Buying land and paying part in cash normal?

chand, you judge. I describe. First perceive how it is. Whether it being as it is is good, is another matter. What you say is true. However, the description of reality is also correct. And I think it is also true that you will never be able to completely eliminate it, except with drastic surveillance methods or abolishing cash. The majority of the people do not want either...why do you think that is? We are back at the beginning...Karsten

chand, you judge. I describe.

True. I judge what you describe. There seems to be agreement on the judgment?

But your contribution also contains a – humorously valuable – judgment. To describe exactly mafia-like behavior to show that it has nothing to do with the mafia is: funny. And a value judgment.

What you describe is an arrangement of many accomplices who are connected by collective looking away and thus form a community that is protected above all by its silence. What does that sound like? You don't have to kill someone to do structurally the same as the mafia.

The problem is obvious: In the illegal realm, things eventually become socially acceptable even though they harm precisely that society. Doesn't everyone do that? I do too...

And I think it is also true that one will never be able to completely eliminate this except with drastic surveillance methods or the abolition of cash.

Completely never. But turning broadly accepted legal violations back into a more or less shunned matter is not an action that depends only on the state's informational power or cash. I neither want to expand the one nor ban the other. But if all people who like to use public services (and feel completely justified in doing so) found it questionable if one were to block exactly the flow of funds into these services through illegal actions themselves, we would be further along.
But then the objection always comes with the word "moralist" (which you perhaps mean as a description for someone, but which I consider a value judgment) and the approach is dead. Who wants to be a moralist, be considered one, or be associated with such?

Do we have different language sensibilities: Moralist is not negative to me, but someone who has moral principles. Moralapostel is already negative because it includes the urge to preach, that is a certain persistence. Quite negative. Hypocrite, that is someone who presents themselves as moral but does the opposite.

And one more thing: in psychoanalysis, there is the concept of exaggerated defense. So: I totally condemn something, I really make a fuss of disgust about it, which I actually find within myself, but do not want to admit in myself at all. If I then discover it outside myself, I lash out at him with a roar. Example: hatred of gays... is denial of one's own homosexual parts.----I wonder if that might also apply to tax matters? Smile.

Stupid question, the purchase price of the property is used by the bank when determining the conditions.

If something is paid under the table, the bank will not count it positively as equity.

Likewise, there may be a lack of equity in the construction.

Example: Hatred of gays...is denial of one's own homosexual parts.----I wonder if that also applies to tax matters? Smile.

You can feel one thing without acting on the other.

I too would find such a "tax saving offer" superficially tempting.
Saving money, everyone does it anyway, the state is greedy and can't handle the money, you'd rather be the villain than the fool (because otherwise someone else would do the business), etc.

Isn't that what distinguishes humans from animals: not following every impulse, but occasionally switching on the draft blocker between the ears? Self-reflection can only be done by the head, never by the gut.