Throughout our 55 years of marriage, my husband and I have never once cheated on our taxes. Now the man who mows and trims our lawn has asked us to pay him in cash instead of by check. We have little doubt as to why he has made this request. My husband feels very uncomfortable with this, but I disagree. This man is a landscape service of one and most likely only makes a modest income. It makes me angry to see the number of obscenely rich Americans continue to rise while most people, like him, work hard and long and likely have to pay for their own health insurance. If he wants to nick a bit off the I.R.S.’s take, it may be illegal, but I don’t consider it immoral. What is the right thing to do in this situation? — Name Withheld
From the Ethicist:
You and your husband set a great example. We all share a collective responsibility to fund our public services, and we do so with a system, highly imperfect but arrived at through democratic means, that determines what each of us owes. Most Americans honor this commitment — about 85 percent of taxes owed in the United States are paid voluntarily and on time. Even when we’re struggling financially, avoiding taxes shifts burdens to our fellow citizens.
Beyond that? I get your anger, but the way to fix a flawed system is through democratic reform, not some individual act of noncompliance. Bear in mind, too, that people with truly modest incomes typically face very low effective tax rates and stand a good chance of receiving more back, through refundable credits, than they pay in.
For someone like your landscaper, underreporting can create long-term costs as well. Social Security calculates retirement benefits based on your highest 35 years of reported earnings, and while lower earners typically receive a higher replacement rate of their income, unreported wages still reduce total benefits. If your landscaper earns $60,000 a year but only reports $30,000, he’s not gaming the system in the long run — he’s instead permanently reducing his own benefits. The same goes for Social Security Disability Insurance, which he might especially need in the future given the physical demands of landscaping work, and which he may not qualify for without sufficient years of reported earnings. Underreporting also makes it harder to get mortgages, car loans or even to rent apartments.
For all that, you shouldn’t jump to conclusions about your landscaper’s request for cash. According to the F.D.I.C., about 5.6 million U.S. households had no bank or credit-union account in 2023, and check-cashing services charge fees that can be burdensome for people with modest incomes. Even if tax avoidance is the lawn guy’s motivation, nobody is asking you to falsify records. You’re not obligated to police anyone’s tax compliance. You may pay him as he prefers, and let him tend to his own financial garden.
Readers Respond
The previous question was about whether wealthy families can ask for special privileges at public schools. A reader wrote: “My children attend a public elementary school in one of the country’s largest school systems. The school is notably diverse; more than 40 percent of the students are low-income … while a sizable minority come from upper income brackets and live in million-dollar homes. … There is a tendency for some parents — most of whom are affluent and highly educated — to request that their children be placed with the “best” teacher each year. In some cases, these parents have threatened to leave the school if their children are not given their preferred teacher. … The school’s administration often acquiesces because it is in the school’s interest to retain these wealthier and better-educated families. This is done to bolster the school’s reputation, and because these affluent parents contribute time and money to the Parent Teacher Association. … Is this behavior on the part of parents and school administrators justified?”
In his response, the Ethicist noted: “Morally speaking, parents are not just permitted but required to have special concern for their own children. Yet that partiality is limited by general moral duties. … Rightful partiality does not justify depriving other children of their proper share. … Accordingly, we have an obligation to respect reasonable rules of fairness in the institutions we engage with. If a school would normally allocate students to teachers in a roughly fair manner — considering all children’s interests equally — then pressuring the school to violate these procedures for your child’s advantage crosses an ethical line. … When parents implicitly threaten to withdraw financial support unless their children receive preferential treatment, they engage in something akin to extortion.” (Reread the full question and answer here.)
⬥
To the Ethicist’s point, parents should and will always advocate for their children. It’s up to principals to solve this problem — first by consistently saying no to parents who try to push them. Creating a school culture where this kind of request is unacceptable takes it off the table. Threats should not dictate school policy. — Diane
⬥
Sadly, many parents are not educators and don’t realize the care that goes into creating a cohort that best fits a teacher’s strengths and the students’ needs. The “best” teacher is seldom going to be a universal fit for all learners. It is entirely possible that the parents who insist on choosing their child’s teacher are doing a disservice to both the school community and their own child. — Lessly
⬥
My three kids attended a public school that was similar to the one the letter writer describes. Our family was among the more affluent, and I was very involved with the P.T.A. and fund-raising. Yet I never once requested a specific teacher for any of my children. I knew that my kids already had access to plenty of other opportunities that were not available to their lower-income peers. Many of my friends thought I was crazy to not use my “leverage.” — Denise
⬥
Our school district is similar; it’s quite diverse with large numbers of poorer, largely immigrant families, and also has a primarily white and affluent upper crust. But instead of the affluent families demanding ad hoc special treatment, the district itself implements “magnet” programs populated overwhelmingly by the affluent students. Is that a more ethical result? The only difference is that the rules allow it. — John
⬥
I worked for 10 years in such a public school in a large city. Just say no to the affluent parents. If the school is as good as its reputation, there will be plenty of other families who would be happy to take the places of those who prefer to switch to expensive private schools. — Ann
Kwame Anthony Appiah is The New York Times Magazine’s Ethicist columnist and teaches philosophy at N.Y.U. To submit a query, send an email to [email protected].
The post Our Gardener Wants to Avoid Taxes. Should We Pay Him in Cash? appeared first on New York Times.
