Comments on: British Taxman Whacks ‘The City’

By: Sonic Ninja Kitty

Sonic Ninja Kitty — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 21:28:38 +0000

You are so right, jwrjr. Matter of fact, they’ve already done this–it was called TARP (and TALF). TARP was supposed to fix our toxic asset problem (not fixed in the slightest a year later–surprise!) but instead, they handed the money over NO questions asked to all their banking buddies.

Ha ha–American bankers are so much more ahead of the curve than bankers in other countries!

By: JJ

JJ — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 20:50:44 +0000

Wall Street and Congress can’t follow through since both are bought and paid for by the bankers.

By: JJ

JJ — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 20:50:43 +0000

Wall Street and Congress can’t follow through since both are bought and paid for by the bankers.

By: jwrjr

jwrjr — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 19:49:47 +0000

I am simply pointing out that the banks won’t absorb those taxes. We will. If you can find some way to make the banks/executives eat the cost of those taxes, then go for it.

By: Peggy Sue

Peggy Sue — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 18:35:20 +0000

Neither the unemployed or [still] employed have any sympathy for the Wall St. crew. And Wall Street obviously knows that [Bloomberg reported the banksters were arming themselves because the poor piggies were a tad worried about the public's growing disgust].

Will the WH and Congress follow suit? Maybe in some carefully crafted waltz where, with a wink and a nod, the banksters will be assured it’s all a temporary pantomime, a suitable distraction to keep the anger level down.

Why? Because Washington and Wall St are joined at the hip, Siamese twins in crime.

By: Patience

Patience — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 16:20:54 +0000

While my initial reaction was It Couldn’t Have Happened To A Nicer [Group Of] Guy[s], methinks you’re correct, tango. CPAs in the UK are probably already working overtime to figure out ways to dodge this tax. And who knows, maybe the whole concept’s purpose in the first place is just political grandstanding, given the current public perception of bankers and their cozy relationship with government.

I’m sick of bankers. While enjoying such cheap money these days, they’re nevertheless nicking us with high, ever-increasing fees yet paying virtually no interest on savings AND they’ve seemed to stop being in the business of lending money. In fact, I’ve heard some are going out of their way to find nit-picking reasons to call loans. Nice work if you can get it.

By: hells kitchen

hells kitchen — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 16:14:11 +0000

My understanding is that some financial institutions already taken preemptive action by giving bonuses in forms of future redemption

By: Retired

Retired — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 16:11:45 +0000

The Brits are wimps. How about taxing everyone “just once” at the fifty percent rate for 2009? C’mon, Democratically-controlled Congress, do you have the guts to do that? If it works out in 2009, maybe we can try it “just one more year” in 2010. Hey, it worked with the death tax, now that is about to be permanent. “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.” That is the philosphy of Obama and our current Congress.
Fortunately for them, most Americans are so poorly educated now adays that we don’t even realize where that philosophy comes from.

By: creeper

creeper — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 16:04:10 +0000

“bonus pool”?!? For what? Trashing the economy while getting rich?

No sympathy here.

jwrjr, are you contending that those people should be paid off? Surely I misread you.

By: tango

tango — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 15:29:06 +0000

No, I doubt there will be much sympathy from the local unemployed person if he hears the bonuses are to be taxed at such a rate. That’s a lot of money.

Ok, I don’t have enough information to know if it’s for payments made from now until April or also counts bonuses paid during this whole year. If only for payments from now until April 2010, if I was a bank, I’d just not do any bonus over the limit. Even if that means doing a quick employment contract change or addendum. I’d pay my people up to the limit (so don’t have to pay the 50% extra tax) and then the individual employee would only have to pay their nomal tax rate on the money received. Then next week I’d do a second bonus right below the limit and then a few days later, a third bonus and so forth. Sooner or later the government will catch on and make it a cumulative thing, but until then, the British banks could give it a go. OR even better, give a one time bonus of less than the cut off and then wait until April 6, 2010 and give the rest of the bonus. No 50% surcharge.

Now if the bonus tax applies to all money paid so far this year plus going forward until April 2010, then I guess the banks will be stuck for previous payments and my dastardly screw the government out of money plans won’t work.

Now, I’m an average Joe and thought up a few ways to stop them collecting money, can you imagine that the banks are working hard to figure out how to get around paying the surcharge too?

By: jwrjr

jwrjr — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 15:11:46 +0000

If Geithner/Ozero does something like this, the banks will find some way to pass it down to the customer. Businesses don’t need this, and consumers need it even less.