100% income tax?

Harry_Powell

Graham_Devon wrote: »

We'll see....

Errr, no, we won't see because they're not implementing your idea, they're taxing all banks instead of just the state assisted ones.

kennyboy66_2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Apparently, a quarter of income tax is paid by the top 1% of earners.

Dunno how true it is. Just a BBC snippet from the radio this morning. If it is true, it's a significant amount.

.

It is indeed true.

The top 1% of tax payers pay 24% of the total income tax
The top 5% of tax payers pay 43% of total income tax
The top 10% of tax payers pay 53%

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/stats/income_tax/table2-4.pdf

The skew would be a fair bit different for National insurance I would think.

Graham_Devon

Harry_Powell wrote: »

Errr, no, we won't see because they're not implementing your idea, they're taxing all banks instead of just the state assisted ones.

Sorry, I think you have confused my post. I didn't have an idea. I didnt seperate the banks, just said that bonuses should be curbed (I mean excessive ones) until the money is paid back by banks.

I was including those who didn't take government funds, hence didn't seperate the two.

Harry_Powell

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Sorry, I think you have confused my post. I didn't have an idea. I didnt seperate the banks, just said that bonuses should be curbed (I mean excessive ones) until the money is paid back by banks.

I was including those who didn't take government funds, hence didn't seperate the two.

No, you said:

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I personally believe the bonuses should not be paid until the banks are actually running on their own and they have paid the taxpayer back.

So if they put your plan (not paying bonuses until the banks are running on their own and have paid the tax payer back) into action, it would only impact Lloyds/HBOS and RBS bonuses because all other banks are running on their own and have no tax payer monies to pay back. Hence my response of what would happen if you targetted just these two banks (and possibly Northern Rock).

KTM_Gordo

drc wrote: »

the whole industry should have been regulated years ago. It's too late now, nu-Labour are bolting shut an empty stable.

The financial services industry is one of the most regulated in the world, and has been for many years.

A quick look at the FSA Handbook of Rules and Guidance might be of interest.

JonnyBravo

Harry_Powell wrote: »

No, you said:


So if they put your plan (not paying bonuses until the banks are running on their own and have paid the tax payer back) into action, it would only impact Lloyds/HBOS and RBS bonuses because all other banks are running on their own and have no tax payer monies to pay back. Hence my response of what would happen if you targetted just these two banks (and possibly Northern Rock).

What about those who've "partaken" in the QE available?

Harry_Powell

JonnyBravo wrote: »

What about those who've "partaken" in the QE available?

If you pursue that argument then the QE money wasn't just handed over to the banks, so why are they being targetted soley.

Anyone who has done well out of shares and bonds over the last 2 quarters have benefitted from QE, should they be taxed too?

KTM_Gordo

chewmylegoff wrote: »

if this is a one-off, surely they'll just defer bonuses for a year.

in any case this isn't a new 50% tax, as it just means that the bank's bonus pool will partially be used to pay tax, instead of paid out to employees, who would have been taxed either 40% or 50% on it anyway.

Having read the PBR, this is how it's going to work:

Bonuses <= £25,000 are not affected
Bonuses >£25,000 will be taxed at 50% on the amount above £25k as well as standard income tax.

So someone earning a bonus of £50,000 will recieve:

(25,000 + 12,500)-18,750= £18,570 [top rate tax (50%) payer]
(25,000 + 12,500)-15,000= £22,500 [higher rate tax (40%) payer]

Not as bad as it could have been, and most bonuses are nowhere near £25k anyway.

And for those that said it could be deferred, any bonus for the 2009 year will be taxed regardless of when it is paid.

HTH

JonnyBravo

Difficult ain't it.

Personally I'm in the "all banks" camp and happy with that.

chucky

Harry_Powell wrote: »

Which means that the talent will leave Lloyds/HBOS and RBS and go to Barclays and other banks who have not received taxpayer handouts, which further means that when we (the tax payer) try to sell our shares in the banks we'll get less for them because they're even more knackered than when we bailed them out.

i know for a fact that Barclays have got ready to recruit massively in quarter 1 next year. they're planning to recruit large numbers of contract and temporary staff to get the best staff from the market.

the hatred of bankers and thinking that they should be left to leave is like cutting your nose of to spite your face because these staff are needed to to take RBS and Lloyds HBOS back to making profit.