.  How many of us ask an electrician or a plumber if they are licensed or not?  To me, the whole handing over of a wad of cash immediately after a job is done just seems dodgy. I would much prefer an itemised account emailed or posted to me, so I can consider the work done and materials used before I pay.

[facthunter]

I'm talking about their suppliers .   You didn't look hard enough at what you were getting into. It's too late to complain after the deed is done. I like to have references to Previous work. Repairing a bad job is often harder than doing it right first time. I'm aware that you consider the Job itself is done OK  but that was a bit of Luck. Nev

[octave]

2 minutes ago, facthunter said:

I'm talking about their suppliers .   You didn't look hard enough at what you were getting into. It's too late to complain after the deed is done. I like to have references to Previous work. Repairing a bad job is often harder than doing it right first time. I'm aware that you consider the Job itself is done OK  but that was a bit of Luck. Nev

We are always pretty rigorous. There were circumstances in this case that led to this. I am not whinging specifically about these people.  It is more a comment about the cash in hand to avoid tax way of doing things. The job is fine (I have owner- built 2 houses) and I would have done it myself if the neighbours hadn't been doing the same job.

Don't overinterpret what I am saying.  My main comment is about the whole cash- in-hand way of operating, which, I believe, when it comes to building work, seems a little unprofessional. In all likelihood, the price is probably lower than someone who pays tax.  I think it is a fair comment.

The main inconvenience was having to go and draw out a wad of cash.

Just to reiterate, not a whinge, just an observation.

[facthunter]

I didn't say whinge either. I'm fairly careful with words.  I'm saying is IF what you think is widespread, they would be running a considerable risk of being detected.   Nev

[octave]

23 minutes ago, facthunter said:

I'm saying is IF what you think is widespread, they would be running a considerable risk of being detected.

I think the black (or shadow) economy is reasonably common.

 

"The black economy (also referred to as the shadow or underground economy) is estimated to cost Australia over $33 billion annually in lost tax revenue. Cash-in-hand transactions make up a significant portion of this, with the government estimating the shadow economy accounts for roughly 3% of the country's GDP. [1, 2]"

 

Cash in hand: how big is Australia’s black economy?

 

I think detection is not that easy. How many builders are forensically audited to match up materials purchased compared to earnings declared?  Nev, are you saying that the black economy does not exist or it is very small?   Even if it was very small, it doesn't make it right, does it? 

 

My main thesis is that I was not keen on the tradie insisting on being paid in cash and only in cash.  Am I being unreasonable?    

 

 

 

 

Edited 15 hours ago by octave

[facthunter]

How many times do you need to repeat it? I'm only trying to put it into perspective . Plenty of Tradies get Audited. It's a frequent thing for them.  YOU chose to go along with the arrangement thereby losing some of your rights. Sorry to be blunt about it. Nev

[octave]

20 minutes ago, facthunter said:

It's a frequent thing for them.  YOU chose to go along with the arrangement thereby losing some of your rights. Sorry to be blunt about it. Nev

Undeclared Wages: The practice of paying employees cash-in-hand to avoid income taxes and superannuation is highly prevalent in specific small-business and trade sectors. [1]

 

 

 

 

Nev you seem to think I am all bent of shape over this. You seem to think me an ignorant fool.  I told you how it came that we utilised this contractor. They have just about finished and the work is good (I say this as someone who has owner- built 2 properties)  I am saying I do not particularly like being forced to pay in cash and only cash.  I would suggest that the reason for this is pretty clear.   There are many people in this thread who have expressed displeasure with businesses who dont accept cash so I don't see that this is any different.

 

In terms of the black economy, I would suggest it is naive to say it rarely happens because businesses get audited.   The estimates for the black economy are out there for you to look at.

 

I am happy for you to disagree but, please don't treat me like a victim or an idiot.

 

Does anyone else think my point of view is unreasonable?

 

 

 

 

Edited 15 hours ago by octave

[willedoo]

3 hours ago, octave said:

They have just about finished and the work is good (I say this as someone who has owner- built 2 properties)  I am saying I do not particularly like being forced to pay in cash and only cash. 

I've built one owner built house and at the time a lot of contractors offered a cash under the table deal, with the selling point being you save yourself 10% GST. One problem with that is that when you eventually go to sell it, you've outlayed a lot of money and don't have any receipts for future CGT expense write-offs.

[willedoo]

There's always the house part and 2 Ha of it exempt, but there's sometimes situations like working away for a while and renting the house out, or running a business on the property for a period that would bring  CGT issue. In general, I never felt comfortable with the idea of having a lot of money outlayed with no receipts or proof of expenditure, for a few different reasons. I thought saving 10% wasn't worth the disadvantages on the other side of the coin.

[octave]

11 minutes ago, willedoo said:

There's always the house part and 2 Ha of it exempt, but there's sometimes situations like working away for a while and renting the house out,

 I was in exactly this position. it was 9 years ago now so I don't remember the fine detail, but  I did my own valuation and, from memory,  I cut my CGT down to about $1500. I think I was creative but just on the right side of legal.  I  used to worry that I would be audited, but 9 years later, I think I am good. 

Edited 11 hours ago by octave

[Jerry_Atrick]

In the event anything went awry with the job you would have to pick up the tab to make good.

 

A contract designed to avoid paying CGT is an illegal contract and totally unenforceable. 

 

Yes, they do rob other taxpayers and as a result, things like income tax rates and even CGT itself theoretically has to be higher.

 

Also my guess is should the taxman find out about it, you will have to cough up the GST + penalties + interest. Even if they charged you the CGT component as well.  In fact it is likely the extra 10% you would have paid had you not questioned it will be calculated as the invoiced amount and then the 10% applied to determine how much GST you initially owed.

 

I know this is something you wouldn't normally do, and as we all do, is a lapse.. but as they won't declare the job, they are increasing the casts they can offset against jobs they do put on the books, thereby reducing the tax they pay on those profits.. and by not putting that job on the books, they are also avoiding paying tax on the profits they make on that.

 

It adds up to more than the GST saved in lost tax revenue

 

 

Edited 46 minutes ago by Jerry_Atrick