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)