Indirectly, the case could be made.
Structural inequality is matter of public concern inasmuch as that it is a considering when assessing how just a society is. It's quite arguable that this kind of bonus is both a symptom of, and a contributor to, structural inequality, and that it's unjust in its own right.
(
Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Sun 21 Oct 2018, 17:29,
Share,
Reply)
Unjust?
Are you saying you should have some right to decide how much one person you've never met is allowed to give to another person you've never met due to some work that the second did for the first? Bear in mind that this guy will have paid more tax on that bonus than most people will pay in their entire lives.
(, Sun 21 Oct 2018, 17:35, Share, Reply)
How altruistic of him
Get his knighthood in the post immediately
(, Sun 21 Oct 2018, 18:28, Share, Reply)
There doesn't appear to be any question of a knighthood at all...
...so I'm not sure what silly point you're trying to make by mentioning it.
(, Sun 21 Oct 2018, 18:33, Share, Reply)
I am saying that.
When there is such wealth inequality.
Above a certain amount of money, your private wages become a public issue.
(
My Name was saying these words inside your head on, Sun 21 Oct 2018, 18:30,
Share,
Reply)
There certainly is such a thing as wealth inequality...
But the second part does not follow. What "certain" amount of money, and why?
(, Sun 21 Oct 2018, 18:37, Share, Reply)
There’s nothing wrong with inequality
Poverty is bad m’kay. But you have no more interest in his bonus than the next prurient neighbour does in what you get up to in the bedroom.
The myth that you’d be earning twice as much if someone else was earning half as much is piffle And nonsense on stilts.
People aren’t in poverty because of big bonuses for chief execs. The only thing that annoys me more than the lazy assumption that inequality is a general bad is talk of ‘child poverty’ it’s parent poverty.
(
The Ann Coulter Fan Club Babylon is burning at, Sun 21 Oct 2018, 18:37,
Share,
Reply)
I'm not sure how you draw that inference,
since I said nothing about who gets to decide who gets paid what, or how much. There might be a case to be made for someone to make that decision, and that someone might even be me (gasp!) or you (gasp!); but there'd need to be a lot more argument to make the case, and I've not got that argument to hand. I don't know whether such an argument'd work, either, be that in principle or in practice.
My claim stopped short of that: it's that there is (again, arguably) a matter of public concern here. That said, I might push it a bit further and suggest there may be legitimate grounds for public criticism on the basis that pay like that is indicative of and contributory to systematic injustice. What normative heft that criticism would have is a further question.
As for the paying tax part: I'm not an employment or a tax lawyer, but I am under the impression one of the reasons for assigning bonuses rather than salaries is that there are tax advantages for the recipient. So on that basis, he's possibly paying less tax than he might be.
(
Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Sun 21 Oct 2018, 20:42,
Share,
Reply)
Fair enough, I somewhat misinterpreted the point you were making.
I will agree there is some public concern... but that's already handled by the inland revenue who know the information and they apply taxes accordingly, as it should be. If there is inequality the correct procedure is for the government to identify it and legislate accordingly so that people are taxed appropriately; the wrong procedure is for members of the public to arbitrarily decide they don't like a guy so he needs to hand over loads of money.
In terms of personal income, bonuses are taxed exactly the same way as any other earnings. However I believe there is some small leeway in terms of when bonuses are awarded, meaning they can potentially be timed to reduce liabilities in one tax period in exchange for increasing them in a different one.
(, Sun 21 Oct 2018, 21:20, Share, Reply)