Goldman Sachs 'considering' tax avoidance scheme for employees.

[FnG]magnolia · 14 Jan 2013 at 20:22

Fubsy said:
Apologies guys, I forgot that the whole world works on the basis of greed. Rookie mistake.

Did you want the $100k or the $110k?

alx · 14 Jan 2013 at 20:26

Fubsy said:
Should they not be happy enough with the obscene amounts they get as a bonus in the first place?

The money thrown around in some circles of society while others struggle to get by is sickening.

The problem is where do you draw the line? What's classed as obscene and what's acceptable?

Fubsy · 14 Jan 2013 at 20:35

[FnG]magnolia;23558882 said:
Did you want the $100k or the $110k?

As someone who doesn't earn this amount of money or any where near it I would be happy with 100k. No need to be greedy. However if I'd been brought up in that environment I'd probably say different.

Bear · 14 Jan 2013 at 20:36

alx said:
The problem is where do you draw the line? What's classed as obscene and what's acceptable?

If its you saving money then it's acceptable, if its anyone else then it's obscene especially so if they earn more money than you. That's how it works isn't it?

spoffle · 14 Jan 2013 at 20:37

Fubsy said:
As someone who doesn't earn this amount of money or any where near it I would be happy with 100k. No need to be greedy. However if I'd been brought up in that environment I'd probably say different.

That's not the answer to the question. Most people on this forum would be "happy" with $100,000. The question is, if some one was giving you money, which would you choose, $100,000, or $110,000?

[FnG]magnolia · 14 Jan 2013 at 20:37

Fubsy said:
As someone who doesn't earn this amount of money or any where near it I would be happy with 100k. No need to be greedy. However if I'd been brought up in that environment I'd probably say different.

So you'd willingly take the lower amount even if your company was trying its best to give you the higher amount?

That's surprising.

PeterNem · 14 Jan 2013 at 20:39

Fubsy, sorry but I really don't believe you. Unless you were in a very desperate situation and having the money today would make some material difference to you, then I'd expect you to be more than happy waiting a few months and to take $110k instead.

If you know of a safe way to guarantee I can take a sum of money and increase it by 10% in a few months let me know. For anyone with a financial mind to not do this is absurd and I can't blame them for considering it in the slightest.

Fubsy · 14 Jan 2013 at 20:40

But your question isn't the answer to the question posed either? I'd be happy with either amount, would the 10k make me happier? Probably not, but then I'm not that type of person, which is why I'll never earn anywhere near that amount.
Why the **** would someone be giving me that amount of money, its a completely different world than what most people live in.

Ceryndrion · 14 Jan 2013 at 20:42

Greed is good.

spoffle · 14 Jan 2013 at 20:42

Fubsy said:
But your question isn't the answer to the question posed either? I'd be happy with either amount, would the 10k make me happier? Probably not, but then I'm not that type of person, which is why I'll never earn anywhere near that amount.
Why the **** would someone be giving me that amount of money, its a completely different world than what most people live in.

I wasn't answering the question, I was pointing out the fact that you'd skirted around the answer by saying "I'd be happy with $110,000" because you know full well that based on the choice, you'd wait a bit and take the larger amount.

Fubsy · 14 Jan 2013 at 20:45

But the points made were that this is to provide further happiness to already handsomely paid bankers at the expense of the majority of poorly paid taxpayers, who in general are having a pretty rough time of things. It is just greed for the sake of greed.

scorza · 14 Jan 2013 at 20:47

I don't understand why people keep doing business with The Vampire Squid, all the evidence released has shown they are only interested in getting the best deal for themselves, not their customers - indeed they appear to treat their customers with contempt (ripping their face off etc).

Biohazard · 14 Jan 2013 at 20:47

Personal gain is one thing; collective moral obligations are another.

Why would we be suprised by this anyway? Why should they have to suffer the consequences of their actions?

spoffle · 14 Jan 2013 at 20:52

Biohazard said:
Personal gain is one thing; collective moral obligations are another.

Why would we be suprised by this anyway? Why should they have to suffer the consequences of their actions?

And where does the government and its squandering of money fit in?

Another question is, why should people willing pay more tax than they legally have to?

estebanrey · 14 Jan 2013 at 20:53

[FnG]magnolia;23558882 said:
Did you want the $100k or the $110k?

Not really the right question. A better one would be "If you already had more money that you needed to live on and you were then offered a choice, would you take $100k and not look bad and have to face possible abuse when asked who you work for or $110k but with most people you meet thinking you're a ****** and scared to mention your employer's name"

In that case I'd take the $100k everytime.

Theophany · 14 Jan 2013 at 20:54

Biohazard said:
Why would we be suprised by this anyway? Why should they have to suffer the consequences of their actions?

What? Since when was income tax a punitive measure?

You're going down a dangerous Daily Mail route of obfuscating facts with public outcry. I know you're better than that, even if we rarely agree.

estebanrey said:
Not really the right question. A better one would be "If you already had more money that you needed to live on and you were then offered a choice, would you take $100k and not look bad and have to face possible abuse when asked who you work for or $110k but with most people you meet thinking you're a ****** and scared to mention your employer's name"

In that case I'd take the $100k everytime.

Errr, what? You ever met any Goldman guys? Because this scenario is ridiculous.

Danthus · 14 Jan 2013 at 20:56

jsmoke said:
Public since 2008.

That is what I meant, no idea why I said private.

cymatty · 14 Jan 2013 at 20:56

estebanrey said:
Not really the right question. A better one would be "If you already had more money that you needed to live on and you were then offered a choice, would you take $100k and not look bad and have to face possible abuse when asked who you work for or $110k but with most people you meet thinking you're a ****** and scared to mention your employer's name"

In that case I'd take the $100k everytime.

I think if you work for any financial institution you are dirt to most people so I would take the $10k

Also peoples lifestyles scale with income you know, so saying people have enough money is bs. Yes they have enough money to live your lifestyle but that it is not their lifestyle. Not saying its right or wrong it is just the way it is.

Biohazard · 14 Jan 2013 at 20:57

spoffle said:
And where does the government and its squandering of money fit in?

Another question is, why should people willing pay more tax than they legally have to?

It didn't start as a sovereign debt crisis, it was a banking crisis.

So other than rolling over and being tickled for decades by the banking lobby; not much. The finger of blame can quite rightly be shared around; some institutions bare that burden more than others.

Given Sachs played a significant part in events of recent it smacks of disregard for the real economic problems they shifted down and out.

Biohazard · 14 Jan 2013 at 20:58

Theophany said:
What? Since when was income tax a punitive measure?

You're going down a dangerous Daily Mail route of obfuscating facts with public outcry. I know you're better than that, even if we rarely agree.

What?

What have I obscured, exactly?