Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
£1m paid as a bonus attracts tax of £470,000. Left in the company it gets taxed at 23% or £230,000.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Peter, thank you for helping out here.
I was about to make a calculation to that effect, that bonuses, if they were not paid in share companies to top earners, would count as share company profits and be taxed at a lower rate.
You made the calculation, so I needn't do it myself.
This is what Barry is trying to dismiss, claiming to be a brain surgeon.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Howard, post 38, is exactly that what I have been writing.
I'm not sure if what I am explaining here actually is being comprehended:
1) Bonuses are always taxed as income. (So too are tips.)
2) Share company bonuses increase in size with higher salaries
This means, a worker on £25,000 a year will get a significantly lower bonus (if any) than an executive on £200,000 a year.
3) Share company executives usually give themselves (please note the wording) a bonus that is higher than their actual basic salary. OK, sometimes it may be "only" 50% of their salary.
4) So, if you are on £12,000 a year, firstly you are unlikely to be working for a SHARE COMPANY, secondly you will not "give yourself" a bonus of, say £6,000 to £12,000. You'd be lucky to get any bonus at all. Although £200 annually would be welcome.
5) A share company director on, say, £150,000 a year, is likely to get a bonus of tens of thousands of pounds, possibly a few hundred thousand.
One on a salary of £300,000 is likely to "give himself" a bonus of £1 million a year.
(This because he can do as he likes with the company's money when establishing his own earnings).
So, why does the Government not stop this ABSURD form of taking - misappropriating - of share holders money? Why does a person on a top salary (above £150,000 a year) need a bonus larger than his salary?
While someone on £12,000 a year gets no bonus (or £200 perhaps)?
My opinion: because every bonus is taxed, and the Government allows share company profits to be "bonused" (transformed into bonuses), because that way it is taxed higher. On a top salary at the 45p rate, a bonus is automatically taxed at 45p.
Claro?
This means, the like of an elitist Bullington Club Chancellor G. Osborne has a higher tax income in the Treasury to cover up his failed policies. Oh, Labour were exactly the same.
Share companies are effectively being taxed EXTRA by way of bonuses. Bonuses are an extra tax revenue to the Treasury.
OK?
For this to function, the Government needs chief executives of share companies to DRY OUT company funds, impeding company investment and expansion and detracting from share-holders' dividends. This drying out is done through top salaries + bonuses, which are all TAXED at the highest tax rate (currently 45%).
End of!
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
I bet barryw will have more to say on this
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Alexander just keeps tying himself up in knots, saying one thing, then backtracking. At the root of it is his poor detailed knowledge of what he writes about, seeing problems where they do not exist all combined with a Stalinist attitude that government should control all aspects of our lives including what people pay themselves out of their own company.
He should go and live in a country more to his taste, North Korea, perhaps. A free society is clearly not suited to him.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
Less govt interference
see barryw we can agree
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Barry,
You publicly call me a stalinist and say I should go because I make use of freedom of speech to make the public aware that share company executives heap bonuses onto their top salaries and in so doing increase the Treasury's tax intake at the expense of share-holding companies.
However, you claim that tax should be reduced.
Also, I have not backtracked in anything, stating that I have is your way of trying to make a person look stupid because you have no argumentation left.
Let the Public decide if they want to vote for elitists in Government who inflict misery on the economy of the People and legislate in a way that some can continue lavishing themselves with the financial incomes of the economy, while preaching austerity and poverty to the masses.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
Alexander;
Still hope for some alternatives from you,
but in reply, probably understanding how business's set themselves up and operate may help you
Although I may disagree in the way they operate, They are today able to do so
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Keith - there is not much hope of that. I have tried to help, to explain and to recommend some reading to him but he prefers his own world full of his own wacky ideas to real life.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Barry and Keith, I suggest you both read Peter's post 41.
It explains what I've been writing and comes from another person.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
alex
post 41 suggests that it is better for us that the money is paid out in bonus form rather than kept within the business.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Howard, post 41 simply proves what I was explaining: that bonuses on top salaries detract from share company profits, and are consequently taxed at 45% (top earners tax above £150,000 a year) instead of 23% (corporation tax).
It is a way of increasing tax intake for the Treasury, but to do so the elitists sitting in a share company top-room must become ever richer.
Hence, Bullingdon Club Chancellor working hand in hand with Bullingdon Club elitists in share company head offices.
Silly shareholder no realise he being ripped off
"What happened to my dividends?"
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Taking my salary detracts from my businesses profits. Blimey - everybodies salary does...... So who wants to work for free then?
I am a shareholder Alexander...
I am not worried so why should you be?
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
?
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
Beam me up again scottie
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
This was about bonuses, not salaries. Rip-off bonuses
The People will not follow the old system, the money-grabbing and elitist circles of the old establishment.
We need a Wealth Redistribution! Not enough to stop the constant money grabbing. We have to go further and redistribute the garnered financial hoards that have been detracted from the economy.
Just remain stubborn, don't blink, keep a face hard as flint and don't flinch.
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
ok I had a good laugh but where is the serious bit.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Alexander - lets be frank - you do not know what you are talking about, do not understand the implications of what you say and have no interest at all in finding out about how things work in the real world. Your knowledge of economics is sketchy at best and based on totally false assumptions. Stalinist is most certainly what you are. We fought wars to protect this country from your authoritarian state.
Jan Higgins
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,895
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
