Again, fact and public outcry.
Income tax on employees is not punitive for what they did. That's for the FSA, the FSCS and the Courts.
There is a clear tone of punishment in your posts, which has nothing to do with income tax avoidance.
Goldman Sachs 'considering' tax avoidance scheme for employees.
- Thread starter estebanrey
- Start date
Again, fact and public outcry.
Income tax on employees is not punitive for what they did. That's for the FSA, the FSCS and the Courts.
There is a clear tone of punishment in your posts, which has nothing to do with income tax avoidance.
Fact and public outcry?
I have at no point said or mentioned punishment or punative actions.
I did mention morallity, and was hinting towards a certain irony in all this.
Clear tone of punishment?
I think you've got yourself a little bit upset about what I've said tbh.
I don't see how anything I've said relates to punishment of Sach's or their staff.
Maybe I misread, but:
The consequences of their actions? Then banging on in other posts about financial crises they created?
I don't actually disagree with the fact that they were in the wrong. They done gone screwed the pooch. Goldman Sachs pay for the bad they did, as they should even if not to the amount that is just, but that has sweet FA to do with them delaying bonus payments to their employees. Why? Because Goldman the company do not pick up that tab.
You want to talk about FSCS levies and FSA actions, fine, but that's a whole other story.
You have.
You've done it again.
I never said they created it.
And you're coming in here stomping your feet at me about getting your facts right?
Next you'll be telling me you're published on this subject, right?
Well if they were in the wrong, why cannot I envoke morallity?
Case in point, which was going to be my comparison had you not shot off on one; RBS is on a PR campaign trying to win back the communities they harmed and relied on.
It doesn't seem to be a leason learnt across the board.
If you take this as 'punishment tone' then I think you're a bit unstable. Sorry.
Well then my apologies for misreading, an honest mistake. However, your sniping is unappreciated and unwarranted, suggesting you're taking this a bit too personally. Ironic, given that you're accusing me of instability.
The RBS example is irrelevant. RBS is a retail institution reliant on it's high street operations. Goldman Sachs is a totally different animal, they deal with UHNW individuals and institutions. They've no interest in average Joe.
Also, it's invoke. Not envoke.
Last edited:
Oh the ironing.
You have a habit of it.
The RBS example is irrelevant. RBS is a retail institution reliant on it's high street operations. Goldman Sachs is a totally different animal, they deal with UHNW individuals and institutions. They've no interest in average Joe.
Also, it's invoke. Not envoke.
Hmm.
RBSG investments were huge; that's what caused the problem.
If it was reliant on the highstreet it wouldn't have had such exposure to the bad assets.
They aren't any different; they both owe a duty of responsibility to wider society for their actions irrespective of their business models they all caused or compounded the effects.
"No interest in the average Joe".
Aye, ain't they just.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Feb 2004
- Posts
- 14,315
- Location
- Peoples Republic of Histonia, Cambridge
Because the tax rules change in April?
What?
Again, what?
RBS has an investment banking arm, yes. But they also have a retail banking arm that is dependent upon High Street business. GS don't - I don't see where you're going with this?
I know that, but for us (gen pop) why should we care? I'm really not bothered at all about it.
Greedy bankers innit!
BRB, off to read about celebrities making millions for wearing branded clothes.
What?
Hmmm.
Just that.
You didn't say that, you said this;
Spot the difference anyone?
You were talking about obfusication?
I am not suprised you can't see where I am going with this.
Evidently you can't read what I write or what you do either.
Some of the replies in this thread are ridiculous! If someone offers you an extra amount of money now or a guaranteed higher amount in 3 months, you're going to go for the higher amount unless you need it urgently for something. Basic economics! They don't owe it to society to pay more. That might be your political view but it's not like you're going to turn round and offer to pay more tax are you?
This is basic tax planning and there is nothing wrong with it. Anyone saying otherwise is simply jealous.
This is basic tax planning and there is nothing wrong with it. Anyone saying otherwise is simply jealous.
I can't see where you're going because you're saying nothing. It's a lot of words with no actual point nor meaning.
Get over yourself.
I'd go to specsavers tbh.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Feb 2004
- Posts
- 14,315
- Location
- Peoples Republic of Histonia, Cambridge
because if companies and indaviduales were too abide by the spirit of the tax laws, we, our children and our grandchildren would be able to free ourselves from the effects of crippling public debt. I shudder to think what the cumulative cost of all these avoidance schemes is. It's the norm not the exception.
There is no scheme. They're paying the rate of tax at the time the payment is made.
Don't listen to everything you hear in the media. Tax advisors don't open a big book of tax avoidance and start up these elaborate transaction flows to avoid tax. A few select individuals or companies may do so under very restricted methods but no major accounting firm would ever offer something so risky. HMRC have to be informed and can fight for the tax back under new GAAR principles. Seriously, all the stuff recently about Amazon and the likes is just rubbish.