/ Goldman Sachs bonuses delayed to get a further tax break.

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Jim C - on 15 Jan 2013
So the people who have caused so many problems for the country and have been rewarded by bail outs continue to get huge bonuses and are about to get a Tory tax break for the rich, now want to delay the bonus to take further advantage of the tax break, manipulating the system to save tax on their bonus.

Even the Governor of the Bank of England has 'got mildly irritated about it.

Are you mildly irritated?
Coel Hellier - on 15 Jan 2013
In reply to Jim C:

> Are you mildly irritated?

Nope. For example I've timed the selling of shares with regard to the beginning and end of the tax year. Further, the tax rate they'll pay on the bonuses, 45%, is higher than the tax rate they'd have paid throughout most of the previous Blair/Brown governments. I find it hard to regard a 45% tax rate as too low.
thin bob on 15 Jan 2013
In reply to Jim C:
Yes. HMRC are looking into it, supposedly. Though what they can do, I dunno.
Wiley Coyote - on 15 Jan 2013
In reply to Jim C:
Not me. People will get all worked up because of the size of the figures involved and because we are talking about bankers but take a step back. Is delaying payment by a few weks to pay less tax any different in principle from me buying stuff early to avoid the well-publicised rise in VAT (as I did)? I can't see the difference myself.
Tall Clare - on 15 Jan 2013
In reply to Jim C:

Seems like a surprisingly transparent move, by banking industry standards.
Chateauneuf du Boeuf - on 15 Jan 2013
In reply to Jim C: I'm more than mildly irritated by the government. The actions of Goldman don't surprise me, they have shown no remorse and the fact they are trying to pay as little to rectifying the mess they had a hand in creating doesn't surprise me in the least.

I'm not necessarily against a 45% tax rate but coupled with such low wealth taxes it seems perverse.
Dave Garnett - on 15 Jan 2013
In reply to Jim C:

I only hope my employers have the wit to delay my bonus until after April 5th. In fact, I'll give my finance office a call to ensure that they do.
JLS on 15 Jan 2013
In reply to Jim C:

I wonder how many bankers are thinking...

Now, if I could repay all last year's salary back to my employer on the 5th of April and then have it re-paid to me on 6th April would I be entitled to a tax rebate?
Chateauneuf du Boeuf - on 15 Jan 2013
In reply to Jim C: Just heard on radio, they've decided to pay the bonus now.
neilh - on 15 Jan 2013
In reply to Chateauneuf du Boeuf:

To be honest its probably all a sham. GS are so ahead of everybody else, they will have worked out that this is good publicity.
Chateauneuf du Boeuf - on 15 Jan 2013
In reply to neilh: I'm not sure it comes across as good publicity, I'd say on balance bad. They weren't so far ahead of everyone else in 2008 except in maybe knowing they were too big to fail.
Jim C - on 15 Jan 2013
In reply to Chateauneuf du Boeuf:
> (In reply to Jim C) Just heard on radio, they've decided to pay the bonus now.

Must have been that 'savaging' they got from from Mervyn , that made them think again, did you hear/ see it ? It was a killer blow , so how could they go against him after oratory like that;)

Sam_in_Leeds - on 15 Jan 2013
In reply to Jim C:

Don't recall GS getting any money from the UK taxpayer?
bouldery bits - on 15 Jan 2013
In reply to Jim C:

Wouldn't you? Know I would. Rules are rules, play by them.
The problem is the rules, not GS.
Jim C - on 15 Jan 2013
In reply to bouldery bits:
> (In reply to Jim C)
>
> Wouldn't you? Know I would. Rules are rules, play by them.
> The problem is the rules, not GS.

So do you think , for example, Jimmy Carr was therefore stupid to stop what he was doing with his tax 'arrangements' as there were no rules to prevent him, it was pressure from David Cameron and others that seemed to stop him.

For some reason, GS have now decided that they will not delay their bonus to take advantage of what was already a windfall that some may think they were lucky to be getting, so I take it you think this was a bad decision, and one you would not have made in their position.
ads.ukclimbing.com
bouldery bits - on 16 Jan 2013
In reply to Jim C:

Yep. Neither was breaking 'the rules'. No reason to have changed their arrangements.

Cameron's dad has a few quid offshore (panama mostly) so it's a bit rich using him as any sort of example.

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.