Cash-in-hand work condemned as 'morally wrong' by Treasury minister
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.The practice of paying workmen “cash in hand” was condemned as “morally wrong” today by a Treasury minister.
David Gauke’s comments came as he signalled fresh action to tackle tax avoidance by the super-rich, including a crackdown on unscrupulous tax avoiders.
But the Exchequer Secretary made clear he also had the less wealthy in his sights as he attacked the widespread use of cash to settle bills from plumbers, builders and domestic staff.
Mr Gauke told reporters: “Getting a discount with your plumber by paying cash in hand is something that is a big cost to the Revenue and means others must pay more in tax.”
Asked directly if he disapproved of the practice, he replied: “Yes, I think it’s morally wrong.”
He added: “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.”
Mr Gauke confirmed moves, in a speech to the think-tank Policy Exchange, to “name and shame” companies which fail to disclose the use of tax-avoidance schemes. The people behind them will be forced to take personal liability for promoting them.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments