Your thoughts on cash-in-hand job?

• 1
• 2

• • 

    BargainBob999 on 02/09/2014 - 03:12

    Do you know the casual pay rates. Most employers will tell you the full time or part time rates and pay that to casual employers. They rip you off sooooo bad.

• 

  [Deactivated] on 01/09/2014 - 02:28

  If it is, why aren't the government do something serious about it?

  Because the government isn't an all seeing organisation that knows what all people are doing at all times. The only way they could find out is if one of the parties was to declare it somewhere.

  cash-in-hand is a risky proposition: you could get injured and you'd have no access to support or the employer could stiff you on your pay and you'd have basically zero legal recourse.

• 

  adante on 01/09/2014 - 06:20

  +1

  this is a derail out of curiousity (from a sociological standpoint) - can you give a definition or examples of some jobs you consider illegitimate but legal? I have some notions but don't want to prime an answer.

  • 

    [Deactivated] on 01/09/2014 - 12:03

    How can something be illegitimate but legal? Illegitimate means against the law:

    adjective:
    not authorized by the law; not in accordance with accepted standards or rules.

    A job is anything someone is willing to do to get paid/compensated by someone else. If you simply meant "the kinds of jobs that shouldn't exist, but do": A "life coach" is a stupid job. Social media manager is a dumb title; it's really just "PR".

    Do you mean stuff like that?

  • 

    Boshait on 01/09/2014 - 20:24

    Well children can be illegitimate but not illegal.

  • 

    Baghern on 02/09/2014 - 09:49

    That's quite a subjective

    Kinda like how much freedom?

    100% freedom = Anarchy,

    The only way you can really change most people is by developing our culture, then enforcing it onto the next generation.

    We need to differentiate between need and greed, helping those who are in need, minimizing the wealth gap, removing envy/greed yet ensuring progress

• 

  charzy on 01/09/2014 - 08:00

  +3

  If an employer pays a employee cash-in-hand, I can't really see the employer benefiting unless the business income stream is undeclared, which is a different story.
  Employer still pays tax on the cash they pay the employee, as it's from their own pocket; and normally they would be in top/2nd highest tax bracket.
  If the employer pays by the books, the 'cash-in-hand amount' becomes an expense to the business, effectively tax deductible to the business' profit figures before going to the employer. They pay a bit more but it becomes a deduction to the final profits which the owner would have received anyway.
  Cash-in-hand doesn't really benefit the employer when you take this into account, but can greatly benefit the employee due to other benefits as mentioned.
  The employer not declaring the income to pay the cash in hand is a different story.

  • 

    Eivad on 01/09/2014 - 08:33

    +1

    Yup, this. Everyone says it benefits the employer more than the employee to pay cash in hand. It will only do so if it allows the employer to pay significantly below the market value. Otherwise, the employer is better off to declare the wages and salaries paid to the tax office (provided they are registered for PAYG Withholding) and claim it back as an expense on their income statement.

    • 

      Boshait on 01/09/2014 - 20:38

      Both can be better off because they are cutting out the government. Compare
      (1) A tries to pay B $90k, but G takes $30k (tax) from B and gives back $22k to A (tax deductions net payroll tax etc), with
      (2) A pays B $65k. G gets nothing.

      • 

        charzy on 01/09/2014 - 22:32

        +1

        In scenario (1) A gets back more than $22k, employer is going to be in the higher tax bracket than B which means = or greater than 30k return.

      • 

        VFM on 01/09/2014 - 23:26

        In the books, A still has the 90k and if A is showing a profit, it will be taxed at 30%. If A is making a loss, it might make a bit of short term sense.

        Either way, A has to explain where the 65k went.

        Unless…
        Which brings us back to the source where the money was not booked in the first place.

  • 

    shaiguy on 01/09/2014 - 12:14

    Charzy is spot on… also there is a risk albeit a minor one that if sht ever hits the fan and you are doing it on a LONG TIME basis that the police/ATO may get you to explain how you have paid for assets and potentially reclaim them. I know of a story of someone who's parents' place got re-possessed by the ATO/AFP given that their parents had been doing sewing at home for a number of years and were paid cash in hand. The employer denied any knowledge and the police investigated it as their child had been in trouble for minor drug offences. It was re-possessed on the basis that the assets must have been paid for by the proceeds of crime.

• 

  shortgum on 01/09/2014 - 08:46

  worked for coaching college. the owner used to give me cash. feel really dodgy but didnt say anything. no idea why. could be some plan to save outgoings or tax

• 

  biozet on 01/09/2014 - 08:54

  when strippers get cash put in their underclothes what is that called?

  • 

    shortgum on 02/09/2014 - 10:53

    booby bonus

  • 

    mousie on 02/09/2014 - 14:51

    +1

    it's not cash in the hand, it's cash in the box

  • 

    Davo1111 on 04/09/2014 - 19:22

    Well they're supposed to declare those takings.

    You might find the house gets a cut of the stripper cash, so they have a way of putting that on your group certificate

• 

  Kevan2 on 01/09/2014 - 10:52

  +1

  Any employer who employ employees in underhand cash in hand and no superannuation are mad.

  If employee is injured or killed the employer has taken on the responsibility of the payment of what superannuation insurances that should have been in the composlary super policy.

  Make the bastards pay?!.?,

  • 

    BargainBob999 on 02/09/2014 - 03:16

    Make the bastards pay or rat them out.

    • 

      Davo1111 on 04/09/2014 - 19:21

      or kill yourself at work

      #yolo
      

• 

  [Deactivated] on 01/09/2014 - 13:01

  There is a big risk to businesses too. Not sure if cash in hand was involved in the story I linked to but there is possibility that there is, and similar risk whether or not cash in hand played a part.

  http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/noodle…

• 

  BargainBob999 on 02/09/2014 - 03:19

  I would say, go work keep records and report to ATO. And make sure you pay tax and sue them bastards for super any underpaid amounts.

• 

  random110 on 02/09/2014 - 08:41

  As people have said, it has its risks - for both the business and the worker.

  Federal and state tax authorities can issue assessments based on estimates, apply penalties of 90%+ plus interest at 10%+ going back at least 5 years. Longer if they can prove a deliberate tax default.

  And to the people saying tax avoidance (as opposed to evasion) is legal - that may be strictly true but it won't matter one bit when the tax investigator chooses to apply one of the many anti-avoidance provisions including the all powerful 'general anti-avoidance' provision.

• 

  love2buy on 02/09/2014 - 09:54

  Why don't we just go back to bartering for things so we can avoid cash and tax altogether?

• 

  biozet on 02/09/2014 - 14:13

  doesn't tax create cool stuff?

• 

  oO0Dam0Oo on 03/09/2014 - 06:35

  +2

  Plenty of people here on "student visas" working close to full time hours being paid cash in hand notably the transport, hospitality & fruit picking industry. Even large corporations (eg one that delivers mail) utilizing contractors with owners paying student visa candidates cash money. You would think they would be all over this. And everyday Aussies wonder why their income has not increased in the last 8 years in this industry.

• 

  Davo1111 on 04/09/2014 - 19:29

  Just to remind people, getting paid in cash isn't actually illegal. Declaring income incorrectly and not paying the tax to the ATO IS illegal

  People might prefer to be paid in cash, saves them going to the bank. Saves the employer from carrying the takings to the bank. The downside of paying in cash is that there is no financial paper trail. And if the worker claims they're not paid, there is a he said/she said blame game. Hence why most will get you to sign something.

  The thing is, generally, if you're paid in cash, it probably IS because they're not paying tax.

• 

  Azn310 on 09/09/2014 - 23:53

  Thank you everyone for your opinions. It is very eye opening to have some perspectives into this subject and I have discovered something new. So thank you and hug, to all.

• 1
• 2