Ethics Discussion
Is it ethical to pay a vendor in cash in order to get a substantial discount (e.g. 25%) even when one has a pretty good guess the vendor is accepting the cash and giving the discount in order to cheat on taxes and perhaps other laws? Ignore the business reliability questions this raises (e.g. if one thinks the vendor is cheating Uncle Sam, doesn't this make it more likely he will also cheat me?). Just pure ethics -- how responsible might one be for this vendor's illegal actions, and if one is, how sure would one have to be that the vendor has illegal intentions for this responsibility to cut in.
Would you buy jewelry from someone on a street corner who keeps it in his with cash? You have no idea where he got it so it is OK, right. Not your problem! You think the police who see you do this and arrest you as well as the goods supplier and the district attourney who prosecutes you for this are wrong for doing so? Just a stupid anti libertarian law?
That is interesting in that the doctor's rate for my area is about $120 per hour, and the insurance reimburses them about $80. If they give a 20% cash discount to non-insurance members they still get $98 which would be more than the insurance pays. So it really isn't a discount, It is a markup for cash payers. The high price is a pretend price which is part of a game with the insurance companies who demand 30% or whatever discounts.
I see this a lot lately, I agree with it, but I am still saddened by it.
What has happened to western civ?
Or was it always doomed to become yet another thieving state? This is it, I think, and the fault is mine for expecting the beast to be other than a beast, except when worming its way into our affections.
Two people are holding their hands out.
One is giving away what he ought not give, having taken it by force from fellow citizens on the grounds of urgent need.
The other is accepting what is freely offered.
Who is the evildoer?
So the government tells 51% of the voters that they will get 'free' money and then tell the remaining 49% that they will pay for the 'free' money. This is referred to as deciding what we need to pay.
One of the carpenters that built our house wanted to be paid in cash for the last two months of the year to stay under some income limit. We said: “ Well, to compensate for the risk we would be taking for doing something illegal, we would want to split 50/50 the savings you would get on state/local/FICA taxes so we would pay you $17 per hour rather than the normal $25. “
And that was the last we heard about the proposal.
Western Civilization abandoned rationalism when the Classical Liberals won the intellectual debate and decided that reason should be set aside so that noble progressive goals could be pursued by the intellectual class and political rulers. The natural law traditions that had been moving us towards more and more individual liberty was replaced by positivism and wishful thinking.
"Would you buy jewelry from someone on a street corner who keeps it in his with cash?"
No, but I would be more concerned about it being fake than stolen.
"You think the police who see you do this and arrest you as well as the
goods supplier and the district attourney who prosecutes you for this
are wrong for doing so?"
If the have specific probable cause to believe the jewelry is stolen, and enough evidence after investigation to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt in court, then no.
The mere fact of a guy selling jewelry on a street corner for cash isn't enough for probable cause.
In any case, that's a legal issue, not an ethical issue. They aren't the same thing. Something can be legal and still unethical and even illegal and still ethical.
PS. I just looked it up. I don't, know about where you are, but in my state (Wisconsin) to convict on receiving stolen property, they have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you had actual knowledge the goods were stolen, not suspected and not should have known, actual knowledge.
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/943/III/34/1
The key word in that is debts.
A point of sale retail transaction is not a debt.
Also, while it would be illegal for a US creditor to turn down an offer of payment in US Currency, it would not be illegal for them to ask to be paid in chickens.
Seat belts are a joke. If they were really serious about safety you would have a 5 point harness. It would be safer and more comfortable. A few years ago the car I was driving was rear ended. I had my seat belt on. When I got hit, the back of my seat broke and I slid right out from under the seat belt.
Like I myself said above, there are exceptions.
I've survived three major accidents -- as in, car had to be towed away. In fact, two of them left not a scratch on me. I credit (among other things) my seat belt.
We're not talking about government demands. The original question posted here is about our own ethical feelings.
Just to make it clear, I don't go around telling my fellow citizens that they, too, should be upset at merchants who want to be paid in cash for purposes of tax evasion.
Yeah, health insurance adds a whole new universe -- not just one dimension -- to the picture.
But the next question is: Does the doctor want payment in greenbacks as opposed to a check or credit/debit card?
I'm sure the theater also reserves some seats for walking purchases the day of the performance.
Honestly, at the Orpheum lately, I think the simplest explanation is that a lot of people bought subscriptions so they'd be assured Hamilton tickets, then threw away their Finding Neverland tickets (or tried to dump them on StubHub).
The increasing "economy of the future" - especially when factoring in all the "student loaners in default" is/will be . . . ."System D". Bring it on, bring it on! Hoo-wah.
Isn't the underlying question whether your ethical code generally acknowledges a duty to pay taxes? If so, then it seems unethical. If not, then you are just assisting the vendor in avoiding an unethical or ethically neutral imposition on him.
The same question applies to "laws" more generally. Is there an ethical duty to adhere to governmentally promulgated laws (as such, not just when they happen to be congruent with ethical demands or laws for which you acknowledge another source, like natural law or divine law).
Cash-only would not be the way to go if a business wants to cheat on taxes; if it reports no receipts, the IRS will be on it as soon as they become aware it exists, and if it reports part of the cash receipts plus expenses paid only in cash, I'd expect the IRS to try to verify both of those amounts. Possibly successful cheaters report all the credit card and check receipts, and part of their cash receipts, while running all expenses through a bank account to create a profile of a normal but not very profitable business in the bank records.
I see no obligation to help the IRS collect from others. There is so much government spending that is counterproductive that depriving the government of a few dollars is not "stealing from all of us." It's just risky and often stupid.
However, there is a hazard in buying from vendors with cash. The IRS's computers try to match up the expenses you deduct with the receipts they report. If the vendor is cheating, an auditor is likely to show up asking to see proof of your expenses; a receipt slip plus a check, credit card payment, or other bank record is far more convincing than the receipt alone.
Can they not take legal tender?
What if its not for tax purposes but for income purposes.
Say, this guy knows he gets a full ACA subsidy if he keeps his income low enough.
Heck, there could be weird situations where the extra money wouldn't move the tax needle much, but could lead to increased healthcare premiums.
I had en employee get raises and suddenly be off Medicaid...sticker shock ensued.
"and if it reports part of the cash receipts plus expenses paid only in
cash, I'd expect the IRS to try to verify both of those amounts."
It would be exceedingly difficult for the government to prove that there was extra cash income.
They can look for spending in excess of the reported income.
Given what we know about how our tax money is used and abused the question might be better phrased "Is it ethical not to help one's vendor (or anyone else for that matter) avoid taxes?"
Does one not have an ethical obligation to limit how much of one's money is used for the destructive purposes the federal government puts it to, by whatever means necessary?
Why is it unethical to pay cash for a transaction? How the vendor handles the reporting is his business. End of story.
There is a pretty good movie called Indecent Proposal that poses the same question, that is, in making a moral decision, should the scope or payoff play in the decision-making process. "How honest are you?" is a different question from "Are you honest?" In the above case, I hold with the following: if you know the discount is due to tax avoidance, it's not ethical. If you are speculating, well, then it really is between the seller and his conscience. Any time you get a really good deal, it's worthwhile to find out why the great discount..it could be a stolen item.
No silly, cash discounts are to avoid paying credit card fees.
No, you need to lobby your representatives and work to change things. Recall that some time ago it was considered ethical and hip to refuse to pay that portion of your taxes that went to the military.
Taxes themselves are unethical. Therefore when someone avoids taxes they are being ethical. Therefore when you do business with people that are avoiding taxes you are ethical. The only question is whether you want to take the risk of doing business or running your business in an ethical way, i.e, by avoiding taxes. I wouldn't take the chance myself since my physical freedom is important to me. So, I'm willing to be unethical to keep my physical freedom.
Sorry Audrey but if you believe that 'your representatives' care about anyone who does not pay them off you are deluded. As I said, if someone offers me a better deal if I pay in cash, I will take it. So will most people.
Don't give up on the system. My rep: McMorris Rogers, has listened to me and taken some unpopular stands on disability issues, as have our state legislators. Of course, being from conservative Eastern Washington means they have stronger moral compasses than the corrupt lefties on the coasts.
funny question you pose here, but the answer is no. Authors figure if the tens of thousands of libraries buy copies, they come out ahead.
Hi Jon49. Taxes are not unethical: think roads, bridges, armed forces, mental hospitals...our federal government using its taxing authority to line the pockets of corporations (windmills, solar farms), that's unethical, or force us to buy health insurance, that's unethical. But taxes are not. We passed a local tax to fund transportation for students, people with disabilities, and seniors. Is that tax unethical? Question for you: is money the root of all evil or is money evil?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9yX248DC3k
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EiNGnNRADwk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lA_Yl_JCdFg
Hope that helps :-)
I think that you are making my point for me. McMorris Rogers is a politician who engages in wasting taxpayer earnings on useless activities. She loves spending on military activities and has voted to have the government intervene in the economy. She is a RINO who is sometimes difficult to tell apart from a typical interventionist Democrat.
https://goo.gl/Gn9CfM&ewjzj
https://goo.gl/W6L5Pq&mica
https://goo.gl/Hwkm6X&axisa
https://goo.gl/adf1Cf&opexu
https://goo.gl/cd1qj5&jpux
https://goo.gl/MMbE3o&avjr
https://goo.gl/gkkwek&toki
https://goo.gl/exMSRx&ateka
https://goo.gl/7mqApY&sygar
https://goo.gl/r165n1&fuhiw