£100000 is only £65000 after taxes

Yes. BUT1. Wanting your own four walls vs just wanting another pay check2. Whose job is due diligence in these cases. After all, you were the one saying these firms provide a service...3. You tried to make out as if it wasn't a banking crisis.4. And even now you can't admit completely, you had to make a post where you attack the other people.

Fair enough Oil and Gas is one.

Corporate law I would say though is different. What risks are they taking, what risks are they posing? Tech and VC, well it's their own thing make a bet, win or lose.

I'm by no means a leftie but this is so counterproductive towards the lower end of the scale. Progressive taxes make it very beneficial to work if you're poor and start getting out of the poverty and benefits trap.

I'm a big fan of the 12,500 tax free allowance.

You're saying that poor people should pay 2.2k on that 12.5, just so the rich can get more on their huge pay packets?

Who do you think that helps more? I can tell you 2.2k is a LOT of money to someone earning 12k or so.

SS

While I can sympathise, I shall not reduce the length of my replies and you're just going to have to suffer

I think I'm getting too deep and I'm going to end up saying something (if I haven't already) that I don't really understand or mean. But I think your second paragraph brings me back to my real point.

That is capitalism. That greed which leads people to pursue money for the sake of money - which is how the crisis and other problems occur - is the foundation of capitalism. The whole point is to conduct oneself in a way that produces maximum profit for you and your share/stake holders. Don't get me wrong, on the whole, I am in favour of capitalism. It drives innovation, wealth and therefore overall living standards - the crux of the problem is what limits society places on the companies to stop them exploiting the workforce or society as a whole. One of those mechanisms is tax. The contract would read like this "You go an innovate and develop a service/product that people want, you can then make as much money from that as possible. In exchange for that freedom and the fact that you are making your fortune off the sweat of your employee's hard work, you have to put some of that back into the pot". Remember, just because this person is at the top and earning all the money, doesn't actually mean they are doing all the work and the key to the success (think of all those inventors who got screwed out of their money or the designers and engineers who make new products - why aren't they the CEO's?). Plus the pot pays for things that helped them get to the top.

The services of the financial sector are required to fuel the capitalistic agenda - I'm still not convinced of their social utility. This is fine, but the social agenda must also be addressed and that is done through taxation. You are allowed to make a small fortune, but society has supported you and you should support it in return.



It doesn't necessarily. But if you compare two examples of how one can work hard on a project and then look at how one would work 'smarter' on that project with the aim of producing more money for themselves. That smarter approach will likely result in other people losing out in some way - either in paying people less, working them harder, charging more, flouting rules or outright illegal, unethical or immoral behaviour.

Capitalism inherently favours working 'smarter' - its the social structure of society that brings people towards a more centre ground.



For sure, if I was earning £100,000 a year (taking 65k home), my lifestyle would change significantly - I'd also be disappointed that I was losing 35k in taxes. But I also wouldn't spend all the money and claim that the cost of living was too high. I can easily afford all the basics and all the comfortable's (that's my new word for a brand new car, yearly holiday, etc.) with some left over. If I kept increasing my cost of living to a point where I kept needing more money, then the problem lies with me, not that the government is taking whatever amount in tax.

If we halved the tax and this person now had 80k, do you think they'd be saving this 15k, or increasing their lifestyle even more and begin complaining that the tax is too much?

Being taxed more is unfair, I totally get it. But cost of living is not an argument against it. Personally, if I had the money, I'd gladly pay the tax because I value the social benefits more than a flashy car.

1. And the difference is? Both are material possessions

2. Both parties' jobs, you don't go out to make the biggest purchase of your life without seeing if you can afford it

3. It was a credit crisis

4. That is because it's not just one party at fault here, and we mustn't forget that.




Oh i dunno, helping prop up money laundering schemes, defending corporations that have done wrong, it's all quite immoral and a big knock against the system of justice.

Lol, have you seen the amount of inflation in San Fran because of young folk milking out on acquisition money for their next McUber For Aliens app? There've been dozens of examples of startups just using investor capital for their own benefit. If these companies intentionally fail/were doomed to fail, that's a liability on the institutional investors who have funds in VC firms.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Oh toss off. Can't even admit when you're wrong.

No wonder the IB forumers love you, just another greedy as role model they can worship.

Like you are crying about the investors in the VC fund...those are essentially gambling funds. If they can't vet the people well enough they are investing in, and they waste the money as you say, it's their own fault. What a pathetic argument. I am done with you. Unlike religion this is not a topic I enjoy debating against people like you. Good luck in your future amazing career choice.

Not sure if my thumbs are just tired or I think this is an excellent response and I can't fault it, but good job.

Posted from TSR Mobile

One of the best posts I have ever read on TSR.

Oh no, only £65000 a year?!!! How could anybody live off of that, that is basically living in poverty!!

Actually the Middle Class are the hardest hit.

Someone bringing in £65k per year will only receive 39k after tax!

As someone who is classed Middle Class they are expected to buy a larger house meaning they have a much larger mortgage. They are expected to have more expensive cars which means taking out larger loans. Their £65k becomes nothing.

People who are middle class are given £0, nil, nothing in terms of aid with Tuition Fees.
They pay the most tax! - poor pay little or no tax, the rich avoid it.
They get no state help at all.

whereas

The poorest are given loads of state help. They have no/very low taxes. And they are not expected to have bigger things that cost lots.

The rich on the other hand pay even less taxes than the middle class by hiding it away god knows where. The rich cheAT in every way possible.

But its the hard working middle class that are squeezed and squeezed. The middle class are ones holding up our whole economy. and they should be treated better!

So a Goldman MD earning around £500000 only really gets £250000? That's pretty **** lol

This makes me rethink life

So a Goldman MD earning around £500000 only really gets £250000? That's pretty **** lol

This makes me rethink life

So a Goldman MD earning around £500000 only really gets £250000? That's pretty **** lol

This makes me rethink life

That would be what an ED (or later year VP at GS) would make.

Posted from TSR Mobile

I was thinking more for trading. I know in IBD they tend to earn more than that at the md level

Actually the Middle Class are the hardest hit.

Someone bringing in £65k per year will only receive 39k after tax!

As someone who is classed Middle Class they are expected to buy a larger house meaning they have a much larger mortgage. They are expected to have more expensive cars which means taking out larger loans. Their £65k becomes nothing.

People who are middle class are given £0, nil, nothing in terms of aid with Tuition Fees.
They pay the most tax! - poor pay little or no tax, the rich avoid it.
They get no state help at all.

whereas

The poorest are given loads of state help. They have no/very low taxes. And they are not expected to have bigger things that cost lots.

The rich on the other hand pay even less taxes than the middle class by hiding it away god knows where. The rich cheAT in every way possible.

But its the hard working middle class that are squeezed and squeezed. The middle class are ones holding up our whole economy. and they should be treated better!

Actually the Middle Class are the hardest hit.

Someone bringing in £65k per year will only receive 39k after tax!

Oh no, only £65000 a year?!!! How could anybody live off of that, that is basically living in poverty!!