'Britain is being raped by high taxes' says luvvie Ray Winstone

[MrSmith]

It's been spent.

 

It's probably massively smaller than the deficit. The deficit is not the debt, you need to know the difference.

The deficit is not the fault of the bankers at all.

 

Problem not addressed at all, just convenient scape goats punished.

 

I don't think some on here are capable of understanding the difference; they also fail to understand that bonuses are spent so contribute to GDP, take bonuses away and GDP will be lower and the recession they fear will be more likely.

[I1L2T3]

I don't think some on here are capable of understanding the difference; they also fail to understand that bonuses are spent so contribute to GDP, take bonuses away and GDP will be lower and the recession they fear will be more likely.

 

Maybe a proportion of bonuses are squirreled away offshore and never spent here. Many of the high earners in the city aren't even British. Just a thought!

 

---------- Post added 13-03-2013 at 07:49 ----------

 

O

It's been spent.

 

It's probably massively smaller than the deficit. The deficit is not the debt, you need to know the difference.

The deficit is not the fault of the bankers at all.

 

Problem not addressed at all, just convenient scape goats punished.

I agree that confiscating banker bonuses from previous years would be daft but you've got it wrong on the deficit. Some of the deficit will be caused by having to bail out the banks, for example debt interest on money borrowed for the bailouts.

[MrSmith]

Maybe a proportion of bonuses are squirreled away offshore and never spent here. Many of the high earners in the city aren't even British. Just a thought!

 

Bonuses are paid to bank workers, it would be unusual for a business to pay its workers more than necessary. Question why would the banks pay a bonus if it isn’t necessary?

 

Bonuses are income and as far as I know are taxable, so £45K is given to HMRC for every £100K in bonus.

 

If it isn’t given in bonuses the banks profits will be higher and I think corporate tax is lower than personal tax, so less tax to HMRC.

 

There is usually a surge in economic activity in London when bonuses are paid, so the money is being spent in London, increasing GDP.

 

If the bank didn’t pay the bonus there would be nothing stopping them squirreling it away offshore and not spending it here.

 

Bonuses drive up house prices in London, which helps to drive the economy, bad if you want affordable houses, good if you want GDP to grow.

[Mecky]

Bonuses are paid to bank workers, it would be unusual for a business to pay its workers more than necessary. Question why would the banks pay a bonus if it isn’t necessary?

 

Bonuses are income and as far as I know are taxable, so £45K is given to HMRC for every £100K in bonus.

 

If it isn’t given in bonuses the banks profits will be higher and I think corporate tax is lower than personal tax, so less tax to HMRC.

 

There is usually a surge in economic activity in London when bonuses are paid, so the money is being spent in London, increasing GDP.

 

If the bank didn’t pay the bonus there would be nothing stopping them squirreling it away offshore and not spending it here.

 

Bonuses drive up house prices in London, which helps to drive the economy, bad if you want affordable houses, good if you want GDP to grow.

 

Define necessary. I suspect your definition will be different from mine.

[Mister M]

I don't think some on here are capable of understanding the difference; they also fail to understand that bonuses are spent so contribute to GDP, take bonuses away and GDP will be lower and the recession they fear will be more likely.

 

There was an article in The Times a fortnight ago analysing the spending patterns of different income groups. Based on a number of studies it found thathigher income groups are more likely to spend on luxury import items, or invest money overseas rather than spend in the local economy.

Rather than bailing out the bankers which at 2009 figures cost the UK at least £850billion, maybe we should've given each person in this country 200 quid to spend on their local high street.

So much for trickle down

[Supertramp]

Define necessary. I suspect your definition will be different from mine.

 

Necessary to attract the best people.

 

---------- Post added 13-03-2013 at 10:11 ----------

 

There was an article in The Times a fortnight ago analysing the spending patterns of different income groups. Based on a number of studies it found thathigher income groups are more likely to spend on luxury import items, or invest money overseas rather than spend in the local economy.

Rather than bailing out the bankers which at 2009 figures cost the UK at least £850billion, maybe we should've given each person in this country 200 quid to spend on their local high street.

So much for trickle down

 

 

Maybe we should have let the banks go bust. Free market and all that.

[Staunton]

It is remarkable that there are so many here in Sheffield valliantly defending the bankers and corporate executives of the Square Mile, supporting their extraordinarily high salaries and bonuses, and showing remarkable indifference to the astonishing tax arrangements of the financial companies and multinationals, comics, actors and multi-millionaires, whilst simultaneously championing benefit cuts and reduction in council tax allowances that are being targeted at the poorest and most vulnerable people right on our own doorstep – our families, our neighbours.

[MrSmith]

There was an article in The Times a fortnight ago analysing the spending patterns of different income groups. Based on a number of studies it found thathigher income groups are more likely to spend on luxury import items, or invest money overseas rather than spend in the local economy.

Rather than bailing out the bankers which at 2009 figures cost the UK at least £850billion, maybe we should've given each person in this country 200 quid to spend on their local high street.

So much for trickle down

 

The poorest people tend to buy imported cheap tat, if its made in the UK then it’s the wealthier member of society that are likely to be buying it.

[Supertramp]

The poorest people tend to buy imported cheap tat, if its made in the UK then it’s the wealthier member of society that are likely to be buying it.

 

I would agree, they will buy tailored suits from Saville Row not Next Suits made in Indonesia, they will buy Cheaney shoes made in Northampton not Topman Shoes made in China etc. etc. Aston Martins etc.

[Anna B]

It is remarkable that there are so many here in Sheffield valliantly defending the bankers and corporate executives of the Square Mile, supporting their extraordinarily high salaries and bonuses, and showing remarkable indifference to the astonishing tax arrangements of the financial companies and multinationals, comics, actors and multi-millionaires, whilst simultaneously championing benefit cuts and reduction in council tax allowances that are being targeted at the poorest:thumbsup: and most vulnerable people right on our own doorstep – our families, our neighbours.

 

Spot on. I couldn't agree more.