Minnesänger wrote:The fucking fuck???!Brooks wrote:
You working scumbags are making a mint by not having to spend as much of your income just to make a simple living. You have a moral obligation to make up the shortfall. Deutsche bank, bankroller of Trump, says it's time to do your bit.Some will argue against the tax. They will say that engagement with the economy is a personal choice and they should not be penalised for making that decision. Yet, these people should remember that governments have always backsolved taxes to suit the social environment. Consider that in centuries past, when it was socially unpalatable in the UK to introduce an income tax, the government implemented a window tax. As society changed, the window tax was abolished and, eventually, an income tax was introduced. In the same way, as our current society moves towards a state of ‘human disconnection’, our tax system must move with it.
Best of all, a WFH tax does not merely subsidise businesses that have no long-term future. If,
for example, a city-centre sandwich shop is no longer needed, it does not make sense for the government to support the business in the medium term. But it does make sense to support the mass of people who have been suddenly displaced by forces outside their control. Many will have to take low-paid jobs while they retrain or figure out their next step in life. From a personal and economic point of view, it makes sense that these people should be given a helping hand. It also makes sense to recognise that essential workers that assume covid risk for low wages. Those who are lucky enough to be in a position to ‘disconnect’ themselves from the face-to-face economy owe it to them.
https://www.businessinsider.com/r-exclusive-seven-big-investment-banks-in-uk-paid-just-30-million-tax-in-2014-2015-12?r=US&IR=TDeutsche reported a loss of 2.2 billion euros in 2014 in Britain, where it employs 8,000 investment and commercial bankers. By contrast, it reported 549 million euros profit in Luxembourg, where it employed 610 people and where tax rules allow financial companies to earn income tax free. (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/17/us-luxembourg-tax-insight-idUSBRE9BG0D620131217)
The absence of UK profits meant Deutsche had no tax bill in Britain. A spokesman declined to say how much tax the bank paid in Luxembourg or why its Luxembourg operation was so profitable and the much bigger UK operation reported a loss.
https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-britain-tax-banks/deutsche-bank-and-ubs-lose-200-million-uk-bonus-tax-case-idUKKCN0WB1O2The UK Supreme Court has ruled a "contrived" scheme used by Deutsche Bank DBKGn.DE and UBS UBSG.S> to allow the banks and their bankers to escape 135 million pounds ($192 million)in tax on bonuses was unlawful.
The arrangement, which dated back to 2004, involved bankers receiving bonuses in the form of shares in specially created companies, rather than cash, the UK’s tax authority, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC), said on Wednesday.
By making the bonus awards in this way, the banks hoped their employees would avoid making national insurance payments and benefit from an income tax break in a way which the Supreme Court said parliament had not intended it to be used.
Roujin wrote:… their food was pretty good for the money.
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!