Recently, I hired someone to do a one-off job for us – helping us move some furniture into our new apartment. When it came time to pay, they asked if I could just do it in cash instead of sending it through Venmo or Cash App. I had a strong suspicion – it was almost certainly to avoid reporting the income and paying taxes on it. On one side I feel like I shouldn't be involved in something that's clearly tax evasion, even if it's on a small scale. But on the other side, I see it differently. This person is just trying to make some money doing odd jobs, probably barely scraping by, especially with how expensive everything is now. They're working hard for it. It actually kind of makes me mad thinking about how much wealth is concentrated at the top, while people like this are hustling and likely don't have any kind of safety net or benefits. If they want to keep a little extra cash out of the government's pocket, yeah, maybe it's technically illegal, but it just doesn't feel immoral to me given the bigger picture. What should I do?
Dear Moving-Day Rebel,
Moral intuition makes an important (and intuitive) contribution to moral decisions. In cases such as yours, it is helpful to break down the situation into manageable parts, addressing each moral quandary in turn. I find two major tensions: the tension between your obligation to the government and your obligation to help your fellow man, and the tension between judging your action by itself and understanding it within the larger picture.
To address the first, philosophers vary dramatically in how much importance they place on obedience to the state, from Socrates, who went willingly to his wrongful death sentence, to Robert Paul Wolff, who argues that there is no obligation to follow the law whatsoever. Others take a more moderate route: the 20th century American philosopher John Rawls, for instance, says that civil disobedience is moral if it follows certain rules, and is undertaken by groups in a principled manner. Here are some questions that Rawls may have asked you: is the state’s tax policy, as you suggest, truly unjust? Or, at least, do you truly believe it to be unjust? If so, are you taking your action in response to that injustice? And, would you still stand by your action if it was publicly known? If you answered ‘yes’ to all of these questions, then, according to Rawls, paying in cash, even for the express purpose of enabling your mover to evade taxes, would be justified. But your situation does not conform perfectly with Rawls’ definition of civil disobedience. For one, your situation is neither orchestrated for the purpose of protest, nor part of a larger group of actions. Perhaps most importantly, it is not directly disobedient at all, since you have no way of knowing whether paying in cash will actually facilitate tax evasion.
With regard to the second tension, for you to pay in cash for services rendered would constitute neither tax evasion nor even accessory to tax evasion, since you have no way of knowing, and no reason to believe, that the mover wants you to pay in cash so that they can evade taxes. Paying in cash is perfectly legal, provided, of course, that the goods and services rendered are legal.
To what extent can we reliably infer the intentions of others? To what degree are we responsible for the moral choices of others? Many philosophers – Plato, Kant, Augustine – say that we ought to promote and improve the moral character of others where possible. So, denying someone the opportunity to break the law in the first place – in your case, by refusing to pay with cash, which cannot be traced – would be advisable, or even necessary, in view of that obligation. But Kant also places a great deal of emphasis on autonomy: in his view, people develop moral character by choosing between good and evil. Perhaps, then, the best way to promote someone’s moral character would then be to place them in situations in which they must make moral choices – for example, paying in cash, and giving them the opportunity to evade taxes.
There is no single way to approach, or to answer, this question. Instead, reflect on your own moral beliefs and values and how they are applicable to the situation at hand. You can use philosophical concepts like Rawls’ civil disobedience, or Kant’s duty to help others, as structures with which to organize your thoughts. What is most important to you in the end?
-The Principled Thinker