This holiday season, Deutsche Bank employees are coming to the aid of their own in the U.K. (and presumably France, as well). In a heartwarming show of solidarity, Deutsche Bankers one and all will feel the pinch of the Franco-British tax on banking bonuses.
That they’ll be doing it against their will….
The decision to “globalise” the pain of the British 50% one-off tax on banking bonuses this year will certainly ease the burden on British Deutsche Bank employees and impose it on those who work elsewhere, including in Germany, which has decided not to follow its European compatriots in the tax.
“It would be unfair to treat the U.K. bankers differently,” CEO Josef Ackermann said.
Still, Ackermann couldn’t help but take the opportunity to blast the tax as unnecessary meddling in the “supply and demand for skilled people” who helped create the financial crisis and the need for government billions to keep the whole financial system afloat. But perhaps I’m being unfair.
Deutsche Bank Plans to Spread Costs of U.K. Bonus Tax Globally [Bloomberg]
FT interview transcript: Josef Ackermann [FT]
Today marks the anniversary of Daniel Seth Loeb's first vagina experience.
I'm confused by this. If they "globalize" the tax cost, are they applying the tax to the global pool (windfall for the UK government) or are they deducting the cost of the UK tax from the remaining bonus pool (this does not eliminate the inequality) or are they saying if a UK banker is now getting a bonus of $50 (as opposed to $100), all bankers are getting $50 (slashing worldwide bonuses by 50%. this will surely lead to mass exodus). WTF?!
they are likely going to monetize it such that everyones net payout is on the same playing field. if you are a trader in london and make 500MM for the firm and your bonus is 5million, you would only be entitled to 2.5 of it (queen tax). so that same trader in USA would likely receive 50bps instead of 100bps in terms of their bonus from DB. i hear barclehs is next.
Hell, the US should levy its own 50% tax! This pisses me off.
So DB is going to have to reverse the accrual for bonuses, since they presumably accrued bonuses at the 100 bps rate. It also means that if you are a US banker who got a bonus based on 100 bps last year, you are likely looking at a 50% haircut thanks to the UK tax. Ouch!
@4 What pisses you off? That all DB employees will shoulder the same pain as their UK counterparts? You just want to be unhappy. Give it a rest.
Fuck the queen.
@7 Yes, and that is why I look like I do.
Prince Charles
Tax Chick,
@3 Misses the boat. I think it's more likely that the gobalisation will look like this:
1. Determine the amount of funds required to pay the 50% one-off British tax on British bankers.
2. Decrease the total bonus pool by the amount calculated in step 1.
3. Calculate bonuses as normal based on the reduced bonus pool.
To your point this likely will not have an effect on DB's balance sheet, but instead will result in a reclass from bonuses payable to taxes payable. To that end, your second suggestion and the corresponding equality issues are spot on.
I, like many others, would be interested in what Anal_yst thinks?
Or has that one gone the way of "strump a dump". I've been away for a day.
9 is right.
For example: if a desk pool has 9 million, and 2 traders, one in NY and one in London:
Before globalization:
NYC trader: $4.5mm pretax, ~2.5mm after tax
London trader: $4.5mm pre-supertax, $2.25mm pre-personal tax, ~1.3mm after tax.
After globalization:
NYC trader: $3mm pretax, ~1.8mm after
London trader: $6mm pre-supertax, $3mm pre-personal tax, ~1.3mm after tax.
A lot of people expected it to happen. DB's plan isn't set in stone yet either. Just makes everyone in the world hate the UK govt more.
Sorry, typo above, London trader in last case should get ~1.8mm after tax, not 1.3.
-11
Today marks the anniversary of Daniel Seth Loeb’s first vagina experience.
Today marks the anniversary of Daniel Seth Loeb’s first vagina experience.
Today marks the anniversary of Daniel Seth Loeb’s first vagina experience.
Today marks the anniversary of Daniel Seth Loeb’s first vagina experience.
Today marks the anniversary of Daniel Seth Loeb’s first vagina experience.
Today marks the anniversary of Daniel Seth Loeb’s first vagina experience.
Today marks the anniversary of Daniel Seth Loeb’s first vagina experience.
Today marks the anniversary of Daniel Seth Loeb’s first vagina experience.
Today marks the anniversary of Daniel Seth Loeb’s first vagina experience.
Today marks the anniversary of Daniel Seth Loeb’s first vagina experience.
Today marks the anniversary of Daniel Seth Loeb’s first vagina experience.
Today marks the anniversary of Daniel Seth Loeb’s first vagina experience.
Today marks the anniversary of Daniel Seth Loeb’s first vagina experience.
Today marks the anniversary of Daniel Seth Loeb’s first vagina experience.
Today marks the anniversary of Daniel Seth Loeb’s first vagina experience.
Today marks the anniversary of Daniel Seth Loeb’s first vagina experience.
Today marks the anniversary of Daniel Seth Loeb’s first vagina experience.
Today marks the anniversary of Daniel Seth Loeb’s first vagina experience.
Today marks the anniversary of Daniel Seth Loeb’s first vagina experience.
Today marks the anniversary of Daniel Seth Loeb’s first vagina experience.
Today marks the anniversary of Daniel Seth Loeb’s first vagina experience.
Today marks the anniversary of Daniel Seth Loeb’s first vagina experience.
Today marks the anniversary of Daniel Seth Loeb’s first vagina experience.
Today marks the anniversary of Daniel Seth Loeb’s first vagina experience.
I’m confused by this. If they “globalize” the tax cost, are they applying the tax to the global pool (windfall for the UK government) or are they deducting the cost of the UK tax from the remaining bonus pool (this does not eliminate the inequality) or are they saying if a UK banker is now getting a bonus of $50 (as opposed to $100), all bankers are getting $50 (slashing worldwide bonuses by 50%. this will surely lead to mass exodus). WTF?!
I’m confused by this. If they “globalize” the tax cost, are they applying the tax to the global pool (windfall for the UK government) or are they deducting the cost of the UK tax from the remaining bonus pool (this does not eliminate the inequality) or are they saying if a UK banker is now getting a bonus of $50 (as opposed to $100), all bankers are getting $50 (slashing worldwide bonuses by 50%. this will surely lead to mass exodus). WTF?!
I’m confused by this. If they “globalize” the tax cost, are they applying the tax to the global pool (windfall for the UK government) or are they deducting the cost of the UK tax from the remaining bonus pool (this does not eliminate the inequality) or are they saying if a UK banker is now getting a bonus of $50 (as opposed to $100), all bankers are getting $50 (slashing worldwide bonuses by 50%. this will surely lead to mass exodus). WTF?!
I’m confused by this. If they “globalize” the tax cost, are they applying the tax to the global pool (windfall for the UK government) or are they deducting the cost of the UK tax from the remaining bonus pool (this does not eliminate the inequality) or are they saying if a UK banker is now getting a bonus of $50 (as opposed to $100), all bankers are getting $50 (slashing worldwide bonuses by 50%. this will surely lead to mass exodus). WTF?!
I’m confused by this. If they “globalize” the tax cost, are they applying the tax to the global pool (windfall for the UK government) or are they deducting the cost of the UK tax from the remaining bonus pool (this does not eliminate the inequality) or are they saying if a UK banker is now getting a bonus of $50 (as opposed to $100), all bankers are getting $50 (slashing worldwide bonuses by 50%. this will surely lead to mass exodus). WTF?!
I’m confused by this. If they “globalize” the tax cost, are they applying the tax to the global pool (windfall for the UK government) or are they deducting the cost of the UK tax from the remaining bonus pool (this does not eliminate the inequality) or are they saying if a UK banker is now getting a bonus of $50 (as opposed to $100), all bankers are getting $50 (slashing worldwide bonuses by 50%. this will surely lead to mass exodus). WTF?!
I’m confused by this. If they “globalize” the tax cost, are they applying the tax to the global pool (windfall for the UK government) or are they deducting the cost of the UK tax from the remaining bonus pool (this does not eliminate the inequality) or are they saying if a UK banker is now getting a bonus of $50 (as opposed to $100), all bankers are getting $50 (slashing worldwide bonuses by 50%. this will surely lead to mass exodus). WTF?!
I’m confused by this. If they “globalize” the tax cost, are they applying the tax to the global pool (windfall for the UK government) or are they deducting the cost of the UK tax from the remaining bonus pool (this does not eliminate the inequality) or are they saying if a UK banker is now getting a bonus of $50 (as opposed to $100), all bankers are getting $50 (slashing worldwide bonuses by 50%. this will surely lead to mass exodus). WTF?!
I’m confused by this. If they “globalize” the tax cost, are they applying the tax to the global pool (windfall for the UK government) or are they deducting the cost of the UK tax from the remaining bonus pool (this does not eliminate the inequality) or are they saying if a UK banker is now getting a bonus of $50 (as opposed to $100), all bankers are getting $50 (slashing worldwide bonuses by 50%. this will surely lead to mass exodus). WTF?!
I’m confused by this. If they “globalize” the tax cost, are they applying the tax to the global pool (windfall for the UK government) or are they deducting the cost of the UK tax from the remaining bonus pool (this does not eliminate the inequality) or are they saying if a UK banker is now getting a bonus of $50 (as opposed to $100), all bankers are getting $50 (slashing worldwide bonuses by 50%. this will surely lead to mass exodus). WTF?!
I’m confused by this. If they “globalize” the tax cost, are they applying the tax to the global pool (windfall for the UK government) or are they deducting the cost of the UK tax from the remaining bonus pool (this does not eliminate the inequality) or are they saying if a UK banker is now getting a bonus of $50 (as opposed to $100), all bankers are getting $50 (slashing worldwide bonuses by 50%. this will surely lead to mass exodus). WTF?!
I’m confused by this. If they “globalize” the tax cost, are they applying the tax to the global pool (windfall for the UK government) or are they deducting the cost of the UK tax from the remaining bonus pool (this does not eliminate the inequality) or are they saying if a UK banker is now getting a bonus of $50 (as opposed to $100), all bankers are getting $50 (slashing worldwide bonuses by 50%. this will surely lead to mass exodus). WTF?!
I’m confused by this. If they “globalize” the tax cost, are they applying the tax to the global pool (windfall for the UK government) or are they deducting the cost of the UK tax from the remaining bonus pool (this does not eliminate the inequality) or are they saying if a UK banker is now getting a bonus of $50 (as opposed to $100), all bankers are getting $50 (slashing worldwide bonuses by 50%. this will surely lead to mass exodus). WTF?!
I’m confused by this. If they “globalize” the tax cost, are they applying the tax to the global pool (windfall for the UK government) or are they deducting the cost of the UK tax from the remaining bonus pool (this does not eliminate the inequality) or are they saying if a UK banker is now getting a bonus of $50 (as opposed to $100), all bankers are getting $50 (slashing worldwide bonuses by 50%. this will surely lead to mass exodus). WTF?!
I’m confused by this. If they “globalize” the tax cost, are they applying the tax to the global pool (windfall for the UK government) or are they deducting the cost of the UK tax from the remaining bonus pool (this does not eliminate the inequality) or are they saying if a UK banker is now getting a bonus of $50 (as opposed to $100), all bankers are getting $50 (slashing worldwide bonuses by 50%. this will surely lead to mass exodus). WTF?!
I’m confused by this. If they “globalize” the tax cost, are they applying the tax to the global pool (windfall for the UK government) or are they deducting the cost of the UK tax from the remaining bonus pool (this does not eliminate the inequality) or are they saying if a UK banker is now getting a bonus of $50 (as opposed to $100), all bankers are getting $50 (slashing worldwide bonuses by 50%. this will surely lead to mass exodus). WTF?!
I’m confused by this. If they “globalize” the tax cost, are they applying the tax to the global pool (windfall for the UK government) or are they deducting the cost of the UK tax from the remaining bonus pool (this does not eliminate the inequality) or are they saying if a UK banker is now getting a bonus of $50 (as opposed to $100), all bankers are getting $50 (slashing worldwide bonuses by 50%. this will surely lead to mass exodus). WTF?!
I’m confused by this. If they “globalize” the tax cost, are they applying the tax to the global pool (windfall for the UK government) or are they deducting the cost of the UK tax from the remaining bonus pool (this does not eliminate the inequality) or are they saying if a UK banker is now getting a bonus of $50 (as opposed to $100), all bankers are getting $50 (slashing worldwide bonuses by 50%. this will surely lead to mass exodus). WTF?!
I’m confused by this. If they “globalize” the tax cost, are they applying the tax to the global pool (windfall for the UK government) or are they deducting the cost of the UK tax from the remaining bonus pool (this does not eliminate the inequality) or are they saying if a UK banker is now getting a bonus of $50 (as opposed to $100), all bankers are getting $50 (slashing worldwide bonuses by 50%. this will surely lead to mass exodus). WTF?!
they are likely going to monetize it such that everyones net payout is on the same playing field. if you are a trader in london and make 500MM for the firm and your bonus is 5million, you would only be entitled to 2.5 of it (queen tax). so that same trader in USA would likely receive 50bps instead of 100bps in terms of their bonus from DB. i hear barclehs is next.
they are likely going to monetize it such that everyones net payout is on the same playing field. if you are a trader in london and make 500MM for the firm and your bonus is 5million, you would only be entitled to 2.5 of it (queen tax). so that same trader in USA would likely receive 50bps instead of 100bps in terms of their bonus from DB. i hear barclehs is next.
they are likely going to monetize it such that everyones net payout is on the same playing field. if you are a trader in london and make 500MM for the firm and your bonus is 5million, you would only be entitled to 2.5 of it (queen tax). so that same trader in USA would likely receive 50bps instead of 100bps in terms of their bonus from DB. i hear barclehs is next.
they are likely going to monetize it such that everyones net payout is on the same playing field. if you are a trader in london and make 500MM for the firm and your bonus is 5million, you would only be entitled to 2.5 of it (queen tax). so that same trader in USA would likely receive 50bps instead of 100bps in terms of their bonus from DB. i hear barclehs is next.
they are likely going to monetize it such that everyones net payout is on the same playing field. if you are a trader in london and make 500MM for the firm and your bonus is 5million, you would only be entitled to 2.5 of it (queen tax). so that same trader in USA would likely receive 50bps instead of 100bps in terms of their bonus from DB. i hear barclehs is next.
they are likely going to monetize it such that everyones net payout is on the same playing field. if you are a trader in london and make 500MM for the firm and your bonus is 5million, you would only be entitled to 2.5 of it (queen tax). so that same trader in USA would likely receive 50bps instead of 100bps in terms of their bonus from DB. i hear barclehs is next.
they are likely going to monetize it such that everyones net payout is on the same playing field. if you are a trader in london and make 500MM for the firm and your bonus is 5million, you would only be entitled to 2.5 of it (queen tax). so that same trader in USA would likely receive 50bps instead of 100bps in terms of their bonus from DB. i hear barclehs is next.
they are likely going to monetize it such that everyones net payout is on the same playing field. if you are a trader in london and make 500MM for the firm and your bonus is 5million, you would only be entitled to 2.5 of it (queen tax). so that same trader in USA would likely receive 50bps instead of 100bps in terms of their bonus from DB. i hear barclehs is next.
they are likely going to monetize it such that everyones net payout is on the same playing field. if you are a trader in london and make 500MM for the firm and your bonus is 5million, you would only be entitled to 2.5 of it (queen tax). so that same trader in USA would likely receive 50bps instead of 100bps in terms of their bonus from DB. i hear barclehs is next.
they are likely going to monetize it such that everyones net payout is on the same playing field. if you are a trader in london and make 500MM for the firm and your bonus is 5million, you would only be entitled to 2.5 of it (queen tax). so that same trader in USA would likely receive 50bps instead of 100bps in terms of their bonus from DB. i hear barclehs is next.
they are likely going to monetize it such that everyones net payout is on the same playing field. if you are a trader in london and make 500MM for the firm and your bonus is 5million, you would only be entitled to 2.5 of it (queen tax). so that same trader in USA would likely receive 50bps instead of 100bps in terms of their bonus from DB. i hear barclehs is next.
they are likely going to monetize it such that everyones net payout is on the same playing field. if you are a trader in london and make 500MM for the firm and your bonus is 5million, you would only be entitled to 2.5 of it (queen tax). so that same trader in USA would likely receive 50bps instead of 100bps in terms of their bonus from DB. i hear barclehs is next.
they are likely going to monetize it such that everyones net payout is on the same playing field. if you are a trader in london and make 500MM for the firm and your bonus is 5million, you would only be entitled to 2.5 of it (queen tax). so that same trader in USA would likely receive 50bps instead of 100bps in terms of their bonus from DB. i hear barclehs is next.
they are likely going to monetize it such that everyones net payout is on the same playing field. if you are a trader in london and make 500MM for the firm and your bonus is 5million, you would only be entitled to 2.5 of it (queen tax). so that same trader in USA would likely receive 50bps instead of 100bps in terms of their bonus from DB. i hear barclehs is next.
they are likely going to monetize it such that everyones net payout is on the same playing field. if you are a trader in london and make 500MM for the firm and your bonus is 5million, you would only be entitled to 2.5 of it (queen tax). so that same trader in USA would likely receive 50bps instead of 100bps in terms of their bonus from DB. i hear barclehs is next.
they are likely going to monetize it such that everyones net payout is on the same playing field. if you are a trader in london and make 500MM for the firm and your bonus is 5million, you would only be entitled to 2.5 of it (queen tax). so that same trader in USA would likely receive 50bps instead of 100bps in terms of their bonus from DB. i hear barclehs is next.
they are likely going to monetize it such that everyones net payout is on the same playing field. if you are a trader in london and make 500MM for the firm and your bonus is 5million, you would only be entitled to 2.5 of it (queen tax). so that same trader in USA would likely receive 50bps instead of 100bps in terms of their bonus from DB. i hear barclehs is next.
they are likely going to monetize it such that everyones net payout is on the same playing field. if you are a trader in london and make 500MM for the firm and your bonus is 5million, you would only be entitled to 2.5 of it (queen tax). so that same trader in USA would likely receive 50bps instead of 100bps in terms of their bonus from DB. i hear barclehs is next.
they are likely going to monetize it such that everyones net payout is on the same playing field. if you are a trader in london and make 500MM for the firm and your bonus is 5million, you would only be entitled to 2.5 of it (queen tax). so that same trader in USA would likely receive 50bps instead of 100bps in terms of their bonus from DB. i hear barclehs is next.
they are likely going to monetize it such that everyones net payout is on the same playing field. if you are a trader in london and make 500MM for the firm and your bonus is 5million, you would only be entitled to 2.5 of it (queen tax). so that same trader in USA would likely receive 50bps instead of 100bps in terms of their bonus from DB. i hear barclehs is next.
they are likely going to monetize it such that everyones net payout is on the same playing field. if you are a trader in london and make 500MM for the firm and your bonus is 5million, you would only be entitled to 2.5 of it (queen tax). so that same trader in USA would likely receive 50bps instead of 100bps in terms of their bonus from DB. i hear barclehs is next.
they are likely going to monetize it such that everyones net payout is on the same playing field. if you are a trader in london and make 500MM for the firm and your bonus is 5million, you would only be entitled to 2.5 of it (queen tax). so that same trader in USA would likely receive 50bps instead of 100bps in terms of their bonus from DB. i hear barclehs is next.
they are likely going to monetize it such that everyones net payout is on the same playing field. if you are a trader in london and make 500MM for the firm and your bonus is 5million, you would only be entitled to 2.5 of it (queen tax). so that same trader in USA would likely receive 50bps instead of 100bps in terms of their bonus from DB. i hear barclehs is next.
they are likely going to monetize it such that everyones net payout is on the same playing field. if you are a trader in london and make 500MM for the firm and your bonus is 5million, you would only be entitled to 2.5 of it (queen tax). so that same trader in USA would likely receive 50bps instead of 100bps in terms of their bonus from DB. i hear barclehs is next.
You guys suck at math.
If the bonus paid is $6mm and the tax is 50% of the Bonus paid (not the bonus pool) the tax is $3MM.. so a $9MM bonus pool with 50% Super tax attracts 1/3 of the total in tax, not 50%
Hell, the US should levy its own 50% tax! This pisses me off.
Hell, the US should levy its own 50% tax! This pisses me off.
Hell, the US should levy its own 50% tax! This pisses me off.
Hell, the US should levy its own 50% tax! This pisses me off.
Hell, the US should levy its own 50% tax! This pisses me off.
Hell, the US should levy its own 50% tax! This pisses me off.
Hell, the US should levy its own 50% tax! This pisses me off.
Hell, the US should levy its own 50% tax! This pisses me off.
Hell, the US should levy its own 50% tax! This pisses me off.
Hell, the US should levy its own 50% tax! This pisses me off.
Hell, the US should levy its own 50% tax! This pisses me off.
Hell, the US should levy its own 50% tax! This pisses me off.
Hell, the US should levy its own 50% tax! This pisses me off.
Hell, the US should levy its own 50% tax! This pisses me off.
Hell, the US should levy its own 50% tax! This pisses me off.
Hell, the US should levy its own 50% tax! This pisses me off.
Hell, the US should levy its own 50% tax! This pisses me off.
Hell, the US should levy its own 50% tax! This pisses me off.
Hell, the US should levy its own 50% tax! This pisses me off.
Hell, the US should levy its own 50% tax! This pisses me off.
Hell, the US should levy its own 50% tax! This pisses me off.
So DB is going to have to reverse the accrual for bonuses, since they presumably accrued bonuses at the 100 bps rate. It also means that if you are a US banker who got a bonus based on 100 bps last year, you are likely looking at a 50% haircut thanks to the UK tax. Ouch!
So DB is going to have to reverse the accrual for bonuses, since they presumably accrued bonuses at the 100 bps rate. It also means that if you are a US banker who got a bonus based on 100 bps last year, you are likely looking at a 50% haircut thanks to the UK tax. Ouch!
So DB is going to have to reverse the accrual for bonuses, since they presumably accrued bonuses at the 100 bps rate. It also means that if you are a US banker who got a bonus based on 100 bps last year, you are likely looking at a 50% haircut thanks to the UK tax. Ouch!
So DB is going to have to reverse the accrual for bonuses, since they presumably accrued bonuses at the 100 bps rate. It also means that if you are a US banker who got a bonus based on 100 bps last year, you are likely looking at a 50% haircut thanks to the UK tax. Ouch!
So DB is going to have to reverse the accrual for bonuses, since they presumably accrued bonuses at the 100 bps rate. It also means that if you are a US banker who got a bonus based on 100 bps last year, you are likely looking at a 50% haircut thanks to the UK tax. Ouch!
So DB is going to have to reverse the accrual for bonuses, since they presumably accrued bonuses at the 100 bps rate. It also means that if you are a US banker who got a bonus based on 100 bps last year, you are likely looking at a 50% haircut thanks to the UK tax. Ouch!
So DB is going to have to reverse the accrual for bonuses, since they presumably accrued bonuses at the 100 bps rate. It also means that if you are a US banker who got a bonus based on 100 bps last year, you are likely looking at a 50% haircut thanks to the UK tax. Ouch!
So DB is going to have to reverse the accrual for bonuses, since they presumably accrued bonuses at the 100 bps rate. It also means that if you are a US banker who got a bonus based on 100 bps last year, you are likely looking at a 50% haircut thanks to the UK tax. Ouch!
So DB is going to have to reverse the accrual for bonuses, since they presumably accrued bonuses at the 100 bps rate. It also means that if you are a US banker who got a bonus based on 100 bps last year, you are likely looking at a 50% haircut thanks to the UK tax. Ouch!
So DB is going to have to reverse the accrual for bonuses, since they presumably accrued bonuses at the 100 bps rate. It also means that if you are a US banker who got a bonus based on 100 bps last year, you are likely looking at a 50% haircut thanks to the UK tax. Ouch!
So DB is going to have to reverse the accrual for bonuses, since they presumably accrued bonuses at the 100 bps rate. It also means that if you are a US banker who got a bonus based on 100 bps last year, you are likely looking at a 50% haircut thanks to the UK tax. Ouch!
So DB is going to have to reverse the accrual for bonuses, since they presumably accrued bonuses at the 100 bps rate. It also means that if you are a US banker who got a bonus based on 100 bps last year, you are likely looking at a 50% haircut thanks to the UK tax. Ouch!
So DB is going to have to reverse the accrual for bonuses, since they presumably accrued bonuses at the 100 bps rate. It also means that if you are a US banker who got a bonus based on 100 bps last year, you are likely looking at a 50% haircut thanks to the UK tax. Ouch!
So DB is going to have to reverse the accrual for bonuses, since they presumably accrued bonuses at the 100 bps rate. It also means that if you are a US banker who got a bonus based on 100 bps last year, you are likely looking at a 50% haircut thanks to the UK tax. Ouch!
So DB is going to have to reverse the accrual for bonuses, since they presumably accrued bonuses at the 100 bps rate. It also means that if you are a US banker who got a bonus based on 100 bps last year, you are likely looking at a 50% haircut thanks to the UK tax. Ouch!
So DB is going to have to reverse the accrual for bonuses, since they presumably accrued bonuses at the 100 bps rate. It also means that if you are a US banker who got a bonus based on 100 bps last year, you are likely looking at a 50% haircut thanks to the UK tax. Ouch!
So DB is going to have to reverse the accrual for bonuses, since they presumably accrued bonuses at the 100 bps rate. It also means that if you are a US banker who got a bonus based on 100 bps last year, you are likely looking at a 50% haircut thanks to the UK tax. Ouch!
So DB is going to have to reverse the accrual for bonuses, since they presumably accrued bonuses at the 100 bps rate. It also means that if you are a US banker who got a bonus based on 100 bps last year, you are likely looking at a 50% haircut thanks to the UK tax. Ouch!
So DB is going to have to reverse the accrual for bonuses, since they presumably accrued bonuses at the 100 bps rate. It also means that if you are a US banker who got a bonus based on 100 bps last year, you are likely looking at a 50% haircut thanks to the UK tax. Ouch!
So DB is going to have to reverse the accrual for bonuses, since they presumably accrued bonuses at the 100 bps rate. It also means that if you are a US banker who got a bonus based on 100 bps last year, you are likely looking at a 50% haircut thanks to the UK tax. Ouch!
So DB is going to have to reverse the accrual for bonuses, since they presumably accrued bonuses at the 100 bps rate. It also means that if you are a US banker who got a bonus based on 100 bps last year, you are likely looking at a 50% haircut thanks to the UK tax. Ouch!
So DB is going to have to reverse the accrual for bonuses, since they presumably accrued bonuses at the 100 bps rate. It also means that if you are a US banker who got a bonus based on 100 bps last year, you are likely looking at a 50% haircut thanks to the UK tax. Ouch!
So DB is going to have to reverse the accrual for bonuses, since they presumably accrued bonuses at the 100 bps rate. It also means that if you are a US banker who got a bonus based on 100 bps last year, you are likely looking at a 50% haircut thanks to the UK tax. Ouch!
So DB is going to have to reverse the accrual for bonuses, since they presumably accrued bonuses at the 100 bps rate. It also means that if you are a US banker who got a bonus based on 100 bps last year, you are likely looking at a 50% haircut thanks to the UK tax. Ouch!
So DB is going to have to reverse the accrual for bonuses, since they presumably accrued bonuses at the 100 bps rate. It also means that if you are a US banker who got a bonus based on 100 bps last year, you are likely looking at a 50% haircut thanks to the UK tax. Ouch!
So DB is going to have to reverse the accrual for bonuses, since they presumably accrued bonuses at the 100 bps rate. It also means that if you are a US banker who got a bonus based on 100 bps last year, you are likely looking at a 50% haircut thanks to the UK tax. Ouch!
So DB is going to have to reverse the accrual for bonuses, since they presumably accrued bonuses at the 100 bps rate. It also means that if you are a US banker who got a bonus based on 100 bps last year, you are likely looking at a 50% haircut thanks to the UK tax. Ouch!
13, slow down, college.
In UK at least a £3mio bonus is to be taxed thus:
- first first £40k exempt from the special tax.
- bank pays 50% of the balance, £1.48mio
- bonus recipient gets £1.52mio but remains liable for the whole £3mio, so let's say they pay about £1.2 in income tax and are left with a net of ~£300k.
@4 What pisses you off? That all DB employees will shoulder the same pain as their UK counterparts? You just want to be unhappy. Give it a rest.
@4 What pisses you off? That all DB employees will shoulder the same pain as their UK counterparts? You just want to be unhappy. Give it a rest.
@4 What pisses you off? That all DB employees will shoulder the same pain as their UK counterparts? You just want to be unhappy. Give it a rest.
@4 What pisses you off? That all DB employees will shoulder the same pain as their UK counterparts? You just want to be unhappy. Give it a rest.
@4 What pisses you off? That all DB employees will shoulder the same pain as their UK counterparts? You just want to be unhappy. Give it a rest.
@4 What pisses you off? That all DB employees will shoulder the same pain as their UK counterparts? You just want to be unhappy. Give it a rest.
@4 What pisses you off? That all DB employees will shoulder the same pain as their UK counterparts? You just want to be unhappy. Give it a rest.
@4 What pisses you off? That all DB employees will shoulder the same pain as their UK counterparts? You just want to be unhappy. Give it a rest.
@4 What pisses you off? That all DB employees will shoulder the same pain as their UK counterparts? You just want to be unhappy. Give it a rest.
@4 What pisses you off? That all DB employees will shoulder the same pain as their UK counterparts? You just want to be unhappy. Give it a rest.
@4 What pisses you off? That all DB employees will shoulder the same pain as their UK counterparts? You just want to be unhappy. Give it a rest.
@4 What pisses you off? That all DB employees will shoulder the same pain as their UK counterparts? You just want to be unhappy. Give it a rest.
@4 What pisses you off? That all DB employees will shoulder the same pain as their UK counterparts? You just want to be unhappy. Give it a rest.
@4 What pisses you off? That all DB employees will shoulder the same pain as their UK counterparts? You just want to be unhappy. Give it a rest.
@4 What pisses you off? That all DB employees will shoulder the same pain as their UK counterparts? You just want to be unhappy. Give it a rest.
@4 What pisses you off? That all DB employees will shoulder the same pain as their UK counterparts? You just want to be unhappy. Give it a rest.
@4 What pisses you off? That all DB employees will shoulder the same pain as their UK counterparts? You just want to be unhappy. Give it a rest.
@4 What pisses you off? That all DB employees will shoulder the same pain as their UK counterparts? You just want to be unhappy. Give it a rest.
@4 What pisses you off? That all DB employees will shoulder the same pain as their UK counterparts? You just want to be unhappy. Give it a rest.
@4 What pisses you off? That all DB employees will shoulder the same pain as their UK counterparts? You just want to be unhappy. Give it a rest.
@4 What pisses you off? That all DB employees will shoulder the same pain as their UK counterparts? You just want to be unhappy. Give it a rest.
@4 What pisses you off? That all DB employees will shoulder the same pain as their UK counterparts? You just want to be unhappy. Give it a rest.
@4 What pisses you off? That all DB employees will shoulder the same pain as their UK counterparts? You just want to be unhappy. Give it a rest.
@4 What pisses you off? That all DB employees will shoulder the same pain as their UK counterparts? You just want to be unhappy. Give it a rest.
@4 What pisses you off? That all DB employees will shoulder the same pain as their UK counterparts? You just want to be unhappy. Give it a rest.
@4 What pisses you off? That all DB employees will shoulder the same pain as their UK counterparts? You just want to be unhappy. Give it a rest.
@4 What pisses you off? That all DB employees will shoulder the same pain as their UK counterparts? You just want to be unhappy. Give it a rest.
@4 What pisses you off? That all DB employees will shoulder the same pain as their UK counterparts? You just want to be unhappy. Give it a rest.
@4 What pisses you off? That all DB employees will shoulder the same pain as their UK counterparts? You just want to be unhappy. Give it a rest.
Fuck the queen.
Fuck the queen.
Fuck the queen.
Fuck the queen.
Fuck the queen.
Fuck the queen.
Fuck the queen.
Fuck the queen.
Fuck the queen.
Fuck the queen.
Fuck the queen.
Fuck the queen.
Fuck the queen.
Fuck the queen.
Fuck the queen.
Fuck the queen.
Fuck the queen.
Fuck the queen.
Fuck the queen.
Fuck the queen.
Fuck the queen.
Fuck the queen.
Fuck the queen.
Fuck the queen.
Fuck the queen.
Fuck the queen.
Fuck the queen.
Fuck the queen.
Fuck the queen.
Fuck the queen.
Fuck the queen.
Fuck the queen.
Fuck the queen.
@7 Yes, and that is why I look like I do.
Prince Charles
@7 Yes, and that is why I look like I do.
Prince Charles
@7 Yes, and that is why I look like I do.
Prince Charles
@7 Yes, and that is why I look like I do.
Prince Charles
@7 Yes, and that is why I look like I do.
Prince Charles
@7 Yes, and that is why I look like I do.
Prince Charles
@7 Yes, and that is why I look like I do.
Prince Charles
@7 Yes, and that is why I look like I do.
Prince Charles
@7 Yes, and that is why I look like I do.
Prince Charles
@7 Yes, and that is why I look like I do.
Prince Charles
@7 Yes, and that is why I look like I do.
Prince Charles
@7 Yes, and that is why I look like I do.
Prince Charles
@7 Yes, and that is why I look like I do.
Prince Charles
@7 Yes, and that is why I look like I do.
Prince Charles
@7 Yes, and that is why I look like I do.
Prince Charles
@7 Yes, and that is why I look like I do.
Prince Charles
@7 Yes, and that is why I look like I do.
Prince Charles
@7 Yes, and that is why I look like I do.
Prince Charles
@7 Yes, and that is why I look like I do.
Prince Charles
@7 Yes, and that is why I look like I do.
Prince Charles
@7 Yes, and that is why I look like I do.
Prince Charles
@7 Yes, and that is why I look like I do.
Prince Charles
@7 Yes, and that is why I look like I do.
Prince Charles
@7 Yes, and that is why I look like I do.
Prince Charles
@7 Yes, and that is why I look like I do.
Prince Charles
@7 Yes, and that is why I look like I do.
Prince Charles
@7 Yes, and that is why I look like I do.
Prince Charles
@7 Yes, and that is why I look like I do.
Prince Charles
@7 Yes, and that is why I look like I do.
Prince Charles
@7 Yes, and that is why I look like I do.
Prince Charles
@7 Yes, and that is why I look like I do.
Prince Charles
Tax Chick,
@3 Misses the boat. I think it’s more likely that the gobalisation will look like this:
1. Determine the amount of funds required to pay the 50% one-off British tax on British bankers.
2. Decrease the total bonus pool by the amount calculated in step 1.
3. Calculate bonuses as normal based on the reduced bonus pool.
To your point this likely will not have an effect on DB’s balance sheet, but instead will result in a reclass from bonuses payable to taxes payable. To that end, your second suggestion and the corresponding equality issues are spot on.
Tax Chick,
@3 Misses the boat. I think it’s more likely that the gobalisation will look like this:
1. Determine the amount of funds required to pay the 50% one-off British tax on British bankers.
2. Decrease the total bonus pool by the amount calculated in step 1.
3. Calculate bonuses as normal based on the reduced bonus pool.
To your point this likely will not have an effect on DB’s balance sheet, but instead will result in a reclass from bonuses payable to taxes payable. To that end, your second suggestion and the corresponding equality issues are spot on.
Tax Chick,
@3 Misses the boat. I think it’s more likely that the gobalisation will look like this:
1. Determine the amount of funds required to pay the 50% one-off British tax on British bankers.
2. Decrease the total bonus pool by the amount calculated in step 1.
3. Calculate bonuses as normal based on the reduced bonus pool.
To your point this likely will not have an effect on DB’s balance sheet, but instead will result in a reclass from bonuses payable to taxes payable. To that end, your second suggestion and the corresponding equality issues are spot on.
Tax Chick,
@3 Misses the boat. I think it’s more likely that the gobalisation will look like this:
1. Determine the amount of funds required to pay the 50% one-off British tax on British bankers.
2. Decrease the total bonus pool by the amount calculated in step 1.
3. Calculate bonuses as normal based on the reduced bonus pool.
To your point this likely will not have an effect on DB’s balance sheet, but instead will result in a reclass from bonuses payable to taxes payable. To that end, your second suggestion and the corresponding equality issues are spot on.
Tax Chick,
@3 Misses the boat. I think it’s more likely that the gobalisation will look like this:
1. Determine the amount of funds required to pay the 50% one-off British tax on British bankers.
2. Decrease the total bonus pool by the amount calculated in step 1.
3. Calculate bonuses as normal based on the reduced bonus pool.
To your point this likely will not have an effect on DB’s balance sheet, but instead will result in a reclass from bonuses payable to taxes payable. To that end, your second suggestion and the corresponding equality issues are spot on.
Tax Chick,
@3 Misses the boat. I think it’s more likely that the gobalisation will look like this:
1. Determine the amount of funds required to pay the 50% one-off British tax on British bankers.
2. Decrease the total bonus pool by the amount calculated in step 1.
3. Calculate bonuses as normal based on the reduced bonus pool.
To your point this likely will not have an effect on DB’s balance sheet, but instead will result in a reclass from bonuses payable to taxes payable. To that end, your second suggestion and the corresponding equality issues are spot on.
Tax Chick,
@3 Misses the boat. I think it’s more likely that the gobalisation will look like this:
1. Determine the amount of funds required to pay the 50% one-off British tax on British bankers.
2. Decrease the total bonus pool by the amount calculated in step 1.
3. Calculate bonuses as normal based on the reduced bonus pool.
To your point this likely will not have an effect on DB’s balance sheet, but instead will result in a reclass from bonuses payable to taxes payable. To that end, your second suggestion and the corresponding equality issues are spot on.
Tax Chick,
@3 Misses the boat. I think it’s more likely that the gobalisation will look like this:
1. Determine the amount of funds required to pay the 50% one-off British tax on British bankers.
2. Decrease the total bonus pool by the amount calculated in step 1.
3. Calculate bonuses as normal based on the reduced bonus pool.
To your point this likely will not have an effect on DB’s balance sheet, but instead will result in a reclass from bonuses payable to taxes payable. To that end, your second suggestion and the corresponding equality issues are spot on.
Tax Chick,
@3 Misses the boat. I think it’s more likely that the gobalisation will look like this:
1. Determine the amount of funds required to pay the 50% one-off British tax on British bankers.
2. Decrease the total bonus pool by the amount calculated in step 1.
3. Calculate bonuses as normal based on the reduced bonus pool.
To your point this likely will not have an effect on DB’s balance sheet, but instead will result in a reclass from bonuses payable to taxes payable. To that end, your second suggestion and the corresponding equality issues are spot on.
Tax Chick,
@3 Misses the boat. I think it’s more likely that the gobalisation will look like this:
1. Determine the amount of funds required to pay the 50% one-off British tax on British bankers.
2. Decrease the total bonus pool by the amount calculated in step 1.
3. Calculate bonuses as normal based on the reduced bonus pool.
To your point this likely will not have an effect on DB’s balance sheet, but instead will result in a reclass from bonuses payable to taxes payable. To that end, your second suggestion and the corresponding equality issues are spot on.
Tax Chick,
@3 Misses the boat. I think it’s more likely that the gobalisation will look like this:
1. Determine the amount of funds required to pay the 50% one-off British tax on British bankers.
2. Decrease the total bonus pool by the amount calculated in step 1.
3. Calculate bonuses as normal based on the reduced bonus pool.
To your point this likely will not have an effect on DB’s balance sheet, but instead will result in a reclass from bonuses payable to taxes payable. To that end, your second suggestion and the corresponding equality issues are spot on.
Tax Chick,
@3 Misses the boat. I think it’s more likely that the gobalisation will look like this:
1. Determine the amount of funds required to pay the 50% one-off British tax on British bankers.
2. Decrease the total bonus pool by the amount calculated in step 1.
3. Calculate bonuses as normal based on the reduced bonus pool.
To your point this likely will not have an effect on DB’s balance sheet, but instead will result in a reclass from bonuses payable to taxes payable. To that end, your second suggestion and the corresponding equality issues are spot on.
Tax Chick,
@3 Misses the boat. I think it’s more likely that the gobalisation will look like this:
1. Determine the amount of funds required to pay the 50% one-off British tax on British bankers.
2. Decrease the total bonus pool by the amount calculated in step 1.
3. Calculate bonuses as normal based on the reduced bonus pool.
To your point this likely will not have an effect on DB’s balance sheet, but instead will result in a reclass from bonuses payable to taxes payable. To that end, your second suggestion and the corresponding equality issues are spot on.
Tax Chick,
@3 Misses the boat. I think it’s more likely that the gobalisation will look like this:
1. Determine the amount of funds required to pay the 50% one-off British tax on British bankers.
2. Decrease the total bonus pool by the amount calculated in step 1.
3. Calculate bonuses as normal based on the reduced bonus pool.
To your point this likely will not have an effect on DB’s balance sheet, but instead will result in a reclass from bonuses payable to taxes payable. To that end, your second suggestion and the corresponding equality issues are spot on.
Tax Chick,
@3 Misses the boat. I think it’s more likely that the gobalisation will look like this:
1. Determine the amount of funds required to pay the 50% one-off British tax on British bankers.
2. Decrease the total bonus pool by the amount calculated in step 1.
3. Calculate bonuses as normal based on the reduced bonus pool.
To your point this likely will not have an effect on DB’s balance sheet, but instead will result in a reclass from bonuses payable to taxes payable. To that end, your second suggestion and the corresponding equality issues are spot on.
Tax Chick,
@3 Misses the boat. I think it’s more likely that the gobalisation will look like this:
1. Determine the amount of funds required to pay the 50% one-off British tax on British bankers.
2. Decrease the total bonus pool by the amount calculated in step 1.
3. Calculate bonuses as normal based on the reduced bonus pool.
To your point this likely will not have an effect on DB’s balance sheet, but instead will result in a reclass from bonuses payable to taxes payable. To that end, your second suggestion and the corresponding equality issues are spot on.
Tax Chick,
@3 Misses the boat. I think it’s more likely that the gobalisation will look like this:
1. Determine the amount of funds required to pay the 50% one-off British tax on British bankers.
2. Decrease the total bonus pool by the amount calculated in step 1.
3. Calculate bonuses as normal based on the reduced bonus pool.
To your point this likely will not have an effect on DB’s balance sheet, but instead will result in a reclass from bonuses payable to taxes payable. To that end, your second suggestion and the corresponding equality issues are spot on.
Tax Chick,
@3 Misses the boat. I think it’s more likely that the gobalisation will look like this:
1. Determine the amount of funds required to pay the 50% one-off British tax on British bankers.
2. Decrease the total bonus pool by the amount calculated in step 1.
3. Calculate bonuses as normal based on the reduced bonus pool.
To your point this likely will not have an effect on DB’s balance sheet, but instead will result in a reclass from bonuses payable to taxes payable. To that end, your second suggestion and the corresponding equality issues are spot on.
Tax Chick,
@3 Misses the boat. I think it’s more likely that the gobalisation will look like this:
1. Determine the amount of funds required to pay the 50% one-off British tax on British bankers.
2. Decrease the total bonus pool by the amount calculated in step 1.
3. Calculate bonuses as normal based on the reduced bonus pool.
To your point this likely will not have an effect on DB’s balance sheet, but instead will result in a reclass from bonuses payable to taxes payable. To that end, your second suggestion and the corresponding equality issues are spot on.
Tax Chick,
@3 Misses the boat. I think it’s more likely that the gobalisation will look like this:
1. Determine the amount of funds required to pay the 50% one-off British tax on British bankers.
2. Decrease the total bonus pool by the amount calculated in step 1.
3. Calculate bonuses as normal based on the reduced bonus pool.
To your point this likely will not have an effect on DB’s balance sheet, but instead will result in a reclass from bonuses payable to taxes payable. To that end, your second suggestion and the corresponding equality issues are spot on.
Tax Chick,
@3 Misses the boat. I think it’s more likely that the gobalisation will look like this:
1. Determine the amount of funds required to pay the 50% one-off British tax on British bankers.
2. Decrease the total bonus pool by the amount calculated in step 1.
3. Calculate bonuses as normal based on the reduced bonus pool.
To your point this likely will not have an effect on DB’s balance sheet, but instead will result in a reclass from bonuses payable to taxes payable. To that end, your second suggestion and the corresponding equality issues are spot on.
Tax Chick,
@3 Misses the boat. I think it’s more likely that the gobalisation will look like this:
1. Determine the amount of funds required to pay the 50% one-off British tax on British bankers.
2. Decrease the total bonus pool by the amount calculated in step 1.
3. Calculate bonuses as normal based on the reduced bonus pool.
To your point this likely will not have an effect on DB’s balance sheet, but instead will result in a reclass from bonuses payable to taxes payable. To that end, your second suggestion and the corresponding equality issues are spot on.
Tax Chick,
@3 Misses the boat. I think it’s more likely that the gobalisation will look like this:
1. Determine the amount of funds required to pay the 50% one-off British tax on British bankers.
2. Decrease the total bonus pool by the amount calculated in step 1.
3. Calculate bonuses as normal based on the reduced bonus pool.
To your point this likely will not have an effect on DB’s balance sheet, but instead will result in a reclass from bonuses payable to taxes payable. To that end, your second suggestion and the corresponding equality issues are spot on.
Tax Chick,
@3 Misses the boat. I think it’s more likely that the gobalisation will look like this:
1. Determine the amount of funds required to pay the 50% one-off British tax on British bankers.
2. Decrease the total bonus pool by the amount calculated in step 1.
3. Calculate bonuses as normal based on the reduced bonus pool.
To your point this likely will not have an effect on DB’s balance sheet, but instead will result in a reclass from bonuses payable to taxes payable. To that end, your second suggestion and the corresponding equality issues are spot on.
Tax Chick,
@3 Misses the boat. I think it’s more likely that the gobalisation will look like this:
1. Determine the amount of funds required to pay the 50% one-off British tax on British bankers.
2. Decrease the total bonus pool by the amount calculated in step 1.
3. Calculate bonuses as normal based on the reduced bonus pool.
To your point this likely will not have an effect on DB’s balance sheet, but instead will result in a reclass from bonuses payable to taxes payable. To that end, your second suggestion and the corresponding equality issues are spot on.
Tax Chick,
@3 Misses the boat. I think it’s more likely that the gobalisation will look like this:
1. Determine the amount of funds required to pay the 50% one-off British tax on British bankers.
2. Decrease the total bonus pool by the amount calculated in step 1.
3. Calculate bonuses as normal based on the reduced bonus pool.
To your point this likely will not have an effect on DB’s balance sheet, but instead will result in a reclass from bonuses payable to taxes payable. To that end, your second suggestion and the corresponding equality issues are spot on.
Tax Chick,
@3 Misses the boat. I think it’s more likely that the gobalisation will look like this:
1. Determine the amount of funds required to pay the 50% one-off British tax on British bankers.
2. Decrease the total bonus pool by the amount calculated in step 1.
3. Calculate bonuses as normal based on the reduced bonus pool.
To your point this likely will not have an effect on DB’s balance sheet, but instead will result in a reclass from bonuses payable to taxes payable. To that end, your second suggestion and the corresponding equality issues are spot on.
Tax Chick,
@3 Misses the boat. I think it’s more likely that the gobalisation will look like this:
1. Determine the amount of funds required to pay the 50% one-off British tax on British bankers.
2. Decrease the total bonus pool by the amount calculated in step 1.
3. Calculate bonuses as normal based on the reduced bonus pool.
To your point this likely will not have an effect on DB’s balance sheet, but instead will result in a reclass from bonuses payable to taxes payable. To that end, your second suggestion and the corresponding equality issues are spot on.
Tax Chick,
@3 Misses the boat. I think it’s more likely that the gobalisation will look like this:
1. Determine the amount of funds required to pay the 50% one-off British tax on British bankers.
2. Decrease the total bonus pool by the amount calculated in step 1.
3. Calculate bonuses as normal based on the reduced bonus pool.
To your point this likely will not have an effect on DB’s balance sheet, but instead will result in a reclass from bonuses payable to taxes payable. To that end, your second suggestion and the corresponding equality issues are spot on.
Here is the text..
Legislation in Finance Bill 2010 will introduce a new bank payroll tax. This will be set at 50 per cent. It will be payable by a bank, on the amount of a bonus to which a banking employee is entitled, to the extent that the bonus exceeds £25,000. A bank will also be liable to the bank payroll tax where the bonus entitlement arises in respect of services performed for the bank regardless of who awards the bonus.
This means to me, that the tax = 50% of the Bonus amount. So for a bonus of $6.66 the tax would be $3.33 paid by the bank. So if the bank bonus pool is $10, then 1/3 gets withheld by the bank to pay the tax and 2/3 goes to the employee (pre-tax).
@14, in your example you have a Super tax of 1.45 and a bonus of 1.52 or a tax which is almost 100% of the bonus… I remain, firm in my belief that AGW is a hoax, and you all suck at math.
I, like many others, would be interested in what Anal_yst thinks?
Or has that one gone the way of “strump a dump”. I’ve been away for a day.
I, like many others, would be interested in what Anal_yst thinks?
Or has that one gone the way of “strump a dump”. I’ve been away for a day.
I, like many others, would be interested in what Anal_yst thinks?
Or has that one gone the way of “strump a dump”. I’ve been away for a day.
I, like many others, would be interested in what Anal_yst thinks?
Or has that one gone the way of “strump a dump”. I’ve been away for a day.
I, like many others, would be interested in what Anal_yst thinks?
Or has that one gone the way of “strump a dump”. I’ve been away for a day.
I, like many others, would be interested in what Anal_yst thinks?
Or has that one gone the way of “strump a dump”. I’ve been away for a day.
I, like many others, would be interested in what Anal_yst thinks?
Or has that one gone the way of “strump a dump”. I’ve been away for a day.
I, like many others, would be interested in what Anal_yst thinks?
Or has that one gone the way of “strump a dump”. I’ve been away for a day.
I, like many others, would be interested in what Anal_yst thinks?
Or has that one gone the way of “strump a dump”. I’ve been away for a day.
I, like many others, would be interested in what Anal_yst thinks?
Or has that one gone the way of “strump a dump”. I’ve been away for a day.
I, like many others, would be interested in what Anal_yst thinks?
Or has that one gone the way of “strump a dump”. I’ve been away for a day.
I, like many others, would be interested in what Anal_yst thinks?
Or has that one gone the way of “strump a dump”. I’ve been away for a day.
I, like many others, would be interested in what Anal_yst thinks?
Or has that one gone the way of “strump a dump”. I’ve been away for a day.
I, like many others, would be interested in what Anal_yst thinks?
Or has that one gone the way of “strump a dump”. I’ve been away for a day.
I, like many others, would be interested in what Anal_yst thinks?
Or has that one gone the way of “strump a dump”. I’ve been away for a day.
I, like many others, would be interested in what Anal_yst thinks?
Or has that one gone the way of “strump a dump”. I’ve been away for a day.
I, like many others, would be interested in what Anal_yst thinks?
Or has that one gone the way of “strump a dump”. I’ve been away for a day.
I, like many others, would be interested in what Anal_yst thinks?
Or has that one gone the way of “strump a dump”. I’ve been away for a day.
I, like many others, would be interested in what Anal_yst thinks?
Or has that one gone the way of “strump a dump”. I’ve been away for a day.
I, like many others, would be interested in what Anal_yst thinks?
Or has that one gone the way of “strump a dump”. I’ve been away for a day.
I, like many others, would be interested in what Anal_yst thinks?
Or has that one gone the way of “strump a dump”. I’ve been away for a day.
I, like many others, would be interested in what Anal_yst thinks?
Or has that one gone the way of “strump a dump”. I’ve been away for a day.
I, like many others, would be interested in what Anal_yst thinks?
Or has that one gone the way of “strump a dump”. I’ve been away for a day.
I, like many others, would be interested in what Anal_yst thinks?
Or has that one gone the way of “strump a dump”. I’ve been away for a day.
I, like many others, would be interested in what Anal_yst thinks?
Or has that one gone the way of “strump a dump”. I’ve been away for a day.
I, like many others, would be interested in what Anal_yst thinks?
Or has that one gone the way of “strump a dump”. I’ve been away for a day.
I, like many others, would be interested in what Anal_yst thinks?
Or has that one gone the way of “strump a dump”. I’ve been away for a day.
I, like many others, would be interested in what Anal_yst thinks?
Or has that one gone the way of “strump a dump”. I’ve been away for a day.
I, like many others, would be interested in what Anal_yst thinks?
Or has that one gone the way of “strump a dump”. I’ve been away for a day.
I, like many others, would be interested in what Anal_yst thinks?
Or has that one gone the way of “strump a dump”. I’ve been away for a day.
I, like many others, would be interested in what Anal_yst thinks?
Or has that one gone the way of “strump a dump”. I’ve been away for a day.
I, like many others, would be interested in what Anal_yst thinks?
Or has that one gone the way of “strump a dump”. I’ve been away for a day.
I, like many others, would be interested in what Anal_yst thinks?
Or has that one gone the way of “strump a dump”. I’ve been away for a day.
I, like many others, would be interested in what Anal_yst thinks?
Or has that one gone the way of “strump a dump”. I’ve been away for a day.
I, like many others, would be interested in what Anal_yst thinks?
Or has that one gone the way of “strump a dump”. I’ve been away for a day.
I, like many others, would be interested in what Anal_yst thinks?
Or has that one gone the way of “strump a dump”. I’ve been away for a day.
I, like many others, would be interested in what Anal_yst thinks?
Or has that one gone the way of “strump a dump”. I’ve been away for a day.
I, like many others, would be interested in what Anal_yst thinks?
Or has that one gone the way of “strump a dump”. I’ve been away for a day.
I, like many others, would be interested in what Anal_yst thinks?
Or has that one gone the way of “strump a dump”. I’ve been away for a day.
I, like many others, would be interested in what Anal_yst thinks?
Or has that one gone the way of “strump a dump”. I’ve been away for a day.
I, like many others, would be interested in what Anal_yst thinks?
Or has that one gone the way of “strump a dump”. I’ve been away for a day.
I, like many others, would be interested in what Anal_yst thinks?
Or has that one gone the way of “strump a dump”. I’ve been away for a day.
I, like many others, would be interested in what Anal_yst thinks?
Or has that one gone the way of “strump a dump”. I’ve been away for a day.
I, like many others, would be interested in what Anal_yst thinks?
Or has that one gone the way of “strump a dump”. I’ve been away for a day.
I, like many others, would be interested in what Anal_yst thinks?
Or has that one gone the way of “strump a dump”. I’ve been away for a day.
I, like many others, would be interested in what Anal_yst thinks?
Or has that one gone the way of “strump a dump”. I’ve been away for a day.
I, like many others, would be interested in what Anal_yst thinks?
Or has that one gone the way of “strump a dump”. I’ve been away for a day.
I, like many others, would be interested in what Anal_yst thinks?
Or has that one gone the way of “strump a dump”. I’ve been away for a day.
I, like many others, would be interested in what Anal_yst thinks?
Or has that one gone the way of “strump a dump”. I’ve been away for a day.
I, like many others, would be interested in what Anal_yst thinks?
Or has that one gone the way of “strump a dump”. I’ve been away for a day.
I, like many others, would be interested in what Anal_yst thinks?
Or has that one gone the way of “strump a dump”. I’ve been away for a day.
9 is right.
For example: if a desk pool has 9 million, and 2 traders, one in NY and one in London:
Before globalization:
NYC trader: $4.5mm pretax, ~2.5mm after tax
London trader: $4.5mm pre-supertax, $2.25mm pre-personal tax, ~1.3mm after tax.
After globalization:
NYC trader: $3mm pretax, ~1.8mm after
London trader: $6mm pre-supertax, $3mm pre-personal tax, ~1.3mm after tax.
A lot of people expected it to happen. DB’s plan isn’t set in stone yet either. Just makes everyone in the world hate the UK govt more.
9 is right.
For example: if a desk pool has 9 million, and 2 traders, one in NY and one in London:
Before globalization:
NYC trader: $4.5mm pretax, ~2.5mm after tax
London trader: $4.5mm pre-supertax, $2.25mm pre-personal tax, ~1.3mm after tax.
After globalization:
NYC trader: $3mm pretax, ~1.8mm after
London trader: $6mm pre-supertax, $3mm pre-personal tax, ~1.3mm after tax.
A lot of people expected it to happen. DB’s plan isn’t set in stone yet either. Just makes everyone in the world hate the UK govt more.
9 is right.
For example: if a desk pool has 9 million, and 2 traders, one in NY and one in London:
Before globalization:
NYC trader: $4.5mm pretax, ~2.5mm after tax
London trader: $4.5mm pre-supertax, $2.25mm pre-personal tax, ~1.3mm after tax.
After globalization:
NYC trader: $3mm pretax, ~1.8mm after
London trader: $6mm pre-supertax, $3mm pre-personal tax, ~1.3mm after tax.
A lot of people expected it to happen. DB’s plan isn’t set in stone yet either. Just makes everyone in the world hate the UK govt more.
9 is right.
For example: if a desk pool has 9 million, and 2 traders, one in NY and one in London:
Before globalization:
NYC trader: $4.5mm pretax, ~2.5mm after tax
London trader: $4.5mm pre-supertax, $2.25mm pre-personal tax, ~1.3mm after tax.
After globalization:
NYC trader: $3mm pretax, ~1.8mm after
London trader: $6mm pre-supertax, $3mm pre-personal tax, ~1.3mm after tax.
A lot of people expected it to happen. DB’s plan isn’t set in stone yet either. Just makes everyone in the world hate the UK govt more.
9 is right.
For example: if a desk pool has 9 million, and 2 traders, one in NY and one in London:
Before globalization:
NYC trader: $4.5mm pretax, ~2.5mm after tax
London trader: $4.5mm pre-supertax, $2.25mm pre-personal tax, ~1.3mm after tax.
After globalization:
NYC trader: $3mm pretax, ~1.8mm after
London trader: $6mm pre-supertax, $3mm pre-personal tax, ~1.3mm after tax.
A lot of people expected it to happen. DB’s plan isn’t set in stone yet either. Just makes everyone in the world hate the UK govt more.
9 is right.
For example: if a desk pool has 9 million, and 2 traders, one in NY and one in London:
Before globalization:
NYC trader: $4.5mm pretax, ~2.5mm after tax
London trader: $4.5mm pre-supertax, $2.25mm pre-personal tax, ~1.3mm after tax.
After globalization:
NYC trader: $3mm pretax, ~1.8mm after
London trader: $6mm pre-supertax, $3mm pre-personal tax, ~1.3mm after tax.
A lot of people expected it to happen. DB’s plan isn’t set in stone yet either. Just makes everyone in the world hate the UK govt more.
9 is right.
For example: if a desk pool has 9 million, and 2 traders, one in NY and one in London:
Before globalization:
NYC trader: $4.5mm pretax, ~2.5mm after tax
London trader: $4.5mm pre-supertax, $2.25mm pre-personal tax, ~1.3mm after tax.
After globalization:
NYC trader: $3mm pretax, ~1.8mm after
London trader: $6mm pre-supertax, $3mm pre-personal tax, ~1.3mm after tax.
A lot of people expected it to happen. DB’s plan isn’t set in stone yet either. Just makes everyone in the world hate the UK govt more.
9 is right.
For example: if a desk pool has 9 million, and 2 traders, one in NY and one in London:
Before globalization:
NYC trader: $4.5mm pretax, ~2.5mm after tax
London trader: $4.5mm pre-supertax, $2.25mm pre-personal tax, ~1.3mm after tax.
After globalization:
NYC trader: $3mm pretax, ~1.8mm after
London trader: $6mm pre-supertax, $3mm pre-personal tax, ~1.3mm after tax.
A lot of people expected it to happen. DB’s plan isn’t set in stone yet either. Just makes everyone in the world hate the UK govt more.
9 is right.
For example: if a desk pool has 9 million, and 2 traders, one in NY and one in London:
Before globalization:
NYC trader: $4.5mm pretax, ~2.5mm after tax
London trader: $4.5mm pre-supertax, $2.25mm pre-personal tax, ~1.3mm after tax.
After globalization:
NYC trader: $3mm pretax, ~1.8mm after
London trader: $6mm pre-supertax, $3mm pre-personal tax, ~1.3mm after tax.
A lot of people expected it to happen. DB’s plan isn’t set in stone yet either. Just makes everyone in the world hate the UK govt more.
9 is right.
For example: if a desk pool has 9 million, and 2 traders, one in NY and one in London:
Before globalization:
NYC trader: $4.5mm pretax, ~2.5mm after tax
London trader: $4.5mm pre-supertax, $2.25mm pre-personal tax, ~1.3mm after tax.
After globalization:
NYC trader: $3mm pretax, ~1.8mm after
London trader: $6mm pre-supertax, $3mm pre-personal tax, ~1.3mm after tax.
A lot of people expected it to happen. DB’s plan isn’t set in stone yet either. Just makes everyone in the world hate the UK govt more.
9 is right.
For example: if a desk pool has 9 million, and 2 traders, one in NY and one in London:
Before globalization:
NYC trader: $4.5mm pretax, ~2.5mm after tax
London trader: $4.5mm pre-supertax, $2.25mm pre-personal tax, ~1.3mm after tax.
After globalization:
NYC trader: $3mm pretax, ~1.8mm after
London trader: $6mm pre-supertax, $3mm pre-personal tax, ~1.3mm after tax.
A lot of people expected it to happen. DB’s plan isn’t set in stone yet either. Just makes everyone in the world hate the UK govt more.
9 is right.
For example: if a desk pool has 9 million, and 2 traders, one in NY and one in London:
Before globalization:
NYC trader: $4.5mm pretax, ~2.5mm after tax
London trader: $4.5mm pre-supertax, $2.25mm pre-personal tax, ~1.3mm after tax.
After globalization:
NYC trader: $3mm pretax, ~1.8mm after
London trader: $6mm pre-supertax, $3mm pre-personal tax, ~1.3mm after tax.
A lot of people expected it to happen. DB’s plan isn’t set in stone yet either. Just makes everyone in the world hate the UK govt more.
9 is right.
For example: if a desk pool has 9 million, and 2 traders, one in NY and one in London:
Before globalization:
NYC trader: $4.5mm pretax, ~2.5mm after tax
London trader: $4.5mm pre-supertax, $2.25mm pre-personal tax, ~1.3mm after tax.
After globalization:
NYC trader: $3mm pretax, ~1.8mm after
London trader: $6mm pre-supertax, $3mm pre-personal tax, ~1.3mm after tax.
A lot of people expected it to happen. DB’s plan isn’t set in stone yet either. Just makes everyone in the world hate the UK govt more.
9 is right.
For example: if a desk pool has 9 million, and 2 traders, one in NY and one in London:
Before globalization:
NYC trader: $4.5mm pretax, ~2.5mm after tax
London trader: $4.5mm pre-supertax, $2.25mm pre-personal tax, ~1.3mm after tax.
After globalization:
NYC trader: $3mm pretax, ~1.8mm after
London trader: $6mm pre-supertax, $3mm pre-personal tax, ~1.3mm after tax.
A lot of people expected it to happen. DB’s plan isn’t set in stone yet either. Just makes everyone in the world hate the UK govt more.
9 is right.
For example: if a desk pool has 9 million, and 2 traders, one in NY and one in London:
Before globalization:
NYC trader: $4.5mm pretax, ~2.5mm after tax
London trader: $4.5mm pre-supertax, $2.25mm pre-personal tax, ~1.3mm after tax.
After globalization:
NYC trader: $3mm pretax, ~1.8mm after
London trader: $6mm pre-supertax, $3mm pre-personal tax, ~1.3mm after tax.
A lot of people expected it to happen. DB’s plan isn’t set in stone yet either. Just makes everyone in the world hate the UK govt more.
9 is right.
For example: if a desk pool has 9 million, and 2 traders, one in NY and one in London:
Before globalization:
NYC trader: $4.5mm pretax, ~2.5mm after tax
London trader: $4.5mm pre-supertax, $2.25mm pre-personal tax, ~1.3mm after tax.
After globalization:
NYC trader: $3mm pretax, ~1.8mm after
London trader: $6mm pre-supertax, $3mm pre-personal tax, ~1.3mm after tax.
A lot of people expected it to happen. DB’s plan isn’t set in stone yet either. Just makes everyone in the world hate the UK govt more.
9 is right.
For example: if a desk pool has 9 million, and 2 traders, one in NY and one in London:
Before globalization:
NYC trader: $4.5mm pretax, ~2.5mm after tax
London trader: $4.5mm pre-supertax, $2.25mm pre-personal tax, ~1.3mm after tax.
After globalization:
NYC trader: $3mm pretax, ~1.8mm after
London trader: $6mm pre-supertax, $3mm pre-personal tax, ~1.3mm after tax.
A lot of people expected it to happen. DB’s plan isn’t set in stone yet either. Just makes everyone in the world hate the UK govt more.
9 is right.
For example: if a desk pool has 9 million, and 2 traders, one in NY and one in London:
Before globalization:
NYC trader: $4.5mm pretax, ~2.5mm after tax
London trader: $4.5mm pre-supertax, $2.25mm pre-personal tax, ~1.3mm after tax.
After globalization:
NYC trader: $3mm pretax, ~1.8mm after
London trader: $6mm pre-supertax, $3mm pre-personal tax, ~1.3mm after tax.
A lot of people expected it to happen. DB’s plan isn’t set in stone yet either. Just makes everyone in the world hate the UK govt more.
9 is right.
For example: if a desk pool has 9 million, and 2 traders, one in NY and one in London:
Before globalization:
NYC trader: $4.5mm pretax, ~2.5mm after tax
London trader: $4.5mm pre-supertax, $2.25mm pre-personal tax, ~1.3mm after tax.
After globalization:
NYC trader: $3mm pretax, ~1.8mm after
London trader: $6mm pre-supertax, $3mm pre-personal tax, ~1.3mm after tax.
A lot of people expected it to happen. DB’s plan isn’t set in stone yet either. Just makes everyone in the world hate the UK govt more.
9 is right.
For example: if a desk pool has 9 million, and 2 traders, one in NY and one in London:
Before globalization:
NYC trader: $4.5mm pretax, ~2.5mm after tax
London trader: $4.5mm pre-supertax, $2.25mm pre-personal tax, ~1.3mm after tax.
After globalization:
NYC trader: $3mm pretax, ~1.8mm after
London trader: $6mm pre-supertax, $3mm pre-personal tax, ~1.3mm after tax.
A lot of people expected it to happen. DB’s plan isn’t set in stone yet either. Just makes everyone in the world hate the UK govt more.
9 is right.
For example: if a desk pool has 9 million, and 2 traders, one in NY and one in London:
Before globalization:
NYC trader: $4.5mm pretax, ~2.5mm after tax
London trader: $4.5mm pre-supertax, $2.25mm pre-personal tax, ~1.3mm after tax.
After globalization:
NYC trader: $3mm pretax, ~1.8mm after
London trader: $6mm pre-supertax, $3mm pre-personal tax, ~1.3mm after tax.
A lot of people expected it to happen. DB’s plan isn’t set in stone yet either. Just makes everyone in the world hate the UK govt more.
9 is right.
For example: if a desk pool has 9 million, and 2 traders, one in NY and one in London:
Before globalization:
NYC trader: $4.5mm pretax, ~2.5mm after tax
London trader: $4.5mm pre-supertax, $2.25mm pre-personal tax, ~1.3mm after tax.
After globalization:
NYC trader: $3mm pretax, ~1.8mm after
London trader: $6mm pre-supertax, $3mm pre-personal tax, ~1.3mm after tax.
A lot of people expected it to happen. DB’s plan isn’t set in stone yet either. Just makes everyone in the world hate the UK govt more.
9 is right.
For example: if a desk pool has 9 million, and 2 traders, one in NY and one in London:
Before globalization:
NYC trader: $4.5mm pretax, ~2.5mm after tax
London trader: $4.5mm pre-supertax, $2.25mm pre-personal tax, ~1.3mm after tax.
After globalization:
NYC trader: $3mm pretax, ~1.8mm after
London trader: $6mm pre-supertax, $3mm pre-personal tax, ~1.3mm after tax.
A lot of people expected it to happen. DB’s plan isn’t set in stone yet either. Just makes everyone in the world hate the UK govt more.
9 is right.
For example: if a desk pool has 9 million, and 2 traders, one in NY and one in London:
Before globalization:
NYC trader: $4.5mm pretax, ~2.5mm after tax
London trader: $4.5mm pre-supertax, $2.25mm pre-personal tax, ~1.3mm after tax.
After globalization:
NYC trader: $3mm pretax, ~1.8mm after
London trader: $6mm pre-supertax, $3mm pre-personal tax, ~1.3mm after tax.
A lot of people expected it to happen. DB’s plan isn’t set in stone yet either. Just makes everyone in the world hate the UK govt more.
9 is right.
For example: if a desk pool has 9 million, and 2 traders, one in NY and one in London:
Before globalization:
NYC trader: $4.5mm pretax, ~2.5mm after tax
London trader: $4.5mm pre-supertax, $2.25mm pre-personal tax, ~1.3mm after tax.
After globalization:
NYC trader: $3mm pretax, ~1.8mm after
London trader: $6mm pre-supertax, $3mm pre-personal tax, ~1.3mm after tax.
A lot of people expected it to happen. DB’s plan isn’t set in stone yet either. Just makes everyone in the world hate the UK govt more.
9 is right.
For example: if a desk pool has 9 million, and 2 traders, one in NY and one in London:
Before globalization:
NYC trader: $4.5mm pretax, ~2.5mm after tax
London trader: $4.5mm pre-supertax, $2.25mm pre-personal tax, ~1.3mm after tax.
After globalization:
NYC trader: $3mm pretax, ~1.8mm after
London trader: $6mm pre-supertax, $3mm pre-personal tax, ~1.3mm after tax.
A lot of people expected it to happen. DB’s plan isn’t set in stone yet either. Just makes everyone in the world hate the UK govt more.
9 is right.
For example: if a desk pool has 9 million, and 2 traders, one in NY and one in London:
Before globalization:
NYC trader: $4.5mm pretax, ~2.5mm after tax
London trader: $4.5mm pre-supertax, $2.25mm pre-personal tax, ~1.3mm after tax.
After globalization:
NYC trader: $3mm pretax, ~1.8mm after
London trader: $6mm pre-supertax, $3mm pre-personal tax, ~1.3mm after tax.
A lot of people expected it to happen. DB’s plan isn’t set in stone yet either. Just makes everyone in the world hate the UK govt more.
9 is right.
For example: if a desk pool has 9 million, and 2 traders, one in NY and one in London:
Before globalization:
NYC trader: $4.5mm pretax, ~2.5mm after tax
London trader: $4.5mm pre-supertax, $2.25mm pre-personal tax, ~1.3mm after tax.
After globalization:
NYC trader: $3mm pretax, ~1.8mm after
London trader: $6mm pre-supertax, $3mm pre-personal tax, ~1.3mm after tax.
A lot of people expected it to happen. DB’s plan isn’t set in stone yet either. Just makes everyone in the world hate the UK govt more.
9 is right.
For example: if a desk pool has 9 million, and 2 traders, one in NY and one in London:
Before globalization:
NYC trader: $4.5mm pretax, ~2.5mm after tax
London trader: $4.5mm pre-supertax, $2.25mm pre-personal tax, ~1.3mm after tax.
After globalization:
NYC trader: $3mm pretax, ~1.8mm after
London trader: $6mm pre-supertax, $3mm pre-personal tax, ~1.3mm after tax.
A lot of people expected it to happen. DB’s plan isn’t set in stone yet either. Just makes everyone in the world hate the UK govt more.
9 is right.
For example: if a desk pool has 9 million, and 2 traders, one in NY and one in London:
Before globalization:
NYC trader: $4.5mm pretax, ~2.5mm after tax
London trader: $4.5mm pre-supertax, $2.25mm pre-personal tax, ~1.3mm after tax.
After globalization:
NYC trader: $3mm pretax, ~1.8mm after
London trader: $6mm pre-supertax, $3mm pre-personal tax, ~1.3mm after tax.
A lot of people expected it to happen. DB’s plan isn’t set in stone yet either. Just makes everyone in the world hate the UK govt more.
9 is right.
For example: if a desk pool has 9 million, and 2 traders, one in NY and one in London:
Before globalization:
NYC trader: $4.5mm pretax, ~2.5mm after tax
London trader: $4.5mm pre-supertax, $2.25mm pre-personal tax, ~1.3mm after tax.
After globalization:
NYC trader: $3mm pretax, ~1.8mm after
London trader: $6mm pre-supertax, $3mm pre-personal tax, ~1.3mm after tax.
A lot of people expected it to happen. DB’s plan isn’t set in stone yet either. Just makes everyone in the world hate the UK govt more.
9 is right.
For example: if a desk pool has 9 million, and 2 traders, one in NY and one in London:
Before globalization:
NYC trader: $4.5mm pretax, ~2.5mm after tax
London trader: $4.5mm pre-supertax, $2.25mm pre-personal tax, ~1.3mm after tax.
After globalization:
NYC trader: $3mm pretax, ~1.8mm after
London trader: $6mm pre-supertax, $3mm pre-personal tax, ~1.3mm after tax.
A lot of people expected it to happen. DB’s plan isn’t set in stone yet either. Just makes everyone in the world hate the UK govt more.
9 is right.
For example: if a desk pool has 9 million, and 2 traders, one in NY and one in London:
Before globalization:
NYC trader: $4.5mm pretax, ~2.5mm after tax
London trader: $4.5mm pre-supertax, $2.25mm pre-personal tax, ~1.3mm after tax.
After globalization:
NYC trader: $3mm pretax, ~1.8mm after
London trader: $6mm pre-supertax, $3mm pre-personal tax, ~1.3mm after tax.
A lot of people expected it to happen. DB’s plan isn’t set in stone yet either. Just makes everyone in the world hate the UK govt more.
9 is right.
For example: if a desk pool has 9 million, and 2 traders, one in NY and one in London:
Before globalization:
NYC trader: $4.5mm pretax, ~2.5mm after tax
London trader: $4.5mm pre-supertax, $2.25mm pre-personal tax, ~1.3mm after tax.
After globalization:
NYC trader: $3mm pretax, ~1.8mm after
London trader: $6mm pre-supertax, $3mm pre-personal tax, ~1.3mm after tax.
A lot of people expected it to happen. DB’s plan isn’t set in stone yet either. Just makes everyone in the world hate the UK govt more.
9 is right.
For example: if a desk pool has 9 million, and 2 traders, one in NY and one in London:
Before globalization:
NYC trader: $4.5mm pretax, ~2.5mm after tax
London trader: $4.5mm pre-supertax, $2.25mm pre-personal tax, ~1.3mm after tax.
After globalization:
NYC trader: $3mm pretax, ~1.8mm after
London trader: $6mm pre-supertax, $3mm pre-personal tax, ~1.3mm after tax.
A lot of people expected it to happen. DB’s plan isn’t set in stone yet either. Just makes everyone in the world hate the UK govt more.
9 is right.
For example: if a desk pool has 9 million, and 2 traders, one in NY and one in London:
Before globalization:
NYC trader: $4.5mm pretax, ~2.5mm after tax
London trader: $4.5mm pre-supertax, $2.25mm pre-personal tax, ~1.3mm after tax.
After globalization:
NYC trader: $3mm pretax, ~1.8mm after
London trader: $6mm pre-supertax, $3mm pre-personal tax, ~1.3mm after tax.
A lot of people expected it to happen. DB’s plan isn’t set in stone yet either. Just makes everyone in the world hate the UK govt more.
9 is right.
For example: if a desk pool has 9 million, and 2 traders, one in NY and one in London:
Before globalization:
NYC trader: $4.5mm pretax, ~2.5mm after tax
London trader: $4.5mm pre-supertax, $2.25mm pre-personal tax, ~1.3mm after tax.
After globalization:
NYC trader: $3mm pretax, ~1.8mm after
London trader: $6mm pre-supertax, $3mm pre-personal tax, ~1.3mm after tax.
A lot of people expected it to happen. DB’s plan isn’t set in stone yet either. Just makes everyone in the world hate the UK govt more.
9 is right.
For example: if a desk pool has 9 million, and 2 traders, one in NY and one in London:
Before globalization:
NYC trader: $4.5mm pretax, ~2.5mm after tax
London trader: $4.5mm pre-supertax, $2.25mm pre-personal tax, ~1.3mm after tax.
After globalization:
NYC trader: $3mm pretax, ~1.8mm after
London trader: $6mm pre-supertax, $3mm pre-personal tax, ~1.3mm after tax.
A lot of people expected it to happen. DB’s plan isn’t set in stone yet either. Just makes everyone in the world hate the UK govt more.
9 is right.
For example: if a desk pool has 9 million, and 2 traders, one in NY and one in London:
Before globalization:
NYC trader: $4.5mm pretax, ~2.5mm after tax
London trader: $4.5mm pre-supertax, $2.25mm pre-personal tax, ~1.3mm after tax.
After globalization:
NYC trader: $3mm pretax, ~1.8mm after
London trader: $6mm pre-supertax, $3mm pre-personal tax, ~1.3mm after tax.
A lot of people expected it to happen. DB’s plan isn’t set in stone yet either. Just makes everyone in the world hate the UK govt more.
9 is right.
For example: if a desk pool has 9 million, and 2 traders, one in NY and one in London:
Before globalization:
NYC trader: $4.5mm pretax, ~2.5mm after tax
London trader: $4.5mm pre-supertax, $2.25mm pre-personal tax, ~1.3mm after tax.
After globalization:
NYC trader: $3mm pretax, ~1.8mm after
London trader: $6mm pre-supertax, $3mm pre-personal tax, ~1.3mm after tax.
A lot of people expected it to happen. DB’s plan isn’t set in stone yet either. Just makes everyone in the world hate the UK govt more.
9 is right.
For example: if a desk pool has 9 million, and 2 traders, one in NY and one in London:
Before globalization:
NYC trader: $4.5mm pretax, ~2.5mm after tax
London trader: $4.5mm pre-supertax, $2.25mm pre-personal tax, ~1.3mm after tax.
After globalization:
NYC trader: $3mm pretax, ~1.8mm after
London trader: $6mm pre-supertax, $3mm pre-personal tax, ~1.3mm after tax.
A lot of people expected it to happen. DB’s plan isn’t set in stone yet either. Just makes everyone in the world hate the UK govt more.
9 is right.
For example: if a desk pool has 9 million, and 2 traders, one in NY and one in London:
Before globalization:
NYC trader: $4.5mm pretax, ~2.5mm after tax
London trader: $4.5mm pre-supertax, $2.25mm pre-personal tax, ~1.3mm after tax.
After globalization:
NYC trader: $3mm pretax, ~1.8mm after
London trader: $6mm pre-supertax, $3mm pre-personal tax, ~1.3mm after tax.
A lot of people expected it to happen. DB’s plan isn’t set in stone yet either. Just makes everyone in the world hate the UK govt more.
9 is right.
For example: if a desk pool has 9 million, and 2 traders, one in NY and one in London:
Before globalization:
NYC trader: $4.5mm pretax, ~2.5mm after tax
London trader: $4.5mm pre-supertax, $2.25mm pre-personal tax, ~1.3mm after tax.
After globalization:
NYC trader: $3mm pretax, ~1.8mm after
London trader: $6mm pre-supertax, $3mm pre-personal tax, ~1.3mm after tax.
A lot of people expected it to happen. DB’s plan isn’t set in stone yet either. Just makes everyone in the world hate the UK govt more.
9 is right.
For example: if a desk pool has 9 million, and 2 traders, one in NY and one in London:
Before globalization:
NYC trader: $4.5mm pretax, ~2.5mm after tax
London trader: $4.5mm pre-supertax, $2.25mm pre-personal tax, ~1.3mm after tax.
After globalization:
NYC trader: $3mm pretax, ~1.8mm after
London trader: $6mm pre-supertax, $3mm pre-personal tax, ~1.3mm after tax.
A lot of people expected it to happen. DB’s plan isn’t set in stone yet either. Just makes everyone in the world hate the UK govt more.
9 is right.
For example: if a desk pool has 9 million, and 2 traders, one in NY and one in London:
Before globalization:
NYC trader: $4.5mm pretax, ~2.5mm after tax
London trader: $4.5mm pre-supertax, $2.25mm pre-personal tax, ~1.3mm after tax.
After globalization:
NYC trader: $3mm pretax, ~1.8mm after
London trader: $6mm pre-supertax, $3mm pre-personal tax, ~1.3mm after tax.
A lot of people expected it to happen. DB’s plan isn’t set in stone yet either. Just makes everyone in the world hate the UK govt more.
9 is right.
For example: if a desk pool has 9 million, and 2 traders, one in NY and one in London:
Before globalization:
NYC trader: $4.5mm pretax, ~2.5mm after tax
London trader: $4.5mm pre-supertax, $2.25mm pre-personal tax, ~1.3mm after tax.
After globalization:
NYC trader: $3mm pretax, ~1.8mm after
London trader: $6mm pre-supertax, $3mm pre-personal tax, ~1.3mm after tax.
A lot of people expected it to happen. DB’s plan isn’t set in stone yet either. Just makes everyone in the world hate the UK govt more.
9 is right.
For example: if a desk pool has 9 million, and 2 traders, one in NY and one in London:
Before globalization:
NYC trader: $4.5mm pretax, ~2.5mm after tax
London trader: $4.5mm pre-supertax, $2.25mm pre-personal tax, ~1.3mm after tax.
After globalization:
NYC trader: $3mm pretax, ~1.8mm after
London trader: $6mm pre-supertax, $3mm pre-personal tax, ~1.3mm after tax.
A lot of people expected it to happen. DB’s plan isn’t set in stone yet either. Just makes everyone in the world hate the UK govt more.
9 is right.
For example: if a desk pool has 9 million, and 2 traders, one in NY and one in London:
Before globalization:
NYC trader: $4.5mm pretax, ~2.5mm after tax
London trader: $4.5mm pre-supertax, $2.25mm pre-personal tax, ~1.3mm after tax.
After globalization:
NYC trader: $3mm pretax, ~1.8mm after
London trader: $6mm pre-supertax, $3mm pre-personal tax, ~1.3mm after tax.
A lot of people expected it to happen. DB’s plan isn’t set in stone yet either. Just makes everyone in the world hate the UK govt more.
9 is right.
For example: if a desk pool has 9 million, and 2 traders, one in NY and one in London:
Before globalization:
NYC trader: $4.5mm pretax, ~2.5mm after tax
London trader: $4.5mm pre-supertax, $2.25mm pre-personal tax, ~1.3mm after tax.
After globalization:
NYC trader: $3mm pretax, ~1.8mm after
London trader: $6mm pre-supertax, $3mm pre-personal tax, ~1.3mm after tax.
A lot of people expected it to happen. DB’s plan isn’t set in stone yet either. Just makes everyone in the world hate the UK govt more.
9 is right.
For example: if a desk pool has 9 million, and 2 traders, one in NY and one in London:
Before globalization:
NYC trader: $4.5mm pretax, ~2.5mm after tax
London trader: $4.5mm pre-supertax, $2.25mm pre-personal tax, ~1.3mm after tax.
After globalization:
NYC trader: $3mm pretax, ~1.8mm after
London trader: $6mm pre-supertax, $3mm pre-personal tax, ~1.3mm after tax.
A lot of people expected it to happen. DB’s plan isn’t set in stone yet either. Just makes everyone in the world hate the UK govt more.
9 is right.
For example: if a desk pool has 9 million, and 2 traders, one in NY and one in London:
Before globalization:
NYC trader: $4.5mm pretax, ~2.5mm after tax
London trader: $4.5mm pre-supertax, $2.25mm pre-personal tax, ~1.3mm after tax.
After globalization:
NYC trader: $3mm pretax, ~1.8mm after
London trader: $6mm pre-supertax, $3mm pre-personal tax, ~1.3mm after tax.
A lot of people expected it to happen. DB’s plan isn’t set in stone yet either. Just makes everyone in the world hate the UK govt more.
9 is right.
For example: if a desk pool has 9 million, and 2 traders, one in NY and one in London:
Before globalization:
NYC trader: $4.5mm pretax, ~2.5mm after tax
London trader: $4.5mm pre-supertax, $2.25mm pre-personal tax, ~1.3mm after tax.
After globalization:
NYC trader: $3mm pretax, ~1.8mm after
London trader: $6mm pre-supertax, $3mm pre-personal tax, ~1.3mm after tax.
A lot of people expected it to happen. DB’s plan isn’t set in stone yet either. Just makes everyone in the world hate the UK govt more.
9 is right.
For example: if a desk pool has 9 million, and 2 traders, one in NY and one in London:
Before globalization:
NYC trader: $4.5mm pretax, ~2.5mm after tax
London trader: $4.5mm pre-supertax, $2.25mm pre-personal tax, ~1.3mm after tax.
After globalization:
NYC trader: $3mm pretax, ~1.8mm after
London trader: $6mm pre-supertax, $3mm pre-personal tax, ~1.3mm after tax.
A lot of people expected it to happen. DB’s plan isn’t set in stone yet either. Just makes everyone in the world hate the UK govt more.
9 is right.
For example: if a desk pool has 9 million, and 2 traders, one in NY and one in London:
Before globalization:
NYC trader: $4.5mm pretax, ~2.5mm after tax
London trader: $4.5mm pre-supertax, $2.25mm pre-personal tax, ~1.3mm after tax.
After globalization:
NYC trader: $3mm pretax, ~1.8mm after
London trader: $6mm pre-supertax, $3mm pre-personal tax, ~1.3mm after tax.
A lot of people expected it to happen. DB’s plan isn’t set in stone yet either. Just makes everyone in the world hate the UK govt more.
Sorry, typo above, London trader in last case should get ~1.8mm after tax, not 1.3.
-11
Sorry, typo above, London trader in last case should get ~1.8mm after tax, not 1.3.
-11
Sorry, typo above, London trader in last case should get ~1.8mm after tax, not 1.3.
-11
Sorry, typo above, London trader in last case should get ~1.8mm after tax, not 1.3.
-11
Sorry, typo above, London trader in last case should get ~1.8mm after tax, not 1.3.
-11
Sorry, typo above, London trader in last case should get ~1.8mm after tax, not 1.3.
-11
Sorry, typo above, London trader in last case should get ~1.8mm after tax, not 1.3.
-11
Sorry, typo above, London trader in last case should get ~1.8mm after tax, not 1.3.
-11
Sorry, typo above, London trader in last case should get ~1.8mm after tax, not 1.3.
-11
Sorry, typo above, London trader in last case should get ~1.8mm after tax, not 1.3.
-11
Sorry, typo above, London trader in last case should get ~1.8mm after tax, not 1.3.
-11
Sorry, typo above, London trader in last case should get ~1.8mm after tax, not 1.3.
-11
Sorry, typo above, London trader in last case should get ~1.8mm after tax, not 1.3.
-11
Sorry, typo above, London trader in last case should get ~1.8mm after tax, not 1.3.
-11
Sorry, typo above, London trader in last case should get ~1.8mm after tax, not 1.3.
-11
Sorry, typo above, London trader in last case should get ~1.8mm after tax, not 1.3.
-11
Sorry, typo above, London trader in last case should get ~1.8mm after tax, not 1.3.
-11
Sorry, typo above, London trader in last case should get ~1.8mm after tax, not 1.3.
-11
Sorry, typo above, London trader in last case should get ~1.8mm after tax, not 1.3.
-11
Sorry, typo above, London trader in last case should get ~1.8mm after tax, not 1.3.
-11
Sorry, typo above, London trader in last case should get ~1.8mm after tax, not 1.3.
-11
Sorry, typo above, London trader in last case should get ~1.8mm after tax, not 1.3.
-11
Sorry, typo above, London trader in last case should get ~1.8mm after tax, not 1.3.
-11
Sorry, typo above, London trader in last case should get ~1.8mm after tax, not 1.3.
-11
Sorry, typo above, London trader in last case should get ~1.8mm after tax, not 1.3.
-11
Sorry, typo above, London trader in last case should get ~1.8mm after tax, not 1.3.
-11
Sorry, typo above, London trader in last case should get ~1.8mm after tax, not 1.3.
-11
Sorry, typo above, London trader in last case should get ~1.8mm after tax, not 1.3.
-11
Sorry, typo above, London trader in last case should get ~1.8mm after tax, not 1.3.
-11
Sorry, typo above, London trader in last case should get ~1.8mm after tax, not 1.3.
-11
Sorry, typo above, London trader in last case should get ~1.8mm after tax, not 1.3.
-11
Sorry, typo above, London trader in last case should get ~1.8mm after tax, not 1.3.
-11
Sorry, typo above, London trader in last case should get ~1.8mm after tax, not 1.3.
-11
Sorry, typo above, London trader in last case should get ~1.8mm after tax, not 1.3.
-11
Sorry, typo above, London trader in last case should get ~1.8mm after tax, not 1.3.
-11
Sorry, typo above, London trader in last case should get ~1.8mm after tax, not 1.3.
-11
Sorry, typo above, London trader in last case should get ~1.8mm after tax, not 1.3.
-11
Sorry, typo above, London trader in last case should get ~1.8mm after tax, not 1.3.
-11
Sorry, typo above, London trader in last case should get ~1.8mm after tax, not 1.3.
-11
Sorry, typo above, London trader in last case should get ~1.8mm after tax, not 1.3.
-11
Sorry, typo above, London trader in last case should get ~1.8mm after tax, not 1.3.
-11
Sorry, typo above, London trader in last case should get ~1.8mm after tax, not 1.3.
-11
Sorry, typo above, London trader in last case should get ~1.8mm after tax, not 1.3.
-11
Sorry, typo above, London trader in last case should get ~1.8mm after tax, not 1.3.
-11
Sorry, typo above, London trader in last case should get ~1.8mm after tax, not 1.3.
-11
Sorry, typo above, London trader in last case should get ~1.8mm after tax, not 1.3.
-11
Sorry, typo above, London trader in last case should get ~1.8mm after tax, not 1.3.
-11
Sorry, typo above, London trader in last case should get ~1.8mm after tax, not 1.3.
-11
Sorry, typo above, London trader in last case should get ~1.8mm after tax, not 1.3.
-11
Sorry, typo above, London trader in last case should get ~1.8mm after tax, not 1.3.
-11
Sorry, typo above, London trader in last case should get ~1.8mm after tax, not 1.3.
-11
Sorry, typo above, London trader in last case should get ~1.8mm after tax, not 1.3.
-11
Sorry, typo above, London trader in last case should get ~1.8mm after tax, not 1.3.
-11
Sorry, typo above, London trader in last case should get ~1.8mm after tax, not 1.3.
-11
Sorry, typo above, London trader in last case should get ~1.8mm after tax, not 1.3.
-11
Sorry, typo above, London trader in last case should get ~1.8mm after tax, not 1.3.
-11
@15 in the text you cite, the bank pays 50% of the bonus (>25k) off the top and, regardless of that fact, witholds as usual for the employee based on the gross amount.
Isn't the whole purpose to confiscate bonuses?
You guys suck at math.
If the bonus paid is $6mm and the tax is 50% of the Bonus paid (not the bonus pool) the tax is $3MM.. so a $9MM bonus pool with 50% Super tax attracts 1/3 of the total in tax, not 50%
You guys suck at math.
If the bonus paid is $6mm and the tax is 50% of the Bonus paid (not the bonus pool) the tax is $3MM.. so a $9MM bonus pool with 50% Super tax attracts 1/3 of the total in tax, not 50%
You guys suck at math.
If the bonus paid is $6mm and the tax is 50% of the Bonus paid (not the bonus pool) the tax is $3MM.. so a $9MM bonus pool with 50% Super tax attracts 1/3 of the total in tax, not 50%
You guys suck at math.
If the bonus paid is $6mm and the tax is 50% of the Bonus paid (not the bonus pool) the tax is $3MM.. so a $9MM bonus pool with 50% Super tax attracts 1/3 of the total in tax, not 50%
You guys suck at math.
If the bonus paid is $6mm and the tax is 50% of the Bonus paid (not the bonus pool) the tax is $3MM.. so a $9MM bonus pool with 50% Super tax attracts 1/3 of the total in tax, not 50%
You guys suck at math.
If the bonus paid is $6mm and the tax is 50% of the Bonus paid (not the bonus pool) the tax is $3MM.. so a $9MM bonus pool with 50% Super tax attracts 1/3 of the total in tax, not 50%
You guys suck at math.
If the bonus paid is $6mm and the tax is 50% of the Bonus paid (not the bonus pool) the tax is $3MM.. so a $9MM bonus pool with 50% Super tax attracts 1/3 of the total in tax, not 50%
You guys suck at math.
If the bonus paid is $6mm and the tax is 50% of the Bonus paid (not the bonus pool) the tax is $3MM.. so a $9MM bonus pool with 50% Super tax attracts 1/3 of the total in tax, not 50%
You guys suck at math.
If the bonus paid is $6mm and the tax is 50% of the Bonus paid (not the bonus pool) the tax is $3MM.. so a $9MM bonus pool with 50% Super tax attracts 1/3 of the total in tax, not 50%
You guys suck at math.
If the bonus paid is $6mm and the tax is 50% of the Bonus paid (not the bonus pool) the tax is $3MM.. so a $9MM bonus pool with 50% Super tax attracts 1/3 of the total in tax, not 50%
You guys suck at math.
If the bonus paid is $6mm and the tax is 50% of the Bonus paid (not the bonus pool) the tax is $3MM.. so a $9MM bonus pool with 50% Super tax attracts 1/3 of the total in tax, not 50%
You guys suck at math.
If the bonus paid is $6mm and the tax is 50% of the Bonus paid (not the bonus pool) the tax is $3MM.. so a $9MM bonus pool with 50% Super tax attracts 1/3 of the total in tax, not 50%
You guys suck at math.
If the bonus paid is $6mm and the tax is 50% of the Bonus paid (not the bonus pool) the tax is $3MM.. so a $9MM bonus pool with 50% Super tax attracts 1/3 of the total in tax, not 50%
You guys suck at math.
If the bonus paid is $6mm and the tax is 50% of the Bonus paid (not the bonus pool) the tax is $3MM.. so a $9MM bonus pool with 50% Super tax attracts 1/3 of the total in tax, not 50%
You guys suck at math.
If the bonus paid is $6mm and the tax is 50% of the Bonus paid (not the bonus pool) the tax is $3MM.. so a $9MM bonus pool with 50% Super tax attracts 1/3 of the total in tax, not 50%
You guys suck at math.
If the bonus paid is $6mm and the tax is 50% of the Bonus paid (not the bonus pool) the tax is $3MM.. so a $9MM bonus pool with 50% Super tax attracts 1/3 of the total in tax, not 50%
You guys suck at math.
If the bonus paid is $6mm and the tax is 50% of the Bonus paid (not the bonus pool) the tax is $3MM.. so a $9MM bonus pool with 50% Super tax attracts 1/3 of the total in tax, not 50%
You guys suck at math.
If the bonus paid is $6mm and the tax is 50% of the Bonus paid (not the bonus pool) the tax is $3MM.. so a $9MM bonus pool with 50% Super tax attracts 1/3 of the total in tax, not 50%
You guys suck at math.
If the bonus paid is $6mm and the tax is 50% of the Bonus paid (not the bonus pool) the tax is $3MM.. so a $9MM bonus pool with 50% Super tax attracts 1/3 of the total in tax, not 50%
You guys suck at math.
If the bonus paid is $6mm and the tax is 50% of the Bonus paid (not the bonus pool) the tax is $3MM.. so a $9MM bonus pool with 50% Super tax attracts 1/3 of the total in tax, not 50%
You guys suck at math.
If the bonus paid is $6mm and the tax is 50% of the Bonus paid (not the bonus pool) the tax is $3MM.. so a $9MM bonus pool with 50% Super tax attracts 1/3 of the total in tax, not 50%
You guys suck at math.
If the bonus paid is $6mm and the tax is 50% of the Bonus paid (not the bonus pool) the tax is $3MM.. so a $9MM bonus pool with 50% Super tax attracts 1/3 of the total in tax, not 50%
You guys suck at math.
If the bonus paid is $6mm and the tax is 50% of the Bonus paid (not the bonus pool) the tax is $3MM.. so a $9MM bonus pool with 50% Super tax attracts 1/3 of the total in tax, not 50%
You guys suck at math.
If the bonus paid is $6mm and the tax is 50% of the Bonus paid (not the bonus pool) the tax is $3MM.. so a $9MM bonus pool with 50% Super tax attracts 1/3 of the total in tax, not 50%
You guys suck at math.
If the bonus paid is $6mm and the tax is 50% of the Bonus paid (not the bonus pool) the tax is $3MM.. so a $9MM bonus pool with 50% Super tax attracts 1/3 of the total in tax, not 50%
You guys suck at math.
If the bonus paid is $6mm and the tax is 50% of the Bonus paid (not the bonus pool) the tax is $3MM.. so a $9MM bonus pool with 50% Super tax attracts 1/3 of the total in tax, not 50%
You guys suck at math.
If the bonus paid is $6mm and the tax is 50% of the Bonus paid (not the bonus pool) the tax is $3MM.. so a $9MM bonus pool with 50% Super tax attracts 1/3 of the total in tax, not 50%
You guys suck at math.
If the bonus paid is $6mm and the tax is 50% of the Bonus paid (not the bonus pool) the tax is $3MM.. so a $9MM bonus pool with 50% Super tax attracts 1/3 of the total in tax, not 50%
You guys suck at math.
If the bonus paid is $6mm and the tax is 50% of the Bonus paid (not the bonus pool) the tax is $3MM.. so a $9MM bonus pool with 50% Super tax attracts 1/3 of the total in tax, not 50%
You guys suck at math.
If the bonus paid is $6mm and the tax is 50% of the Bonus paid (not the bonus pool) the tax is $3MM.. so a $9MM bonus pool with 50% Super tax attracts 1/3 of the total in tax, not 50%
You guys suck at math.
If the bonus paid is $6mm and the tax is 50% of the Bonus paid (not the bonus pool) the tax is $3MM.. so a $9MM bonus pool with 50% Super tax attracts 1/3 of the total in tax, not 50%
You guys suck at math.
If the bonus paid is $6mm and the tax is 50% of the Bonus paid (not the bonus pool) the tax is $3MM.. so a $9MM bonus pool with 50% Super tax attracts 1/3 of the total in tax, not 50%
You guys suck at math.
If the bonus paid is $6mm and the tax is 50% of the Bonus paid (not the bonus pool) the tax is $3MM.. so a $9MM bonus pool with 50% Super tax attracts 1/3 of the total in tax, not 50%
You guys suck at math.
If the bonus paid is $6mm and the tax is 50% of the Bonus paid (not the bonus pool) the tax is $3MM.. so a $9MM bonus pool with 50% Super tax attracts 1/3 of the total in tax, not 50%
You guys suck at math.
If the bonus paid is $6mm and the tax is 50% of the Bonus paid (not the bonus pool) the tax is $3MM.. so a $9MM bonus pool with 50% Super tax attracts 1/3 of the total in tax, not 50%
You guys suck at math.
If the bonus paid is $6mm and the tax is 50% of the Bonus paid (not the bonus pool) the tax is $3MM.. so a $9MM bonus pool with 50% Super tax attracts 1/3 of the total in tax, not 50%
You guys suck at math.
If the bonus paid is $6mm and the tax is 50% of the Bonus paid (not the bonus pool) the tax is $3MM.. so a $9MM bonus pool with 50% Super tax attracts 1/3 of the total in tax, not 50%
You guys suck at math.
If the bonus paid is $6mm and the tax is 50% of the Bonus paid (not the bonus pool) the tax is $3MM.. so a $9MM bonus pool with 50% Super tax attracts 1/3 of the total in tax, not 50%
You guys suck at math.
If the bonus paid is $6mm and the tax is 50% of the Bonus paid (not the bonus pool) the tax is $3MM.. so a $9MM bonus pool with 50% Super tax attracts 1/3 of the total in tax, not 50%
You guys suck at math.
If the bonus paid is $6mm and the tax is 50% of the Bonus paid (not the bonus pool) the tax is $3MM.. so a $9MM bonus pool with 50% Super tax attracts 1/3 of the total in tax, not 50%
You guys suck at math.
If the bonus paid is $6mm and the tax is 50% of the Bonus paid (not the bonus pool) the tax is $3MM.. so a $9MM bonus pool with 50% Super tax attracts 1/3 of the total in tax, not 50%
You guys suck at math.
If the bonus paid is $6mm and the tax is 50% of the Bonus paid (not the bonus pool) the tax is $3MM.. so a $9MM bonus pool with 50% Super tax attracts 1/3 of the total in tax, not 50%
You guys suck at math.
If the bonus paid is $6mm and the tax is 50% of the Bonus paid (not the bonus pool) the tax is $3MM.. so a $9MM bonus pool with 50% Super tax attracts 1/3 of the total in tax, not 50%
You guys suck at math.
If the bonus paid is $6mm and the tax is 50% of the Bonus paid (not the bonus pool) the tax is $3MM.. so a $9MM bonus pool with 50% Super tax attracts 1/3 of the total in tax, not 50%
You guys suck at math.
If the bonus paid is $6mm and the tax is 50% of the Bonus paid (not the bonus pool) the tax is $3MM.. so a $9MM bonus pool with 50% Super tax attracts 1/3 of the total in tax, not 50%
You guys suck at math.
If the bonus paid is $6mm and the tax is 50% of the Bonus paid (not the bonus pool) the tax is $3MM.. so a $9MM bonus pool with 50% Super tax attracts 1/3 of the total in tax, not 50%
You guys suck at math.
If the bonus paid is $6mm and the tax is 50% of the Bonus paid (not the bonus pool) the tax is $3MM.. so a $9MM bonus pool with 50% Super tax attracts 1/3 of the total in tax, not 50%
You guys suck at math.
If the bonus paid is $6mm and the tax is 50% of the Bonus paid (not the bonus pool) the tax is $3MM.. so a $9MM bonus pool with 50% Super tax attracts 1/3 of the total in tax, not 50%
You guys suck at math.
If the bonus paid is $6mm and the tax is 50% of the Bonus paid (not the bonus pool) the tax is $3MM.. so a $9MM bonus pool with 50% Super tax attracts 1/3 of the total in tax, not 50%
You guys suck at math.
If the bonus paid is $6mm and the tax is 50% of the Bonus paid (not the bonus pool) the tax is $3MM.. so a $9MM bonus pool with 50% Super tax attracts 1/3 of the total in tax, not 50%
You guys suck at math.
If the bonus paid is $6mm and the tax is 50% of the Bonus paid (not the bonus pool) the tax is $3MM.. so a $9MM bonus pool with 50% Super tax attracts 1/3 of the total in tax, not 50%
You guys suck at math.
If the bonus paid is $6mm and the tax is 50% of the Bonus paid (not the bonus pool) the tax is $3MM.. so a $9MM bonus pool with 50% Super tax attracts 1/3 of the total in tax, not 50%
You guys suck at math.
If the bonus paid is $6mm and the tax is 50% of the Bonus paid (not the bonus pool) the tax is $3MM.. so a $9MM bonus pool with 50% Super tax attracts 1/3 of the total in tax, not 50%
You guys suck at math.
If the bonus paid is $6mm and the tax is 50% of the Bonus paid (not the bonus pool) the tax is $3MM.. so a $9MM bonus pool with 50% Super tax attracts 1/3 of the total in tax, not 50%
You guys suck at math.
If the bonus paid is $6mm and the tax is 50% of the Bonus paid (not the bonus pool) the tax is $3MM.. so a $9MM bonus pool with 50% Super tax attracts 1/3 of the total in tax, not 50%
You guys suck at math.
If the bonus paid is $6mm and the tax is 50% of the Bonus paid (not the bonus pool) the tax is $3MM.. so a $9MM bonus pool with 50% Super tax attracts 1/3 of the total in tax, not 50%
13, slow down, college.
In UK at least a £3mio bonus is to be taxed thus:
- first first £40k exempt from the special tax.
- bank pays 50% of the balance, £1.48mio
- bonus recipient gets £1.52mio but remains liable for the whole £3mio, so let’s say they pay about £1.2 in income tax and are left with a net of ~£300k.
13, slow down, college.
In UK at least a £3mio bonus is to be taxed thus:
- first first £40k exempt from the special tax.
- bank pays 50% of the balance, £1.48mio
- bonus recipient gets £1.52mio but remains liable for the whole £3mio, so let’s say they pay about £1.2 in income tax and are left with a net of ~£300k.
13, slow down, college.
In UK at least a £3mio bonus is to be taxed thus:
- first first £40k exempt from the special tax.
- bank pays 50% of the balance, £1.48mio
- bonus recipient gets £1.52mio but remains liable for the whole £3mio, so let’s say they pay about £1.2 in income tax and are left with a net of ~£300k.
13, slow down, college.
In UK at least a £3mio bonus is to be taxed thus:
- first first £40k exempt from the special tax.
- bank pays 50% of the balance, £1.48mio
- bonus recipient gets £1.52mio but remains liable for the whole £3mio, so let’s say they pay about £1.2 in income tax and are left with a net of ~£300k.
13, slow down, college.
In UK at least a £3mio bonus is to be taxed thus:
- first first £40k exempt from the special tax.
- bank pays 50% of the balance, £1.48mio
- bonus recipient gets £1.52mio but remains liable for the whole £3mio, so let’s say they pay about £1.2 in income tax and are left with a net of ~£300k.
13, slow down, college.
In UK at least a £3mio bonus is to be taxed thus:
- first first £40k exempt from the special tax.
- bank pays 50% of the balance, £1.48mio
- bonus recipient gets £1.52mio but remains liable for the whole £3mio, so let’s say they pay about £1.2 in income tax and are left with a net of ~£300k.
13, slow down, college.
In UK at least a £3mio bonus is to be taxed thus:
- first first £40k exempt from the special tax.
- bank pays 50% of the balance, £1.48mio
- bonus recipient gets £1.52mio but remains liable for the whole £3mio, so let’s say they pay about £1.2 in income tax and are left with a net of ~£300k.
13, slow down, college.
In UK at least a £3mio bonus is to be taxed thus:
- first first £40k exempt from the special tax.
- bank pays 50% of the balance, £1.48mio
- bonus recipient gets £1.52mio but remains liable for the whole £3mio, so let’s say they pay about £1.2 in income tax and are left with a net of ~£300k.
13, slow down, college.
In UK at least a £3mio bonus is to be taxed thus:
- first first £40k exempt from the special tax.
- bank pays 50% of the balance, £1.48mio
- bonus recipient gets £1.52mio but remains liable for the whole £3mio, so let’s say they pay about £1.2 in income tax and are left with a net of ~£300k.
13, slow down, college.
In UK at least a £3mio bonus is to be taxed thus:
- first first £40k exempt from the special tax.
- bank pays 50% of the balance, £1.48mio
- bonus recipient gets £1.52mio but remains liable for the whole £3mio, so let’s say they pay about £1.2 in income tax and are left with a net of ~£300k.
13, slow down, college.
In UK at least a £3mio bonus is to be taxed thus:
- first first £40k exempt from the special tax.
- bank pays 50% of the balance, £1.48mio
- bonus recipient gets £1.52mio but remains liable for the whole £3mio, so let’s say they pay about £1.2 in income tax and are left with a net of ~£300k.
13, slow down, college.
In UK at least a £3mio bonus is to be taxed thus:
- first first £40k exempt from the special tax.
- bank pays 50% of the balance, £1.48mio
- bonus recipient gets £1.52mio but remains liable for the whole £3mio, so let’s say they pay about £1.2 in income tax and are left with a net of ~£300k.
13, slow down, college.
In UK at least a £3mio bonus is to be taxed thus:
- first first £40k exempt from the special tax.
- bank pays 50% of the balance, £1.48mio
- bonus recipient gets £1.52mio but remains liable for the whole £3mio, so let’s say they pay about £1.2 in income tax and are left with a net of ~£300k.
13, slow down, college.
In UK at least a £3mio bonus is to be taxed thus:
- first first £40k exempt from the special tax.
- bank pays 50% of the balance, £1.48mio
- bonus recipient gets £1.52mio but remains liable for the whole £3mio, so let’s say they pay about £1.2 in income tax and are left with a net of ~£300k.
13, slow down, college.
In UK at least a £3mio bonus is to be taxed thus:
- first first £40k exempt from the special tax.
- bank pays 50% of the balance, £1.48mio
- bonus recipient gets £1.52mio but remains liable for the whole £3mio, so let’s say they pay about £1.2 in income tax and are left with a net of ~£300k.
13, slow down, college.
In UK at least a £3mio bonus is to be taxed thus:
- first first £40k exempt from the special tax.
- bank pays 50% of the balance, £1.48mio
- bonus recipient gets £1.52mio but remains liable for the whole £3mio, so let’s say they pay about £1.2 in income tax and are left with a net of ~£300k.
13, slow down, college.
In UK at least a £3mio bonus is to be taxed thus:
- first first £40k exempt from the special tax.
- bank pays 50% of the balance, £1.48mio
- bonus recipient gets £1.52mio but remains liable for the whole £3mio, so let’s say they pay about £1.2 in income tax and are left with a net of ~£300k.
13, slow down, college.
In UK at least a £3mio bonus is to be taxed thus:
- first first £40k exempt from the special tax.
- bank pays 50% of the balance, £1.48mio
- bonus recipient gets £1.52mio but remains liable for the whole £3mio, so let’s say they pay about £1.2 in income tax and are left with a net of ~£300k.
13, slow down, college.
In UK at least a £3mio bonus is to be taxed thus:
- first first £40k exempt from the special tax.
- bank pays 50% of the balance, £1.48mio
- bonus recipient gets £1.52mio but remains liable for the whole £3mio, so let’s say they pay about £1.2 in income tax and are left with a net of ~£300k.
13, slow down, college.
In UK at least a £3mio bonus is to be taxed thus:
- first first £40k exempt from the special tax.
- bank pays 50% of the balance, £1.48mio
- bonus recipient gets £1.52mio but remains liable for the whole £3mio, so let’s say they pay about £1.2 in income tax and are left with a net of ~£300k.
13, slow down, college.
In UK at least a £3mio bonus is to be taxed thus:
- first first £40k exempt from the special tax.
- bank pays 50% of the balance, £1.48mio
- bonus recipient gets £1.52mio but remains liable for the whole £3mio, so let’s say they pay about £1.2 in income tax and are left with a net of ~£300k.
13, slow down, college.
In UK at least a £3mio bonus is to be taxed thus:
- first first £40k exempt from the special tax.
- bank pays 50% of the balance, £1.48mio
- bonus recipient gets £1.52mio but remains liable for the whole £3mio, so let’s say they pay about £1.2 in income tax and are left with a net of ~£300k.
13, slow down, college.
In UK at least a £3mio bonus is to be taxed thus:
- first first £40k exempt from the special tax.
- bank pays 50% of the balance, £1.48mio
- bonus recipient gets £1.52mio but remains liable for the whole £3mio, so let’s say they pay about £1.2 in income tax and are left with a net of ~£300k.
13, slow down, college.
In UK at least a £3mio bonus is to be taxed thus:
- first first £40k exempt from the special tax.
- bank pays 50% of the balance, £1.48mio
- bonus recipient gets £1.52mio but remains liable for the whole £3mio, so let’s say they pay about £1.2 in income tax and are left with a net of ~£300k.
13, slow down, college.
In UK at least a £3mio bonus is to be taxed thus:
- first first £40k exempt from the special tax.
- bank pays 50% of the balance, £1.48mio
- bonus recipient gets £1.52mio but remains liable for the whole £3mio, so let’s say they pay about £1.2 in income tax and are left with a net of ~£300k.
13, slow down, college.
In UK at least a £3mio bonus is to be taxed thus:
- first first £40k exempt from the special tax.
- bank pays 50% of the balance, £1.48mio
- bonus recipient gets £1.52mio but remains liable for the whole £3mio, so let’s say they pay about £1.2 in income tax and are left with a net of ~£300k.
13, slow down, college.
In UK at least a £3mio bonus is to be taxed thus:
- first first £40k exempt from the special tax.
- bank pays 50% of the balance, £1.48mio
- bonus recipient gets £1.52mio but remains liable for the whole £3mio, so let’s say they pay about £1.2 in income tax and are left with a net of ~£300k.
13, slow down, college.
In UK at least a £3mio bonus is to be taxed thus:
- first first £40k exempt from the special tax.
- bank pays 50% of the balance, £1.48mio
- bonus recipient gets £1.52mio but remains liable for the whole £3mio, so let’s say they pay about £1.2 in income tax and are left with a net of ~£300k.
13, slow down, college.
In UK at least a £3mio bonus is to be taxed thus:
- first first £40k exempt from the special tax.
- bank pays 50% of the balance, £1.48mio
- bonus recipient gets £1.52mio but remains liable for the whole £3mio, so let’s say they pay about £1.2 in income tax and are left with a net of ~£300k.
13, slow down, college.
In UK at least a £3mio bonus is to be taxed thus:
- first first £40k exempt from the special tax.
- bank pays 50% of the balance, £1.48mio
- bonus recipient gets £1.52mio but remains liable for the whole £3mio, so let’s say they pay about £1.2 in income tax and are left with a net of ~£300k.
13, slow down, college.
In UK at least a £3mio bonus is to be taxed thus:
- first first £40k exempt from the special tax.
- bank pays 50% of the balance, £1.48mio
- bonus recipient gets £1.52mio but remains liable for the whole £3mio, so let’s say they pay about £1.2 in income tax and are left with a net of ~£300k.
13, slow down, college.
In UK at least a £3mio bonus is to be taxed thus:
- first first £40k exempt from the special tax.
- bank pays 50% of the balance, £1.48mio
- bonus recipient gets £1.52mio but remains liable for the whole £3mio, so let’s say they pay about £1.2 in income tax and are left with a net of ~£300k.
13, slow down, college.
In UK at least a £3mio bonus is to be taxed thus:
- first first £40k exempt from the special tax.
- bank pays 50% of the balance, £1.48mio
- bonus recipient gets £1.52mio but remains liable for the whole £3mio, so let’s say they pay about £1.2 in income tax and are left with a net of ~£300k.
13, slow down, college.
In UK at least a £3mio bonus is to be taxed thus:
- first first £40k exempt from the special tax.
- bank pays 50% of the balance, £1.48mio
- bonus recipient gets £1.52mio but remains liable for the whole £3mio, so let’s say they pay about £1.2 in income tax and are left with a net of ~£300k.
13, slow down, college.
In UK at least a £3mio bonus is to be taxed thus:
- first first £40k exempt from the special tax.
- bank pays 50% of the balance, £1.48mio
- bonus recipient gets £1.52mio but remains liable for the whole £3mio, so let’s say they pay about £1.2 in income tax and are left with a net of ~£300k.
13, slow down, college.
In UK at least a £3mio bonus is to be taxed thus:
- first first £40k exempt from the special tax.
- bank pays 50% of the balance, £1.48mio
- bonus recipient gets £1.52mio but remains liable for the whole £3mio, so let’s say they pay about £1.2 in income tax and are left with a net of ~£300k.
13, slow down, college.
In UK at least a £3mio bonus is to be taxed thus:
- first first £40k exempt from the special tax.
- bank pays 50% of the balance, £1.48mio
- bonus recipient gets £1.52mio but remains liable for the whole £3mio, so let’s say they pay about £1.2 in income tax and are left with a net of ~£300k.
13, slow down, college.
In UK at least a £3mio bonus is to be taxed thus:
- first first £40k exempt from the special tax.
- bank pays 50% of the balance, £1.48mio
- bonus recipient gets £1.52mio but remains liable for the whole £3mio, so let’s say they pay about £1.2 in income tax and are left with a net of ~£300k.
13, slow down, college.
In UK at least a £3mio bonus is to be taxed thus:
- first first £40k exempt from the special tax.
- bank pays 50% of the balance, £1.48mio
- bonus recipient gets £1.52mio but remains liable for the whole £3mio, so let’s say they pay about £1.2 in income tax and are left with a net of ~£300k.
13, slow down, college.
In UK at least a £3mio bonus is to be taxed thus:
- first first £40k exempt from the special tax.
- bank pays 50% of the balance, £1.48mio
- bonus recipient gets £1.52mio but remains liable for the whole £3mio, so let’s say they pay about £1.2 in income tax and are left with a net of ~£300k.
13, slow down, college.
In UK at least a £3mio bonus is to be taxed thus:
- first first £40k exempt from the special tax.
- bank pays 50% of the balance, £1.48mio
- bonus recipient gets £1.52mio but remains liable for the whole £3mio, so let’s say they pay about £1.2 in income tax and are left with a net of ~£300k.
13, slow down, college.
In UK at least a £3mio bonus is to be taxed thus:
- first first £40k exempt from the special tax.
- bank pays 50% of the balance, £1.48mio
- bonus recipient gets £1.52mio but remains liable for the whole £3mio, so let’s say they pay about £1.2 in income tax and are left with a net of ~£300k.
13, slow down, college.
In UK at least a £3mio bonus is to be taxed thus:
- first first £40k exempt from the special tax.
- bank pays 50% of the balance, £1.48mio
- bonus recipient gets £1.52mio but remains liable for the whole £3mio, so let’s say they pay about £1.2 in income tax and are left with a net of ~£300k.
13, slow down, college.
In UK at least a £3mio bonus is to be taxed thus:
- first first £40k exempt from the special tax.
- bank pays 50% of the balance, £1.48mio
- bonus recipient gets £1.52mio but remains liable for the whole £3mio, so let’s say they pay about £1.2 in income tax and are left with a net of ~£300k.
13, slow down, college.
In UK at least a £3mio bonus is to be taxed thus:
- first first £40k exempt from the special tax.
- bank pays 50% of the balance, £1.48mio
- bonus recipient gets £1.52mio but remains liable for the whole £3mio, so let’s say they pay about £1.2 in income tax and are left with a net of ~£300k.
13, slow down, college.
In UK at least a £3mio bonus is to be taxed thus:
- first first £40k exempt from the special tax.
- bank pays 50% of the balance, £1.48mio
- bonus recipient gets £1.52mio but remains liable for the whole £3mio, so let’s say they pay about £1.2 in income tax and are left with a net of ~£300k.
13, slow down, college.
In UK at least a £3mio bonus is to be taxed thus:
- first first £40k exempt from the special tax.
- bank pays 50% of the balance, £1.48mio
- bonus recipient gets £1.52mio but remains liable for the whole £3mio, so let’s say they pay about £1.2 in income tax and are left with a net of ~£300k.
13, slow down, college.
In UK at least a £3mio bonus is to be taxed thus:
- first first £40k exempt from the special tax.
- bank pays 50% of the balance, £1.48mio
- bonus recipient gets £1.52mio but remains liable for the whole £3mio, so let’s say they pay about £1.2 in income tax and are left with a net of ~£300k.
13, slow down, college.
In UK at least a £3mio bonus is to be taxed thus:
- first first £40k exempt from the special tax.
- bank pays 50% of the balance, £1.48mio
- bonus recipient gets £1.52mio but remains liable for the whole £3mio, so let’s say they pay about £1.2 in income tax and are left with a net of ~£300k.
13, slow down, college.
In UK at least a £3mio bonus is to be taxed thus:
- first first £40k exempt from the special tax.
- bank pays 50% of the balance, £1.48mio
- bonus recipient gets £1.52mio but remains liable for the whole £3mio, so let’s say they pay about £1.2 in income tax and are left with a net of ~£300k.
13, slow down, college.
In UK at least a £3mio bonus is to be taxed thus:
- first first £40k exempt from the special tax.
- bank pays 50% of the balance, £1.48mio
- bonus recipient gets £1.52mio but remains liable for the whole £3mio, so let’s say they pay about £1.2 in income tax and are left with a net of ~£300k.
13, slow down, college.
In UK at least a £3mio bonus is to be taxed thus:
- first first £40k exempt from the special tax.
- bank pays 50% of the balance, £1.48mio
- bonus recipient gets £1.52mio but remains liable for the whole £3mio, so let’s say they pay about £1.2 in income tax and are left with a net of ~£300k.
13, slow down, college.
In UK at least a £3mio bonus is to be taxed thus:
- first first £40k exempt from the special tax.
- bank pays 50% of the balance, £1.48mio
- bonus recipient gets £1.52mio but remains liable for the whole £3mio, so let’s say they pay about £1.2 in income tax and are left with a net of ~£300k.
13, slow down, college.
In UK at least a £3mio bonus is to be taxed thus:
- first first £40k exempt from the special tax.
- bank pays 50% of the balance, £1.48mio
- bonus recipient gets £1.52mio but remains liable for the whole £3mio, so let’s say they pay about £1.2 in income tax and are left with a net of ~£300k.
13, slow down, college.
In UK at least a £3mio bonus is to be taxed thus:
- first first £40k exempt from the special tax.
- bank pays 50% of the balance, £1.48mio
- bonus recipient gets £1.52mio but remains liable for the whole £3mio, so let’s say they pay about £1.2 in income tax and are left with a net of ~£300k.
13, slow down, college.
In UK at least a £3mio bonus is to be taxed thus:
- first first £40k exempt from the special tax.
- bank pays 50% of the balance, £1.48mio
- bonus recipient gets £1.52mio but remains liable for the whole £3mio, so let’s say they pay about £1.2 in income tax and are left with a net of ~£300k.
13, slow down, college.
In UK at least a £3mio bonus is to be taxed thus:
- first first £40k exempt from the special tax.
- bank pays 50% of the balance, £1.48mio
- bonus recipient gets £1.52mio but remains liable for the whole £3mio, so let’s say they pay about £1.2 in income tax and are left with a net of ~£300k.
13, slow down, college.
In UK at least a £3mio bonus is to be taxed thus:
- first first £40k exempt from the special tax.
- bank pays 50% of the balance, £1.48mio
- bonus recipient gets £1.52mio but remains liable for the whole £3mio, so let’s say they pay about £1.2 in income tax and are left with a net of ~£300k.
13, slow down, college.
In UK at least a £3mio bonus is to be taxed thus:
- first first £40k exempt from the special tax.
- bank pays 50% of the balance, £1.48mio
- bonus recipient gets £1.52mio but remains liable for the whole £3mio, so let’s say they pay about £1.2 in income tax and are left with a net of ~£300k.
13, slow down, college.
In UK at least a £3mio bonus is to be taxed thus:
- first first £40k exempt from the special tax.
- bank pays 50% of the balance, £1.48mio
- bonus recipient gets £1.52mio but remains liable for the whole £3mio, so let’s say they pay about £1.2 in income tax and are left with a net of ~£300k.
13, slow down, college.
In UK at least a £3mio bonus is to be taxed thus:
- first first £40k exempt from the special tax.
- bank pays 50% of the balance, £1.48mio
- bonus recipient gets £1.52mio but remains liable for the whole £3mio, so let’s say they pay about £1.2 in income tax and are left with a net of ~£300k.
13, slow down, college.
In UK at least a £3mio bonus is to be taxed thus:
- first first £40k exempt from the special tax.
- bank pays 50% of the balance, £1.48mio
- bonus recipient gets £1.52mio but remains liable for the whole £3mio, so let’s say they pay about £1.2 in income tax and are left with a net of ~£300k.
13, slow down, college.
In UK at least a £3mio bonus is to be taxed thus:
- first first £40k exempt from the special tax.
- bank pays 50% of the balance, £1.48mio
- bonus recipient gets £1.52mio but remains liable for the whole £3mio, so let’s say they pay about £1.2 in income tax and are left with a net of ~£300k.
13, slow down, college.
In UK at least a £3mio bonus is to be taxed thus:
- first first £40k exempt from the special tax.
- bank pays 50% of the balance, £1.48mio
- bonus recipient gets £1.52mio but remains liable for the whole £3mio, so let’s say they pay about £1.2 in income tax and are left with a net of ~£300k.
Here is the text..
Legislation in Finance Bill 2010 will introduce a new bank payroll tax. This will be set at 50 per cent. It will be payable by a bank, on the amount of a bonus to which a banking employee is entitled, to the extent that the bonus exceeds £25,000. A bank will also be liable to the bank payroll tax where the bonus entitlement arises in respect of services performed for the bank regardless of who awards the bonus.
This means to me, that the tax = 50% of the Bonus amount. So for a bonus of $6.66 the tax would be $3.33 paid by the bank. So if the bank bonus pool is $10, then 1/3 gets withheld by the bank to pay the tax and 2/3 goes to the employee (pre-tax).
@14, in your example you have a Super tax of 1.45 and a bonus of 1.52 or a tax which is almost 100% of the bonus… I remain, firm in my belief that AGW is a hoax, and you all suck at math.
Here is the text..
Legislation in Finance Bill 2010 will introduce a new bank payroll tax. This will be set at 50 per cent. It will be payable by a bank, on the amount of a bonus to which a banking employee is entitled, to the extent that the bonus exceeds £25,000. A bank will also be liable to the bank payroll tax where the bonus entitlement arises in respect of services performed for the bank regardless of who awards the bonus.
This means to me, that the tax = 50% of the Bonus amount. So for a bonus of $6.66 the tax would be $3.33 paid by the bank. So if the bank bonus pool is $10, then 1/3 gets withheld by the bank to pay the tax and 2/3 goes to the employee (pre-tax).
@14, in your example you have a Super tax of 1.45 and a bonus of 1.52 or a tax which is almost 100% of the bonus… I remain, firm in my belief that AGW is a hoax, and you all suck at math.
Here is the text..
Legislation in Finance Bill 2010 will introduce a new bank payroll tax. This will be set at 50 per cent. It will be payable by a bank, on the amount of a bonus to which a banking employee is entitled, to the extent that the bonus exceeds £25,000. A bank will also be liable to the bank payroll tax where the bonus entitlement arises in respect of services performed for the bank regardless of who awards the bonus.
This means to me, that the tax = 50% of the Bonus amount. So for a bonus of $6.66 the tax would be $3.33 paid by the bank. So if the bank bonus pool is $10, then 1/3 gets withheld by the bank to pay the tax and 2/3 goes to the employee (pre-tax).
@14, in your example you have a Super tax of 1.45 and a bonus of 1.52 or a tax which is almost 100% of the bonus… I remain, firm in my belief that AGW is a hoax, and you all suck at math.
Here is the text..
Legislation in Finance Bill 2010 will introduce a new bank payroll tax. This will be set at 50 per cent. It will be payable by a bank, on the amount of a bonus to which a banking employee is entitled, to the extent that the bonus exceeds £25,000. A bank will also be liable to the bank payroll tax where the bonus entitlement arises in respect of services performed for the bank regardless of who awards the bonus.
This means to me, that the tax = 50% of the Bonus amount. So for a bonus of $6.66 the tax would be $3.33 paid by the bank. So if the bank bonus pool is $10, then 1/3 gets withheld by the bank to pay the tax and 2/3 goes to the employee (pre-tax).
@14, in your example you have a Super tax of 1.45 and a bonus of 1.52 or a tax which is almost 100% of the bonus… I remain, firm in my belief that AGW is a hoax, and you all suck at math.
Here is the text..
Legislation in Finance Bill 2010 will introduce a new bank payroll tax. This will be set at 50 per cent. It will be payable by a bank, on the amount of a bonus to which a banking employee is entitled, to the extent that the bonus exceeds £25,000. A bank will also be liable to the bank payroll tax where the bonus entitlement arises in respect of services performed for the bank regardless of who awards the bonus.
This means to me, that the tax = 50% of the Bonus amount. So for a bonus of $6.66 the tax would be $3.33 paid by the bank. So if the bank bonus pool is $10, then 1/3 gets withheld by the bank to pay the tax and 2/3 goes to the employee (pre-tax).
@14, in your example you have a Super tax of 1.45 and a bonus of 1.52 or a tax which is almost 100% of the bonus… I remain, firm in my belief that AGW is a hoax, and you all suck at math.
Here is the text..
Legislation in Finance Bill 2010 will introduce a new bank payroll tax. This will be set at 50 per cent. It will be payable by a bank, on the amount of a bonus to which a banking employee is entitled, to the extent that the bonus exceeds £25,000. A bank will also be liable to the bank payroll tax where the bonus entitlement arises in respect of services performed for the bank regardless of who awards the bonus.
This means to me, that the tax = 50% of the Bonus amount. So for a bonus of $6.66 the tax would be $3.33 paid by the bank. So if the bank bonus pool is $10, then 1/3 gets withheld by the bank to pay the tax and 2/3 goes to the employee (pre-tax).
@14, in your example you have a Super tax of 1.45 and a bonus of 1.52 or a tax which is almost 100% of the bonus… I remain, firm in my belief that AGW is a hoax, and you all suck at math.
Here is the text..
Legislation in Finance Bill 2010 will introduce a new bank payroll tax. This will be set at 50 per cent. It will be payable by a bank, on the amount of a bonus to which a banking employee is entitled, to the extent that the bonus exceeds £25,000. A bank will also be liable to the bank payroll tax where the bonus entitlement arises in respect of services performed for the bank regardless of who awards the bonus.
This means to me, that the tax = 50% of the Bonus amount. So for a bonus of $6.66 the tax would be $3.33 paid by the bank. So if the bank bonus pool is $10, then 1/3 gets withheld by the bank to pay the tax and 2/3 goes to the employee (pre-tax).
@14, in your example you have a Super tax of 1.45 and a bonus of 1.52 or a tax which is almost 100% of the bonus… I remain, firm in my belief that AGW is a hoax, and you all suck at math.
Here is the text..
Legislation in Finance Bill 2010 will introduce a new bank payroll tax. This will be set at 50 per cent. It will be payable by a bank, on the amount of a bonus to which a banking employee is entitled, to the extent that the bonus exceeds £25,000. A bank will also be liable to the bank payroll tax where the bonus entitlement arises in respect of services performed for the bank regardless of who awards the bonus.
This means to me, that the tax = 50% of the Bonus amount. So for a bonus of $6.66 the tax would be $3.33 paid by the bank. So if the bank bonus pool is $10, then 1/3 gets withheld by the bank to pay the tax and 2/3 goes to the employee (pre-tax).
@14, in your example you have a Super tax of 1.45 and a bonus of 1.52 or a tax which is almost 100% of the bonus… I remain, firm in my belief that AGW is a hoax, and you all suck at math.
Here is the text..
Legislation in Finance Bill 2010 will introduce a new bank payroll tax. This will be set at 50 per cent. It will be payable by a bank, on the amount of a bonus to which a banking employee is entitled, to the extent that the bonus exceeds £25,000. A bank will also be liable to the bank payroll tax where the bonus entitlement arises in respect of services performed for the bank regardless of who awards the bonus.
This means to me, that the tax = 50% of the Bonus amount. So for a bonus of $6.66 the tax would be $3.33 paid by the bank. So if the bank bonus pool is $10, then 1/3 gets withheld by the bank to pay the tax and 2/3 goes to the employee (pre-tax).
@14, in your example you have a Super tax of 1.45 and a bonus of 1.52 or a tax which is almost 100% of the bonus… I remain, firm in my belief that AGW is a hoax, and you all suck at math.
Here is the text..
Legislation in Finance Bill 2010 will introduce a new bank payroll tax. This will be set at 50 per cent. It will be payable by a bank, on the amount of a bonus to which a banking employee is entitled, to the extent that the bonus exceeds £25,000. A bank will also be liable to the bank payroll tax where the bonus entitlement arises in respect of services performed for the bank regardless of who awards the bonus.
This means to me, that the tax = 50% of the Bonus amount. So for a bonus of $6.66 the tax would be $3.33 paid by the bank. So if the bank bonus pool is $10, then 1/3 gets withheld by the bank to pay the tax and 2/3 goes to the employee (pre-tax).
@14, in your example you have a Super tax of 1.45 and a bonus of 1.52 or a tax which is almost 100% of the bonus… I remain, firm in my belief that AGW is a hoax, and you all suck at math.
Here is the text..
Legislation in Finance Bill 2010 will introduce a new bank payroll tax. This will be set at 50 per cent. It will be payable by a bank, on the amount of a bonus to which a banking employee is entitled, to the extent that the bonus exceeds £25,000. A bank will also be liable to the bank payroll tax where the bonus entitlement arises in respect of services performed for the bank regardless of who awards the bonus.
This means to me, that the tax = 50% of the Bonus amount. So for a bonus of $6.66 the tax would be $3.33 paid by the bank. So if the bank bonus pool is $10, then 1/3 gets withheld by the bank to pay the tax and 2/3 goes to the employee (pre-tax).
@14, in your example you have a Super tax of 1.45 and a bonus of 1.52 or a tax which is almost 100% of the bonus… I remain, firm in my belief that AGW is a hoax, and you all suck at math.
Here is the text..
Legislation in Finance Bill 2010 will introduce a new bank payroll tax. This will be set at 50 per cent. It will be payable by a bank, on the amount of a bonus to which a banking employee is entitled, to the extent that the bonus exceeds £25,000. A bank will also be liable to the bank payroll tax where the bonus entitlement arises in respect of services performed for the bank regardless of who awards the bonus.
This means to me, that the tax = 50% of the Bonus amount. So for a bonus of $6.66 the tax would be $3.33 paid by the bank. So if the bank bonus pool is $10, then 1/3 gets withheld by the bank to pay the tax and 2/3 goes to the employee (pre-tax).
@14, in your example you have a Super tax of 1.45 and a bonus of 1.52 or a tax which is almost 100% of the bonus… I remain, firm in my belief that AGW is a hoax, and you all suck at math.
Here is the text..
Legislation in Finance Bill 2010 will introduce a new bank payroll tax. This will be set at 50 per cent. It will be payable by a bank, on the amount of a bonus to which a banking employee is entitled, to the extent that the bonus exceeds £25,000. A bank will also be liable to the bank payroll tax where the bonus entitlement arises in respect of services performed for the bank regardless of who awards the bonus.
This means to me, that the tax = 50% of the Bonus amount. So for a bonus of $6.66 the tax would be $3.33 paid by the bank. So if the bank bonus pool is $10, then 1/3 gets withheld by the bank to pay the tax and 2/3 goes to the employee (pre-tax).
@14, in your example you have a Super tax of 1.45 and a bonus of 1.52 or a tax which is almost 100% of the bonus… I remain, firm in my belief that AGW is a hoax, and you all suck at math.
Here is the text..
Legislation in Finance Bill 2010 will introduce a new bank payroll tax. This will be set at 50 per cent. It will be payable by a bank, on the amount of a bonus to which a banking employee is entitled, to the extent that the bonus exceeds £25,000. A bank will also be liable to the bank payroll tax where the bonus entitlement arises in respect of services performed for the bank regardless of who awards the bonus.
This means to me, that the tax = 50% of the Bonus amount. So for a bonus of $6.66 the tax would be $3.33 paid by the bank. So if the bank bonus pool is $10, then 1/3 gets withheld by the bank to pay the tax and 2/3 goes to the employee (pre-tax).
@14, in your example you have a Super tax of 1.45 and a bonus of 1.52 or a tax which is almost 100% of the bonus… I remain, firm in my belief that AGW is a hoax, and you all suck at math.
Here is the text..
Legislation in Finance Bill 2010 will introduce a new bank payroll tax. This will be set at 50 per cent. It will be payable by a bank, on the amount of a bonus to which a banking employee is entitled, to the extent that the bonus exceeds £25,000. A bank will also be liable to the bank payroll tax where the bonus entitlement arises in respect of services performed for the bank regardless of who awards the bonus.
This means to me, that the tax = 50% of the Bonus amount. So for a bonus of $6.66 the tax would be $3.33 paid by the bank. So if the bank bonus pool is $10, then 1/3 gets withheld by the bank to pay the tax and 2/3 goes to the employee (pre-tax).
@14, in your example you have a Super tax of 1.45 and a bonus of 1.52 or a tax which is almost 100% of the bonus… I remain, firm in my belief that AGW is a hoax, and you all suck at math.
Here is the text..
Legislation in Finance Bill 2010 will introduce a new bank payroll tax. This will be set at 50 per cent. It will be payable by a bank, on the amount of a bonus to which a banking employee is entitled, to the extent that the bonus exceeds £25,000. A bank will also be liable to the bank payroll tax where the bonus entitlement arises in respect of services performed for the bank regardless of who awards the bonus.
This means to me, that the tax = 50% of the Bonus amount. So for a bonus of $6.66 the tax would be $3.33 paid by the bank. So if the bank bonus pool is $10, then 1/3 gets withheld by the bank to pay the tax and 2/3 goes to the employee (pre-tax).
@14, in your example you have a Super tax of 1.45 and a bonus of 1.52 or a tax which is almost 100% of the bonus… I remain, firm in my belief that AGW is a hoax, and you all suck at math.
Here is the text..
Legislation in Finance Bill 2010 will introduce a new bank payroll tax. This will be set at 50 per cent. It will be payable by a bank, on the amount of a bonus to which a banking employee is entitled, to the extent that the bonus exceeds £25,000. A bank will also be liable to the bank payroll tax where the bonus entitlement arises in respect of services performed for the bank regardless of who awards the bonus.
This means to me, that the tax = 50% of the Bonus amount. So for a bonus of $6.66 the tax would be $3.33 paid by the bank. So if the bank bonus pool is $10, then 1/3 gets withheld by the bank to pay the tax and 2/3 goes to the employee (pre-tax).
@14, in your example you have a Super tax of 1.45 and a bonus of 1.52 or a tax which is almost 100% of the bonus… I remain, firm in my belief that AGW is a hoax, and you all suck at math.
Here is the text..
Legislation in Finance Bill 2010 will introduce a new bank payroll tax. This will be set at 50 per cent. It will be payable by a bank, on the amount of a bonus to which a banking employee is entitled, to the extent that the bonus exceeds £25,000. A bank will also be liable to the bank payroll tax where the bonus entitlement arises in respect of services performed for the bank regardless of who awards the bonus.
This means to me, that the tax = 50% of the Bonus amount. So for a bonus of $6.66 the tax would be $3.33 paid by the bank. So if the bank bonus pool is $10, then 1/3 gets withheld by the bank to pay the tax and 2/3 goes to the employee (pre-tax).
@14, in your example you have a Super tax of 1.45 and a bonus of 1.52 or a tax which is almost 100% of the bonus… I remain, firm in my belief that AGW is a hoax, and you all suck at math.
Here is the text..
Legislation in Finance Bill 2010 will introduce a new bank payroll tax. This will be set at 50 per cent. It will be payable by a bank, on the amount of a bonus to which a banking employee is entitled, to the extent that the bonus exceeds £25,000. A bank will also be liable to the bank payroll tax where the bonus entitlement arises in respect of services performed for the bank regardless of who awards the bonus.
This means to me, that the tax = 50% of the Bonus amount. So for a bonus of $6.66 the tax would be $3.33 paid by the bank. So if the bank bonus pool is $10, then 1/3 gets withheld by the bank to pay the tax and 2/3 goes to the employee (pre-tax).
@14, in your example you have a Super tax of 1.45 and a bonus of 1.52 or a tax which is almost 100% of the bonus… I remain, firm in my belief that AGW is a hoax, and you all suck at math.
Here is the text..
Legislation in Finance Bill 2010 will introduce a new bank payroll tax. This will be set at 50 per cent. It will be payable by a bank, on the amount of a bonus to which a banking employee is entitled, to the extent that the bonus exceeds £25,000. A bank will also be liable to the bank payroll tax where the bonus entitlement arises in respect of services performed for the bank regardless of who awards the bonus.
This means to me, that the tax = 50% of the Bonus amount. So for a bonus of $6.66 the tax would be $3.33 paid by the bank. So if the bank bonus pool is $10, then 1/3 gets withheld by the bank to pay the tax and 2/3 goes to the employee (pre-tax).
@14, in your example you have a Super tax of 1.45 and a bonus of 1.52 or a tax which is almost 100% of the bonus… I remain, firm in my belief that AGW is a hoax, and you all suck at math.
Here is the text..
Legislation in Finance Bill 2010 will introduce a new bank payroll tax. This will be set at 50 per cent. It will be payable by a bank, on the amount of a bonus to which a banking employee is entitled, to the extent that the bonus exceeds £25,000. A bank will also be liable to the bank payroll tax where the bonus entitlement arises in respect of services performed for the bank regardless of who awards the bonus.
This means to me, that the tax = 50% of the Bonus amount. So for a bonus of $6.66 the tax would be $3.33 paid by the bank. So if the bank bonus pool is $10, then 1/3 gets withheld by the bank to pay the tax and 2/3 goes to the employee (pre-tax).
@14, in your example you have a Super tax of 1.45 and a bonus of 1.52 or a tax which is almost 100% of the bonus… I remain, firm in my belief that AGW is a hoax, and you all suck at math.
Here is the text..
Legislation in Finance Bill 2010 will introduce a new bank payroll tax. This will be set at 50 per cent. It will be payable by a bank, on the amount of a bonus to which a banking employee is entitled, to the extent that the bonus exceeds £25,000. A bank will also be liable to the bank payroll tax where the bonus entitlement arises in respect of services performed for the bank regardless of who awards the bonus.
This means to me, that the tax = 50% of the Bonus amount. So for a bonus of $6.66 the tax would be $3.33 paid by the bank. So if the bank bonus pool is $10, then 1/3 gets withheld by the bank to pay the tax and 2/3 goes to the employee (pre-tax).
@14, in your example you have a Super tax of 1.45 and a bonus of 1.52 or a tax which is almost 100% of the bonus… I remain, firm in my belief that AGW is a hoax, and you all suck at math.
Here is the text..
Legislation in Finance Bill 2010 will introduce a new bank payroll tax. This will be set at 50 per cent. It will be payable by a bank, on the amount of a bonus to which a banking employee is entitled, to the extent that the bonus exceeds £25,000. A bank will also be liable to the bank payroll tax where the bonus entitlement arises in respect of services performed for the bank regardless of who awards the bonus.
This means to me, that the tax = 50% of the Bonus amount. So for a bonus of $6.66 the tax would be $3.33 paid by the bank. So if the bank bonus pool is $10, then 1/3 gets withheld by the bank to pay the tax and 2/3 goes to the employee (pre-tax).
@14, in your example you have a Super tax of 1.45 and a bonus of 1.52 or a tax which is almost 100% of the bonus… I remain, firm in my belief that AGW is a hoax, and you all suck at math.
Here is the text..
Legislation in Finance Bill 2010 will introduce a new bank payroll tax. This will be set at 50 per cent. It will be payable by a bank, on the amount of a bonus to which a banking employee is entitled, to the extent that the bonus exceeds £25,000. A bank will also be liable to the bank payroll tax where the bonus entitlement arises in respect of services performed for the bank regardless of who awards the bonus.
This means to me, that the tax = 50% of the Bonus amount. So for a bonus of $6.66 the tax would be $3.33 paid by the bank. So if the bank bonus pool is $10, then 1/3 gets withheld by the bank to pay the tax and 2/3 goes to the employee (pre-tax).
@14, in your example you have a Super tax of 1.45 and a bonus of 1.52 or a tax which is almost 100% of the bonus… I remain, firm in my belief that AGW is a hoax, and you all suck at math.
Here is the text..
Legislation in Finance Bill 2010 will introduce a new bank payroll tax. This will be set at 50 per cent. It will be payable by a bank, on the amount of a bonus to which a banking employee is entitled, to the extent that the bonus exceeds £25,000. A bank will also be liable to the bank payroll tax where the bonus entitlement arises in respect of services performed for the bank regardless of who awards the bonus.
This means to me, that the tax = 50% of the Bonus amount. So for a bonus of $6.66 the tax would be $3.33 paid by the bank. So if the bank bonus pool is $10, then 1/3 gets withheld by the bank to pay the tax and 2/3 goes to the employee (pre-tax).
@14, in your example you have a Super tax of 1.45 and a bonus of 1.52 or a tax which is almost 100% of the bonus… I remain, firm in my belief that AGW is a hoax, and you all suck at math.
Here is the text..
Legislation in Finance Bill 2010 will introduce a new bank payroll tax. This will be set at 50 per cent. It will be payable by a bank, on the amount of a bonus to which a banking employee is entitled, to the extent that the bonus exceeds £25,000. A bank will also be liable to the bank payroll tax where the bonus entitlement arises in respect of services performed for the bank regardless of who awards the bonus.
This means to me, that the tax = 50% of the Bonus amount. So for a bonus of $6.66 the tax would be $3.33 paid by the bank. So if the bank bonus pool is $10, then 1/3 gets withheld by the bank to pay the tax and 2/3 goes to the employee (pre-tax).
@14, in your example you have a Super tax of 1.45 and a bonus of 1.52 or a tax which is almost 100% of the bonus… I remain, firm in my belief that AGW is a hoax, and you all suck at math.
Here is the text..
Legislation in Finance Bill 2010 will introduce a new bank payroll tax. This will be set at 50 per cent. It will be payable by a bank, on the amount of a bonus to which a banking employee is entitled, to the extent that the bonus exceeds £25,000. A bank will also be liable to the bank payroll tax where the bonus entitlement arises in respect of services performed for the bank regardless of who awards the bonus.
This means to me, that the tax = 50% of the Bonus amount. So for a bonus of $6.66 the tax would be $3.33 paid by the bank. So if the bank bonus pool is $10, then 1/3 gets withheld by the bank to pay the tax and 2/3 goes to the employee (pre-tax).
@14, in your example you have a Super tax of 1.45 and a bonus of 1.52 or a tax which is almost 100% of the bonus… I remain, firm in my belief that AGW is a hoax, and you all suck at math.
Here is the text..
Legislation in Finance Bill 2010 will introduce a new bank payroll tax. This will be set at 50 per cent. It will be payable by a bank, on the amount of a bonus to which a banking employee is entitled, to the extent that the bonus exceeds £25,000. A bank will also be liable to the bank payroll tax where the bonus entitlement arises in respect of services performed for the bank regardless of who awards the bonus.
This means to me, that the tax = 50% of the Bonus amount. So for a bonus of $6.66 the tax would be $3.33 paid by the bank. So if the bank bonus pool is $10, then 1/3 gets withheld by the bank to pay the tax and 2/3 goes to the employee (pre-tax).
@14, in your example you have a Super tax of 1.45 and a bonus of 1.52 or a tax which is almost 100% of the bonus… I remain, firm in my belief that AGW is a hoax, and you all suck at math.
Here is the text..
Legislation in Finance Bill 2010 will introduce a new bank payroll tax. This will be set at 50 per cent. It will be payable by a bank, on the amount of a bonus to which a banking employee is entitled, to the extent that the bonus exceeds £25,000. A bank will also be liable to the bank payroll tax where the bonus entitlement arises in respect of services performed for the bank regardless of who awards the bonus.
This means to me, that the tax = 50% of the Bonus amount. So for a bonus of $6.66 the tax would be $3.33 paid by the bank. So if the bank bonus pool is $10, then 1/3 gets withheld by the bank to pay the tax and 2/3 goes to the employee (pre-tax).
@14, in your example you have a Super tax of 1.45 and a bonus of 1.52 or a tax which is almost 100% of the bonus… I remain, firm in my belief that AGW is a hoax, and you all suck at math.
Here is the text..
Legislation in Finance Bill 2010 will introduce a new bank payroll tax. This will be set at 50 per cent. It will be payable by a bank, on the amount of a bonus to which a banking employee is entitled, to the extent that the bonus exceeds £25,000. A bank will also be liable to the bank payroll tax where the bonus entitlement arises in respect of services performed for the bank regardless of who awards the bonus.
This means to me, that the tax = 50% of the Bonus amount. So for a bonus of $6.66 the tax would be $3.33 paid by the bank. So if the bank bonus pool is $10, then 1/3 gets withheld by the bank to pay the tax and 2/3 goes to the employee (pre-tax).
@14, in your example you have a Super tax of 1.45 and a bonus of 1.52 or a tax which is almost 100% of the bonus… I remain, firm in my belief that AGW is a hoax, and you all suck at math.
Here is the text..
Legislation in Finance Bill 2010 will introduce a new bank payroll tax. This will be set at 50 per cent. It will be payable by a bank, on the amount of a bonus to which a banking employee is entitled, to the extent that the bonus exceeds £25,000. A bank will also be liable to the bank payroll tax where the bonus entitlement arises in respect of services performed for the bank regardless of who awards the bonus.
This means to me, that the tax = 50% of the Bonus amount. So for a bonus of $6.66 the tax would be $3.33 paid by the bank. So if the bank bonus pool is $10, then 1/3 gets withheld by the bank to pay the tax and 2/3 goes to the employee (pre-tax).
@14, in your example you have a Super tax of 1.45 and a bonus of 1.52 or a tax which is almost 100% of the bonus… I remain, firm in my belief that AGW is a hoax, and you all suck at math.
Here is the text..
Legislation in Finance Bill 2010 will introduce a new bank payroll tax. This will be set at 50 per cent. It will be payable by a bank, on the amount of a bonus to which a banking employee is entitled, to the extent that the bonus exceeds £25,000. A bank will also be liable to the bank payroll tax where the bonus entitlement arises in respect of services performed for the bank regardless of who awards the bonus.
This means to me, that the tax = 50% of the Bonus amount. So for a bonus of $6.66 the tax would be $3.33 paid by the bank. So if the bank bonus pool is $10, then 1/3 gets withheld by the bank to pay the tax and 2/3 goes to the employee (pre-tax).
@14, in your example you have a Super tax of 1.45 and a bonus of 1.52 or a tax which is almost 100% of the bonus… I remain, firm in my belief that AGW is a hoax, and you all suck at math.
Here is the text..
Legislation in Finance Bill 2010 will introduce a new bank payroll tax. This will be set at 50 per cent. It will be payable by a bank, on the amount of a bonus to which a banking employee is entitled, to the extent that the bonus exceeds £25,000. A bank will also be liable to the bank payroll tax where the bonus entitlement arises in respect of services performed for the bank regardless of who awards the bonus.
This means to me, that the tax = 50% of the Bonus amount. So for a bonus of $6.66 the tax would be $3.33 paid by the bank. So if the bank bonus pool is $10, then 1/3 gets withheld by the bank to pay the tax and 2/3 goes to the employee (pre-tax).
@14, in your example you have a Super tax of 1.45 and a bonus of 1.52 or a tax which is almost 100% of the bonus… I remain, firm in my belief that AGW is a hoax, and you all suck at math.
Here is the text..
Legislation in Finance Bill 2010 will introduce a new bank payroll tax. This will be set at 50 per cent. It will be payable by a bank, on the amount of a bonus to which a banking employee is entitled, to the extent that the bonus exceeds £25,000. A bank will also be liable to the bank payroll tax where the bonus entitlement arises in respect of services performed for the bank regardless of who awards the bonus.
This means to me, that the tax = 50% of the Bonus amount. So for a bonus of $6.66 the tax would be $3.33 paid by the bank. So if the bank bonus pool is $10, then 1/3 gets withheld by the bank to pay the tax and 2/3 goes to the employee (pre-tax).
@14, in your example you have a Super tax of 1.45 and a bonus of 1.52 or a tax which is almost 100% of the bonus… I remain, firm in my belief that AGW is a hoax, and you all suck at math.
Here is the text..
Legislation in Finance Bill 2010 will introduce a new bank payroll tax. This will be set at 50 per cent. It will be payable by a bank, on the amount of a bonus to which a banking employee is entitled, to the extent that the bonus exceeds £25,000. A bank will also be liable to the bank payroll tax where the bonus entitlement arises in respect of services performed for the bank regardless of who awards the bonus.
This means to me, that the tax = 50% of the Bonus amount. So for a bonus of $6.66 the tax would be $3.33 paid by the bank. So if the bank bonus pool is $10, then 1/3 gets withheld by the bank to pay the tax and 2/3 goes to the employee (pre-tax).
@14, in your example you have a Super tax of 1.45 and a bonus of 1.52 or a tax which is almost 100% of the bonus… I remain, firm in my belief that AGW is a hoax, and you all suck at math.
Here is the text..
Legislation in Finance Bill 2010 will introduce a new bank payroll tax. This will be set at 50 per cent. It will be payable by a bank, on the amount of a bonus to which a banking employee is entitled, to the extent that the bonus exceeds £25,000. A bank will also be liable to the bank payroll tax where the bonus entitlement arises in respect of services performed for the bank regardless of who awards the bonus.
This means to me, that the tax = 50% of the Bonus amount. So for a bonus of $6.66 the tax would be $3.33 paid by the bank. So if the bank bonus pool is $10, then 1/3 gets withheld by the bank to pay the tax and 2/3 goes to the employee (pre-tax).
@14, in your example you have a Super tax of 1.45 and a bonus of 1.52 or a tax which is almost 100% of the bonus… I remain, firm in my belief that AGW is a hoax, and you all suck at math.
Here is the text..
Legislation in Finance Bill 2010 will introduce a new bank payroll tax. This will be set at 50 per cent. It will be payable by a bank, on the amount of a bonus to which a banking employee is entitled, to the extent that the bonus exceeds £25,000. A bank will also be liable to the bank payroll tax where the bonus entitlement arises in respect of services performed for the bank regardless of who awards the bonus.
This means to me, that the tax = 50% of the Bonus amount. So for a bonus of $6.66 the tax would be $3.33 paid by the bank. So if the bank bonus pool is $10, then 1/3 gets withheld by the bank to pay the tax and 2/3 goes to the employee (pre-tax).
@14, in your example you have a Super tax of 1.45 and a bonus of 1.52 or a tax which is almost 100% of the bonus… I remain, firm in my belief that AGW is a hoax, and you all suck at math.
Here is the text..
Legislation in Finance Bill 2010 will introduce a new bank payroll tax. This will be set at 50 per cent. It will be payable by a bank, on the amount of a bonus to which a banking employee is entitled, to the extent that the bonus exceeds £25,000. A bank will also be liable to the bank payroll tax where the bonus entitlement arises in respect of services performed for the bank regardless of who awards the bonus.
This means to me, that the tax = 50% of the Bonus amount. So for a bonus of $6.66 the tax would be $3.33 paid by the bank. So if the bank bonus pool is $10, then 1/3 gets withheld by the bank to pay the tax and 2/3 goes to the employee (pre-tax).
@14, in your example you have a Super tax of 1.45 and a bonus of 1.52 or a tax which is almost 100% of the bonus… I remain, firm in my belief that AGW is a hoax, and you all suck at math.
Here is the text..
Legislation in Finance Bill 2010 will introduce a new bank payroll tax. This will be set at 50 per cent. It will be payable by a bank, on the amount of a bonus to which a banking employee is entitled, to the extent that the bonus exceeds £25,000. A bank will also be liable to the bank payroll tax where the bonus entitlement arises in respect of services performed for the bank regardless of who awards the bonus.
This means to me, that the tax = 50% of the Bonus amount. So for a bonus of $6.66 the tax would be $3.33 paid by the bank. So if the bank bonus pool is $10, then 1/3 gets withheld by the bank to pay the tax and 2/3 goes to the employee (pre-tax).
@14, in your example you have a Super tax of 1.45 and a bonus of 1.52 or a tax which is almost 100% of the bonus… I remain, firm in my belief that AGW is a hoax, and you all suck at math.
Here is the text..
Legislation in Finance Bill 2010 will introduce a new bank payroll tax. This will be set at 50 per cent. It will be payable by a bank, on the amount of a bonus to which a banking employee is entitled, to the extent that the bonus exceeds £25,000. A bank will also be liable to the bank payroll tax where the bonus entitlement arises in respect of services performed for the bank regardless of who awards the bonus.
This means to me, that the tax = 50% of the Bonus amount. So for a bonus of $6.66 the tax would be $3.33 paid by the bank. So if the bank bonus pool is $10, then 1/3 gets withheld by the bank to pay the tax and 2/3 goes to the employee (pre-tax).
@14, in your example you have a Super tax of 1.45 and a bonus of 1.52 or a tax which is almost 100% of the bonus… I remain, firm in my belief that AGW is a hoax, and you all suck at math.
Here is the text..
Legislation in Finance Bill 2010 will introduce a new bank payroll tax. This will be set at 50 per cent. It will be payable by a bank, on the amount of a bonus to which a banking employee is entitled, to the extent that the bonus exceeds £25,000. A bank will also be liable to the bank payroll tax where the bonus entitlement arises in respect of services performed for the bank regardless of who awards the bonus.
This means to me, that the tax = 50% of the Bonus amount. So for a bonus of $6.66 the tax would be $3.33 paid by the bank. So if the bank bonus pool is $10, then 1/3 gets withheld by the bank to pay the tax and 2/3 goes to the employee (pre-tax).
@14, in your example you have a Super tax of 1.45 and a bonus of 1.52 or a tax which is almost 100% of the bonus… I remain, firm in my belief that AGW is a hoax, and you all suck at math.
Here is the text..
Legislation in Finance Bill 2010 will introduce a new bank payroll tax. This will be set at 50 per cent. It will be payable by a bank, on the amount of a bonus to which a banking employee is entitled, to the extent that the bonus exceeds £25,000. A bank will also be liable to the bank payroll tax where the bonus entitlement arises in respect of services performed for the bank regardless of who awards the bonus.
This means to me, that the tax = 50% of the Bonus amount. So for a bonus of $6.66 the tax would be $3.33 paid by the bank. So if the bank bonus pool is $10, then 1/3 gets withheld by the bank to pay the tax and 2/3 goes to the employee (pre-tax).
@14, in your example you have a Super tax of 1.45 and a bonus of 1.52 or a tax which is almost 100% of the bonus… I remain, firm in my belief that AGW is a hoax, and you all suck at math.
Here is the text..
Legislation in Finance Bill 2010 will introduce a new bank payroll tax. This will be set at 50 per cent. It will be payable by a bank, on the amount of a bonus to which a banking employee is entitled, to the extent that the bonus exceeds £25,000. A bank will also be liable to the bank payroll tax where the bonus entitlement arises in respect of services performed for the bank regardless of who awards the bonus.
This means to me, that the tax = 50% of the Bonus amount. So for a bonus of $6.66 the tax would be $3.33 paid by the bank. So if the bank bonus pool is $10, then 1/3 gets withheld by the bank to pay the tax and 2/3 goes to the employee (pre-tax).
@14, in your example you have a Super tax of 1.45 and a bonus of 1.52 or a tax which is almost 100% of the bonus… I remain, firm in my belief that AGW is a hoax, and you all suck at math.
Here is the text..
Legislation in Finance Bill 2010 will introduce a new bank payroll tax. This will be set at 50 per cent. It will be payable by a bank, on the amount of a bonus to which a banking employee is entitled, to the extent that the bonus exceeds £25,000. A bank will also be liable to the bank payroll tax where the bonus entitlement arises in respect of services performed for the bank regardless of who awards the bonus.
This means to me, that the tax = 50% of the Bonus amount. So for a bonus of $6.66 the tax would be $3.33 paid by the bank. So if the bank bonus pool is $10, then 1/3 gets withheld by the bank to pay the tax and 2/3 goes to the employee (pre-tax).
@14, in your example you have a Super tax of 1.45 and a bonus of 1.52 or a tax which is almost 100% of the bonus… I remain, firm in my belief that AGW is a hoax, and you all suck at math.
Here is the text..
Legislation in Finance Bill 2010 will introduce a new bank payroll tax. This will be set at 50 per cent. It will be payable by a bank, on the amount of a bonus to which a banking employee is entitled, to the extent that the bonus exceeds £25,000. A bank will also be liable to the bank payroll tax where the bonus entitlement arises in respect of services performed for the bank regardless of who awards the bonus.
This means to me, that the tax = 50% of the Bonus amount. So for a bonus of $6.66 the tax would be $3.33 paid by the bank. So if the bank bonus pool is $10, then 1/3 gets withheld by the bank to pay the tax and 2/3 goes to the employee (pre-tax).
@14, in your example you have a Super tax of 1.45 and a bonus of 1.52 or a tax which is almost 100% of the bonus… I remain, firm in my belief that AGW is a hoax, and you all suck at math.
Here is the text..
Legislation in Finance Bill 2010 will introduce a new bank payroll tax. This will be set at 50 per cent. It will be payable by a bank, on the amount of a bonus to which a banking employee is entitled, to the extent that the bonus exceeds £25,000. A bank will also be liable to the bank payroll tax where the bonus entitlement arises in respect of services performed for the bank regardless of who awards the bonus.
This means to me, that the tax = 50% of the Bonus amount. So for a bonus of $6.66 the tax would be $3.33 paid by the bank. So if the bank bonus pool is $10, then 1/3 gets withheld by the bank to pay the tax and 2/3 goes to the employee (pre-tax).
@14, in your example you have a Super tax of 1.45 and a bonus of 1.52 or a tax which is almost 100% of the bonus… I remain, firm in my belief that AGW is a hoax, and you all suck at math.
Here is the text..
Legislation in Finance Bill 2010 will introduce a new bank payroll tax. This will be set at 50 per cent. It will be payable by a bank, on the amount of a bonus to which a banking employee is entitled, to the extent that the bonus exceeds £25,000. A bank will also be liable to the bank payroll tax where the bonus entitlement arises in respect of services performed for the bank regardless of who awards the bonus.
This means to me, that the tax = 50% of the Bonus amount. So for a bonus of $6.66 the tax would be $3.33 paid by the bank. So if the bank bonus pool is $10, then 1/3 gets withheld by the bank to pay the tax and 2/3 goes to the employee (pre-tax).
@14, in your example you have a Super tax of 1.45 and a bonus of 1.52 or a tax which is almost 100% of the bonus… I remain, firm in my belief that AGW is a hoax, and you all suck at math.
Here is the text..
Legislation in Finance Bill 2010 will introduce a new bank payroll tax. This will be set at 50 per cent. It will be payable by a bank, on the amount of a bonus to which a banking employee is entitled, to the extent that the bonus exceeds £25,000. A bank will also be liable to the bank payroll tax where the bonus entitlement arises in respect of services performed for the bank regardless of who awards the bonus.
This means to me, that the tax = 50% of the Bonus amount. So for a bonus of $6.66 the tax would be $3.33 paid by the bank. So if the bank bonus pool is $10, then 1/3 gets withheld by the bank to pay the tax and 2/3 goes to the employee (pre-tax).
@14, in your example you have a Super tax of 1.45 and a bonus of 1.52 or a tax which is almost 100% of the bonus… I remain, firm in my belief that AGW is a hoax, and you all suck at math.
Here is the text..
Legislation in Finance Bill 2010 will introduce a new bank payroll tax. This will be set at 50 per cent. It will be payable by a bank, on the amount of a bonus to which a banking employee is entitled, to the extent that the bonus exceeds £25,000. A bank will also be liable to the bank payroll tax where the bonus entitlement arises in respect of services performed for the bank regardless of who awards the bonus.
This means to me, that the tax = 50% of the Bonus amount. So for a bonus of $6.66 the tax would be $3.33 paid by the bank. So if the bank bonus pool is $10, then 1/3 gets withheld by the bank to pay the tax and 2/3 goes to the employee (pre-tax).
@14, in your example you have a Super tax of 1.45 and a bonus of 1.52 or a tax which is almost 100% of the bonus… I remain, firm in my belief that AGW is a hoax, and you all suck at math.
Here is the text..
Legislation in Finance Bill 2010 will introduce a new bank payroll tax. This will be set at 50 per cent. It will be payable by a bank, on the amount of a bonus to which a banking employee is entitled, to the extent that the bonus exceeds £25,000. A bank will also be liable to the bank payroll tax where the bonus entitlement arises in respect of services performed for the bank regardless of who awards the bonus.
This means to me, that the tax = 50% of the Bonus amount. So for a bonus of $6.66 the tax would be $3.33 paid by the bank. So if the bank bonus pool is $10, then 1/3 gets withheld by the bank to pay the tax and 2/3 goes to the employee (pre-tax).
@14, in your example you have a Super tax of 1.45 and a bonus of 1.52 or a tax which is almost 100% of the bonus… I remain, firm in my belief that AGW is a hoax, and you all suck at math.
Here is the text..
Legislation in Finance Bill 2010 will introduce a new bank payroll tax. This will be set at 50 per cent. It will be payable by a bank, on the amount of a bonus to which a banking employee is entitled, to the extent that the bonus exceeds £25,000. A bank will also be liable to the bank payroll tax where the bonus entitlement arises in respect of services performed for the bank regardless of who awards the bonus.
This means to me, that the tax = 50% of the Bonus amount. So for a bonus of $6.66 the tax would be $3.33 paid by the bank. So if the bank bonus pool is $10, then 1/3 gets withheld by the bank to pay the tax and 2/3 goes to the employee (pre-tax).
@14, in your example you have a Super tax of 1.45 and a bonus of 1.52 or a tax which is almost 100% of the bonus… I remain, firm in my belief that AGW is a hoax, and you all suck at math.
Here is the text..
Legislation in Finance Bill 2010 will introduce a new bank payroll tax. This will be set at 50 per cent. It will be payable by a bank, on the amount of a bonus to which a banking employee is entitled, to the extent that the bonus exceeds £25,000. A bank will also be liable to the bank payroll tax where the bonus entitlement arises in respect of services performed for the bank regardless of who awards the bonus.
This means to me, that the tax = 50% of the Bonus amount. So for a bonus of $6.66 the tax would be $3.33 paid by the bank. So if the bank bonus pool is $10, then 1/3 gets withheld by the bank to pay the tax and 2/3 goes to the employee (pre-tax).
@14, in your example you have a Super tax of 1.45 and a bonus of 1.52 or a tax which is almost 100% of the bonus… I remain, firm in my belief that AGW is a hoax, and you all suck at math.
Here is the text..
Legislation in Finance Bill 2010 will introduce a new bank payroll tax. This will be set at 50 per cent. It will be payable by a bank, on the amount of a bonus to which a banking employee is entitled, to the extent that the bonus exceeds £25,000. A bank will also be liable to the bank payroll tax where the bonus entitlement arises in respect of services performed for the bank regardless of who awards the bonus.
This means to me, that the tax = 50% of the Bonus amount. So for a bonus of $6.66 the tax would be $3.33 paid by the bank. So if the bank bonus pool is $10, then 1/3 gets withheld by the bank to pay the tax and 2/3 goes to the employee (pre-tax).
@14, in your example you have a Super tax of 1.45 and a bonus of 1.52 or a tax which is almost 100% of the bonus… I remain, firm in my belief that AGW is a hoax, and you all suck at math.
Here is the text..
Legislation in Finance Bill 2010 will introduce a new bank payroll tax. This will be set at 50 per cent. It will be payable by a bank, on the amount of a bonus to which a banking employee is entitled, to the extent that the bonus exceeds £25,000. A bank will also be liable to the bank payroll tax where the bonus entitlement arises in respect of services performed for the bank regardless of who awards the bonus.
This means to me, that the tax = 50% of the Bonus amount. So for a bonus of $6.66 the tax would be $3.33 paid by the bank. So if the bank bonus pool is $10, then 1/3 gets withheld by the bank to pay the tax and 2/3 goes to the employee (pre-tax).
@14, in your example you have a Super tax of 1.45 and a bonus of 1.52 or a tax which is almost 100% of the bonus… I remain, firm in my belief that AGW is a hoax, and you all suck at math.
Here is the text..
Legislation in Finance Bill 2010 will introduce a new bank payroll tax. This will be set at 50 per cent. It will be payable by a bank, on the amount of a bonus to which a banking employee is entitled, to the extent that the bonus exceeds £25,000. A bank will also be liable to the bank payroll tax where the bonus entitlement arises in respect of services performed for the bank regardless of who awards the bonus.
This means to me, that the tax = 50% of the Bonus amount. So for a bonus of $6.66 the tax would be $3.33 paid by the bank. So if the bank bonus pool is $10, then 1/3 gets withheld by the bank to pay the tax and 2/3 goes to the employee (pre-tax).
@14, in your example you have a Super tax of 1.45 and a bonus of 1.52 or a tax which is almost 100% of the bonus… I remain, firm in my belief that AGW is a hoax, and you all suck at math.
Here is the text..
Legislation in Finance Bill 2010 will introduce a new bank payroll tax. This will be set at 50 per cent. It will be payable by a bank, on the amount of a bonus to which a banking employee is entitled, to the extent that the bonus exceeds £25,000. A bank will also be liable to the bank payroll tax where the bonus entitlement arises in respect of services performed for the bank regardless of who awards the bonus.
This means to me, that the tax = 50% of the Bonus amount. So for a bonus of $6.66 the tax would be $3.33 paid by the bank. So if the bank bonus pool is $10, then 1/3 gets withheld by the bank to pay the tax and 2/3 goes to the employee (pre-tax).
@14, in your example you have a Super tax of 1.45 and a bonus of 1.52 or a tax which is almost 100% of the bonus… I remain, firm in my belief that AGW is a hoax, and you all suck at math.
Here is the text..
Legislation in Finance Bill 2010 will introduce a new bank payroll tax. This will be set at 50 per cent. It will be payable by a bank, on the amount of a bonus to which a banking employee is entitled, to the extent that the bonus exceeds £25,000. A bank will also be liable to the bank payroll tax where the bonus entitlement arises in respect of services performed for the bank regardless of who awards the bonus.
This means to me, that the tax = 50% of the Bonus amount. So for a bonus of $6.66 the tax would be $3.33 paid by the bank. So if the bank bonus pool is $10, then 1/3 gets withheld by the bank to pay the tax and 2/3 goes to the employee (pre-tax).
@14, in your example you have a Super tax of 1.45 and a bonus of 1.52 or a tax which is almost 100% of the bonus… I remain, firm in my belief that AGW is a hoax, and you all suck at math.
Here is the text..
Legislation in Finance Bill 2010 will introduce a new bank payroll tax. This will be set at 50 per cent. It will be payable by a bank, on the amount of a bonus to which a banking employee is entitled, to the extent that the bonus exceeds £25,000. A bank will also be liable to the bank payroll tax where the bonus entitlement arises in respect of services performed for the bank regardless of who awards the bonus.
This means to me, that the tax = 50% of the Bonus amount. So for a bonus of $6.66 the tax would be $3.33 paid by the bank. So if the bank bonus pool is $10, then 1/3 gets withheld by the bank to pay the tax and 2/3 goes to the employee (pre-tax).
@14, in your example you have a Super tax of 1.45 and a bonus of 1.52 or a tax which is almost 100% of the bonus… I remain, firm in my belief that AGW is a hoax, and you all suck at math.
Here is the text..
Legislation in Finance Bill 2010 will introduce a new bank payroll tax. This will be set at 50 per cent. It will be payable by a bank, on the amount of a bonus to which a banking employee is entitled, to the extent that the bonus exceeds £25,000. A bank will also be liable to the bank payroll tax where the bonus entitlement arises in respect of services performed for the bank regardless of who awards the bonus.
This means to me, that the tax = 50% of the Bonus amount. So for a bonus of $6.66 the tax would be $3.33 paid by the bank. So if the bank bonus pool is $10, then 1/3 gets withheld by the bank to pay the tax and 2/3 goes to the employee (pre-tax).
@14, in your example you have a Super tax of 1.45 and a bonus of 1.52 or a tax which is almost 100% of the bonus… I remain, firm in my belief that AGW is a hoax, and you all suck at math.
Here is the text..
Legislation in Finance Bill 2010 will introduce a new bank payroll tax. This will be set at 50 per cent. It will be payable by a bank, on the amount of a bonus to which a banking employee is entitled, to the extent that the bonus exceeds £25,000. A bank will also be liable to the bank payroll tax where the bonus entitlement arises in respect of services performed for the bank regardless of who awards the bonus.
This means to me, that the tax = 50% of the Bonus amount. So for a bonus of $6.66 the tax would be $3.33 paid by the bank. So if the bank bonus pool is $10, then 1/3 gets withheld by the bank to pay the tax and 2/3 goes to the employee (pre-tax).
@14, in your example you have a Super tax of 1.45 and a bonus of 1.52 or a tax which is almost 100% of the bonus… I remain, firm in my belief that AGW is a hoax, and you all suck at math.
Here is the text..
Legislation in Finance Bill 2010 will introduce a new bank payroll tax. This will be set at 50 per cent. It will be payable by a bank, on the amount of a bonus to which a banking employee is entitled, to the extent that the bonus exceeds £25,000. A bank will also be liable to the bank payroll tax where the bonus entitlement arises in respect of services performed for the bank regardless of who awards the bonus.
This means to me, that the tax = 50% of the Bonus amount. So for a bonus of $6.66 the tax would be $3.33 paid by the bank. So if the bank bonus pool is $10, then 1/3 gets withheld by the bank to pay the tax and 2/3 goes to the employee (pre-tax).
@14, in your example you have a Super tax of 1.45 and a bonus of 1.52 or a tax which is almost 100% of the bonus… I remain, firm in my belief that AGW is a hoax, and you all suck at math.
Here is the text..
Legislation in Finance Bill 2010 will introduce a new bank payroll tax. This will be set at 50 per cent. It will be payable by a bank, on the amount of a bonus to which a banking employee is entitled, to the extent that the bonus exceeds £25,000. A bank will also be liable to the bank payroll tax where the bonus entitlement arises in respect of services performed for the bank regardless of who awards the bonus.
This means to me, that the tax = 50% of the Bonus amount. So for a bonus of $6.66 the tax would be $3.33 paid by the bank. So if the bank bonus pool is $10, then 1/3 gets withheld by the bank to pay the tax and 2/3 goes to the employee (pre-tax).
@14, in your example you have a Super tax of 1.45 and a bonus of 1.52 or a tax which is almost 100% of the bonus… I remain, firm in my belief that AGW is a hoax, and you all suck at math.
Here is the text..
Legislation in Finance Bill 2010 will introduce a new bank payroll tax. This will be set at 50 per cent. It will be payable by a bank, on the amount of a bonus to which a banking employee is entitled, to the extent that the bonus exceeds £25,000. A bank will also be liable to the bank payroll tax where the bonus entitlement arises in respect of services performed for the bank regardless of who awards the bonus.
This means to me, that the tax = 50% of the Bonus amount. So for a bonus of $6.66 the tax would be $3.33 paid by the bank. So if the bank bonus pool is $10, then 1/3 gets withheld by the bank to pay the tax and 2/3 goes to the employee (pre-tax).
@14, in your example you have a Super tax of 1.45 and a bonus of 1.52 or a tax which is almost 100% of the bonus… I remain, firm in my belief that AGW is a hoax, and you all suck at math.
Here is the text..
Legislation in Finance Bill 2010 will introduce a new bank payroll tax. This will be set at 50 per cent. It will be payable by a bank, on the amount of a bonus to which a banking employee is entitled, to the extent that the bonus exceeds £25,000. A bank will also be liable to the bank payroll tax where the bonus entitlement arises in respect of services performed for the bank regardless of who awards the bonus.
This means to me, that the tax = 50% of the Bonus amount. So for a bonus of $6.66 the tax would be $3.33 paid by the bank. So if the bank bonus pool is $10, then 1/3 gets withheld by the bank to pay the tax and 2/3 goes to the employee (pre-tax).
@14, in your example you have a Super tax of 1.45 and a bonus of 1.52 or a tax which is almost 100% of the bonus… I remain, firm in my belief that AGW is a hoax, and you all suck at math.
Here is the text..
Legislation in Finance Bill 2010 will introduce a new bank payroll tax. This will be set at 50 per cent. It will be payable by a bank, on the amount of a bonus to which a banking employee is entitled, to the extent that the bonus exceeds £25,000. A bank will also be liable to the bank payroll tax where the bonus entitlement arises in respect of services performed for the bank regardless of who awards the bonus.
This means to me, that the tax = 50% of the Bonus amount. So for a bonus of $6.66 the tax would be $3.33 paid by the bank. So if the bank bonus pool is $10, then 1/3 gets withheld by the bank to pay the tax and 2/3 goes to the employee (pre-tax).
@14, in your example you have a Super tax of 1.45 and a bonus of 1.52 or a tax which is almost 100% of the bonus… I remain, firm in my belief that AGW is a hoax, and you all suck at math.
Here is the text..
Legislation in Finance Bill 2010 will introduce a new bank payroll tax. This will be set at 50 per cent. It will be payable by a bank, on the amount of a bonus to which a banking employee is entitled, to the extent that the bonus exceeds £25,000. A bank will also be liable to the bank payroll tax where the bonus entitlement arises in respect of services performed for the bank regardless of who awards the bonus.
This means to me, that the tax = 50% of the Bonus amount. So for a bonus of $6.66 the tax would be $3.33 paid by the bank. So if the bank bonus pool is $10, then 1/3 gets withheld by the bank to pay the tax and 2/3 goes to the employee (pre-tax).
@14, in your example you have a Super tax of 1.45 and a bonus of 1.52 or a tax which is almost 100% of the bonus… I remain, firm in my belief that AGW is a hoax, and you all suck at math.
Here is the text..
Legislation in Finance Bill 2010 will introduce a new bank payroll tax. This will be set at 50 per cent. It will be payable by a bank, on the amount of a bonus to which a banking employee is entitled, to the extent that the bonus exceeds £25,000. A bank will also be liable to the bank payroll tax where the bonus entitlement arises in respect of services performed for the bank regardless of who awards the bonus.
This means to me, that the tax = 50% of the Bonus amount. So for a bonus of $6.66 the tax would be $3.33 paid by the bank. So if the bank bonus pool is $10, then 1/3 gets withheld by the bank to pay the tax and 2/3 goes to the employee (pre-tax).
@14, in your example you have a Super tax of 1.45 and a bonus of 1.52 or a tax which is almost 100% of the bonus… I remain, firm in my belief that AGW is a hoax, and you all suck at math.
Here is the text..
Legislation in Finance Bill 2010 will introduce a new bank payroll tax. This will be set at 50 per cent. It will be payable by a bank, on the amount of a bonus to which a banking employee is entitled, to the extent that the bonus exceeds £25,000. A bank will also be liable to the bank payroll tax where the bonus entitlement arises in respect of services performed for the bank regardless of who awards the bonus.
This means to me, that the tax = 50% of the Bonus amount. So for a bonus of $6.66 the tax would be $3.33 paid by the bank. So if the bank bonus pool is $10, then 1/3 gets withheld by the bank to pay the tax and 2/3 goes to the employee (pre-tax).
@14, in your example you have a Super tax of 1.45 and a bonus of 1.52 or a tax which is almost 100% of the bonus… I remain, firm in my belief that AGW is a hoax, and you all suck at math.
Here is the text..
Legislation in Finance Bill 2010 will introduce a new bank payroll tax. This will be set at 50 per cent. It will be payable by a bank, on the amount of a bonus to which a banking employee is entitled, to the extent that the bonus exceeds £25,000. A bank will also be liable to the bank payroll tax where the bonus entitlement arises in respect of services performed for the bank regardless of who awards the bonus.
This means to me, that the tax = 50% of the Bonus amount. So for a bonus of $6.66 the tax would be $3.33 paid by the bank. So if the bank bonus pool is $10, then 1/3 gets withheld by the bank to pay the tax and 2/3 goes to the employee (pre-tax).
@14, in your example you have a Super tax of 1.45 and a bonus of 1.52 or a tax which is almost 100% of the bonus… I remain, firm in my belief that AGW is a hoax, and you all suck at math.
Here is the text..
Legislation in Finance Bill 2010 will introduce a new bank payroll tax. This will be set at 50 per cent. It will be payable by a bank, on the amount of a bonus to which a banking employee is entitled, to the extent that the bonus exceeds £25,000. A bank will also be liable to the bank payroll tax where the bonus entitlement arises in respect of services performed for the bank regardless of who awards the bonus.
This means to me, that the tax = 50% of the Bonus amount. So for a bonus of $6.66 the tax would be $3.33 paid by the bank. So if the bank bonus pool is $10, then 1/3 gets withheld by the bank to pay the tax and 2/3 goes to the employee (pre-tax).
@14, in your example you have a Super tax of 1.45 and a bonus of 1.52 or a tax which is almost 100% of the bonus… I remain, firm in my belief that AGW is a hoax, and you all suck at math.
Here is the text..
Legislation in Finance Bill 2010 will introduce a new bank payroll tax. This will be set at 50 per cent. It will be payable by a bank, on the amount of a bonus to which a banking employee is entitled, to the extent that the bonus exceeds £25,000. A bank will also be liable to the bank payroll tax where the bonus entitlement arises in respect of services performed for the bank regardless of who awards the bonus.
This means to me, that the tax = 50% of the Bonus amount. So for a bonus of $6.66 the tax would be $3.33 paid by the bank. So if the bank bonus pool is $10, then 1/3 gets withheld by the bank to pay the tax and 2/3 goes to the employee (pre-tax).
@14, in your example you have a Super tax of 1.45 and a bonus of 1.52 or a tax which is almost 100% of the bonus… I remain, firm in my belief that AGW is a hoax, and you all suck at math.
Here is the text..
Legislation in Finance Bill 2010 will introduce a new bank payroll tax. This will be set at 50 per cent. It will be payable by a bank, on the amount of a bonus to which a banking employee is entitled, to the extent that the bonus exceeds £25,000. A bank will also be liable to the bank payroll tax where the bonus entitlement arises in respect of services performed for the bank regardless of who awards the bonus.
This means to me, that the tax = 50% of the Bonus amount. So for a bonus of $6.66 the tax would be $3.33 paid by the bank. So if the bank bonus pool is $10, then 1/3 gets withheld by the bank to pay the tax and 2/3 goes to the employee (pre-tax).
@14, in your example you have a Super tax of 1.45 and a bonus of 1.52 or a tax which is almost 100% of the bonus… I remain, firm in my belief that AGW is a hoax, and you all suck at math.
Here is the text..
Legislation in Finance Bill 2010 will introduce a new bank payroll tax. This will be set at 50 per cent. It will be payable by a bank, on the amount of a bonus to which a banking employee is entitled, to the extent that the bonus exceeds £25,000. A bank will also be liable to the bank payroll tax where the bonus entitlement arises in respect of services performed for the bank regardless of who awards the bonus.
This means to me, that the tax = 50% of the Bonus amount. So for a bonus of $6.66 the tax would be $3.33 paid by the bank. So if the bank bonus pool is $10, then 1/3 gets withheld by the bank to pay the tax and 2/3 goes to the employee (pre-tax).
@14, in your example you have a Super tax of 1.45 and a bonus of 1.52 or a tax which is almost 100% of the bonus… I remain, firm in my belief that AGW is a hoax, and you all suck at math.
Here is the text..
Legislation in Finance Bill 2010 will introduce a new bank payroll tax. This will be set at 50 per cent. It will be payable by a bank, on the amount of a bonus to which a banking employee is entitled, to the extent that the bonus exceeds £25,000. A bank will also be liable to the bank payroll tax where the bonus entitlement arises in respect of services performed for the bank regardless of who awards the bonus.
This means to me, that the tax = 50% of the Bonus amount. So for a bonus of $6.66 the tax would be $3.33 paid by the bank. So if the bank bonus pool is $10, then 1/3 gets withheld by the bank to pay the tax and 2/3 goes to the employee (pre-tax).
@14, in your example you have a Super tax of 1.45 and a bonus of 1.52 or a tax which is almost 100% of the bonus… I remain, firm in my belief that AGW is a hoax, and you all suck at math.
Here is the text..
Legislation in Finance Bill 2010 will introduce a new bank payroll tax. This will be set at 50 per cent. It will be payable by a bank, on the amount of a bonus to which a banking employee is entitled, to the extent that the bonus exceeds £25,000. A bank will also be liable to the bank payroll tax where the bonus entitlement arises in respect of services performed for the bank regardless of who awards the bonus.
This means to me, that the tax = 50% of the Bonus amount. So for a bonus of $6.66 the tax would be $3.33 paid by the bank. So if the bank bonus pool is $10, then 1/3 gets withheld by the bank to pay the tax and 2/3 goes to the employee (pre-tax).
@14, in your example you have a Super tax of 1.45 and a bonus of 1.52 or a tax which is almost 100% of the bonus… I remain, firm in my belief that AGW is a hoax, and you all suck at math.
Here is the text..
Legislation in Finance Bill 2010 will introduce a new bank payroll tax. This will be set at 50 per cent. It will be payable by a bank, on the amount of a bonus to which a banking employee is entitled, to the extent that the bonus exceeds £25,000. A bank will also be liable to the bank payroll tax where the bonus entitlement arises in respect of services performed for the bank regardless of who awards the bonus.
This means to me, that the tax = 50% of the Bonus amount. So for a bonus of $6.66 the tax would be $3.33 paid by the bank. So if the bank bonus pool is $10, then 1/3 gets withheld by the bank to pay the tax and 2/3 goes to the employee (pre-tax).
@14, in your example you have a Super tax of 1.45 and a bonus of 1.52 or a tax which is almost 100% of the bonus… I remain, firm in my belief that AGW is a hoax, and you all suck at math.
Here is the text..
Legislation in Finance Bill 2010 will introduce a new bank payroll tax. This will be set at 50 per cent. It will be payable by a bank, on the amount of a bonus to which a banking employee is entitled, to the extent that the bonus exceeds £25,000. A bank will also be liable to the bank payroll tax where the bonus entitlement arises in respect of services performed for the bank regardless of who awards the bonus.
This means to me, that the tax = 50% of the Bonus amount. So for a bonus of $6.66 the tax would be $3.33 paid by the bank. So if the bank bonus pool is $10, then 1/3 gets withheld by the bank to pay the tax and 2/3 goes to the employee (pre-tax).
@14, in your example you have a Super tax of 1.45 and a bonus of 1.52 or a tax which is almost 100% of the bonus… I remain, firm in my belief that AGW is a hoax, and you all suck at math.
Here is the text..
Legislation in Finance Bill 2010 will introduce a new bank payroll tax. This will be set at 50 per cent. It will be payable by a bank, on the amount of a bonus to which a banking employee is entitled, to the extent that the bonus exceeds £25,000. A bank will also be liable to the bank payroll tax where the bonus entitlement arises in respect of services performed for the bank regardless of who awards the bonus.
This means to me, that the tax = 50% of the Bonus amount. So for a bonus of $6.66 the tax would be $3.33 paid by the bank. So if the bank bonus pool is $10, then 1/3 gets withheld by the bank to pay the tax and 2/3 goes to the employee (pre-tax).
@14, in your example you have a Super tax of 1.45 and a bonus of 1.52 or a tax which is almost 100% of the bonus… I remain, firm in my belief that AGW is a hoax, and you all suck at math.
Here is the text..
Legislation in Finance Bill 2010 will introduce a new bank payroll tax. This will be set at 50 per cent. It will be payable by a bank, on the amount of a bonus to which a banking employee is entitled, to the extent that the bonus exceeds £25,000. A bank will also be liable to the bank payroll tax where the bonus entitlement arises in respect of services performed for the bank regardless of who awards the bonus.
This means to me, that the tax = 50% of the Bonus amount. So for a bonus of $6.66 the tax would be $3.33 paid by the bank. So if the bank bonus pool is $10, then 1/3 gets withheld by the bank to pay the tax and 2/3 goes to the employee (pre-tax).
@14, in your example you have a Super tax of 1.45 and a bonus of 1.52 or a tax which is almost 100% of the bonus… I remain, firm in my belief that AGW is a hoax, and you all suck at math.
Here is the text..
Legislation in Finance Bill 2010 will introduce a new bank payroll tax. This will be set at 50 per cent. It will be payable by a bank, on the amount of a bonus to which a banking employee is entitled, to the extent that the bonus exceeds £25,000. A bank will also be liable to the bank payroll tax where the bonus entitlement arises in respect of services performed for the bank regardless of who awards the bonus.
This means to me, that the tax = 50% of the Bonus amount. So for a bonus of $6.66 the tax would be $3.33 paid by the bank. So if the bank bonus pool is $10, then 1/3 gets withheld by the bank to pay the tax and 2/3 goes to the employee (pre-tax).
@14, in your example you have a Super tax of 1.45 and a bonus of 1.52 or a tax which is almost 100% of the bonus… I remain, firm in my belief that AGW is a hoax, and you all suck at math.
Here is the text..
Legislation in Finance Bill 2010 will introduce a new bank payroll tax. This will be set at 50 per cent. It will be payable by a bank, on the amount of a bonus to which a banking employee is entitled, to the extent that the bonus exceeds £25,000. A bank will also be liable to the bank payroll tax where the bonus entitlement arises in respect of services performed for the bank regardless of who awards the bonus.
This means to me, that the tax = 50% of the Bonus amount. So for a bonus of $6.66 the tax would be $3.33 paid by the bank. So if the bank bonus pool is $10, then 1/3 gets withheld by the bank to pay the tax and 2/3 goes to the employee (pre-tax).
@14, in your example you have a Super tax of 1.45 and a bonus of 1.52 or a tax which is almost 100% of the bonus… I remain, firm in my belief that AGW is a hoax, and you all suck at math.
Here is the text..
Legislation in Finance Bill 2010 will introduce a new bank payroll tax. This will be set at 50 per cent. It will be payable by a bank, on the amount of a bonus to which a banking employee is entitled, to the extent that the bonus exceeds £25,000. A bank will also be liable to the bank payroll tax where the bonus entitlement arises in respect of services performed for the bank regardless of who awards the bonus.
This means to me, that the tax = 50% of the Bonus amount. So for a bonus of $6.66 the tax would be $3.33 paid by the bank. So if the bank bonus pool is $10, then 1/3 gets withheld by the bank to pay the tax and 2/3 goes to the employee (pre-tax).
@14, in your example you have a Super tax of 1.45 and a bonus of 1.52 or a tax which is almost 100% of the bonus… I remain, firm in my belief that AGW is a hoax, and you all suck at math.
Here is the text..
Legislation in Finance Bill 2010 will introduce a new bank payroll tax. This will be set at 50 per cent. It will be payable by a bank, on the amount of a bonus to which a banking employee is entitled, to the extent that the bonus exceeds £25,000. A bank will also be liable to the bank payroll tax where the bonus entitlement arises in respect of services performed for the bank regardless of who awards the bonus.
This means to me, that the tax = 50% of the Bonus amount. So for a bonus of $6.66 the tax would be $3.33 paid by the bank. So if the bank bonus pool is $10, then 1/3 gets withheld by the bank to pay the tax and 2/3 goes to the employee (pre-tax).
@14, in your example you have a Super tax of 1.45 and a bonus of 1.52 or a tax which is almost 100% of the bonus… I remain, firm in my belief that AGW is a hoax, and you all suck at math.
Here is the text..
Legislation in Finance Bill 2010 will introduce a new bank payroll tax. This will be set at 50 per cent. It will be payable by a bank, on the amount of a bonus to which a banking employee is entitled, to the extent that the bonus exceeds £25,000. A bank will also be liable to the bank payroll tax where the bonus entitlement arises in respect of services performed for the bank regardless of who awards the bonus.
This means to me, that the tax = 50% of the Bonus amount. So for a bonus of $6.66 the tax would be $3.33 paid by the bank. So if the bank bonus pool is $10, then 1/3 gets withheld by the bank to pay the tax and 2/3 goes to the employee (pre-tax).
@14, in your example you have a Super tax of 1.45 and a bonus of 1.52 or a tax which is almost 100% of the bonus… I remain, firm in my belief that AGW is a hoax, and you all suck at math.
Here is the text..
Legislation in Finance Bill 2010 will introduce a new bank payroll tax. This will be set at 50 per cent. It will be payable by a bank, on the amount of a bonus to which a banking employee is entitled, to the extent that the bonus exceeds £25,000. A bank will also be liable to the bank payroll tax where the bonus entitlement arises in respect of services performed for the bank regardless of who awards the bonus.
This means to me, that the tax = 50% of the Bonus amount. So for a bonus of $6.66 the tax would be $3.33 paid by the bank. So if the bank bonus pool is $10, then 1/3 gets withheld by the bank to pay the tax and 2/3 goes to the employee (pre-tax).
@14, in your example you have a Super tax of 1.45 and a bonus of 1.52 or a tax which is almost 100% of the bonus… I remain, firm in my belief that AGW is a hoax, and you all suck at math.
Here is the text..
Legislation in Finance Bill 2010 will introduce a new bank payroll tax. This will be set at 50 per cent. It will be payable by a bank, on the amount of a bonus to which a banking employee is entitled, to the extent that the bonus exceeds £25,000. A bank will also be liable to the bank payroll tax where the bonus entitlement arises in respect of services performed for the bank regardless of who awards the bonus.
This means to me, that the tax = 50% of the Bonus amount. So for a bonus of $6.66 the tax would be $3.33 paid by the bank. So if the bank bonus pool is $10, then 1/3 gets withheld by the bank to pay the tax and 2/3 goes to the employee (pre-tax).
@14, in your example you have a Super tax of 1.45 and a bonus of 1.52 or a tax which is almost 100% of the bonus… I remain, firm in my belief that AGW is a hoax, and you all suck at math.
Here is the text..
Legislation in Finance Bill 2010 will introduce a new bank payroll tax. This will be set at 50 per cent. It will be payable by a bank, on the amount of a bonus to which a banking employee is entitled, to the extent that the bonus exceeds £25,000. A bank will also be liable to the bank payroll tax where the bonus entitlement arises in respect of services performed for the bank regardless of who awards the bonus.
This means to me, that the tax = 50% of the Bonus amount. So for a bonus of $6.66 the tax would be $3.33 paid by the bank. So if the bank bonus pool is $10, then 1/3 gets withheld by the bank to pay the tax and 2/3 goes to the employee (pre-tax).
@14, in your example you have a Super tax of 1.45 and a bonus of 1.52 or a tax which is almost 100% of the bonus… I remain, firm in my belief that AGW is a hoax, and you all suck at math.
Here is the text..
Legislation in Finance Bill 2010 will introduce a new bank payroll tax. This will be set at 50 per cent. It will be payable by a bank, on the amount of a bonus to which a banking employee is entitled, to the extent that the bonus exceeds £25,000. A bank will also be liable to the bank payroll tax where the bonus entitlement arises in respect of services performed for the bank regardless of who awards the bonus.
This means to me, that the tax = 50% of the Bonus amount. So for a bonus of $6.66 the tax would be $3.33 paid by the bank. So if the bank bonus pool is $10, then 1/3 gets withheld by the bank to pay the tax and 2/3 goes to the employee (pre-tax).
@14, in your example you have a Super tax of 1.45 and a bonus of 1.52 or a tax which is almost 100% of the bonus… I remain, firm in my belief that AGW is a hoax, and you all suck at math.
Here is the text..
Legislation in Finance Bill 2010 will introduce a new bank payroll tax. This will be set at 50 per cent. It will be payable by a bank, on the amount of a bonus to which a banking employee is entitled, to the extent that the bonus exceeds £25,000. A bank will also be liable to the bank payroll tax where the bonus entitlement arises in respect of services performed for the bank regardless of who awards the bonus.
This means to me, that the tax = 50% of the Bonus amount. So for a bonus of $6.66 the tax would be $3.33 paid by the bank. So if the bank bonus pool is $10, then 1/3 gets withheld by the bank to pay the tax and 2/3 goes to the employee (pre-tax).
@14, in your example you have a Super tax of 1.45 and a bonus of 1.52 or a tax which is almost 100% of the bonus… I remain, firm in my belief that AGW is a hoax, and you all suck at math.
Here is the text..
Legislation in Finance Bill 2010 will introduce a new bank payroll tax. This will be set at 50 per cent. It will be payable by a bank, on the amount of a bonus to which a banking employee is entitled, to the extent that the bonus exceeds £25,000. A bank will also be liable to the bank payroll tax where the bonus entitlement arises in respect of services performed for the bank regardless of who awards the bonus.
This means to me, that the tax = 50% of the Bonus amount. So for a bonus of $6.66 the tax would be $3.33 paid by the bank. So if the bank bonus pool is $10, then 1/3 gets withheld by the bank to pay the tax and 2/3 goes to the employee (pre-tax).
@14, in your example you have a Super tax of 1.45 and a bonus of 1.52 or a tax which is almost 100% of the bonus… I remain, firm in my belief that AGW is a hoax, and you all suck at math.
Here is the text..
Legislation in Finance Bill 2010 will introduce a new bank payroll tax. This will be set at 50 per cent. It will be payable by a bank, on the amount of a bonus to which a banking employee is entitled, to the extent that the bonus exceeds £25,000. A bank will also be liable to the bank payroll tax where the bonus entitlement arises in respect of services performed for the bank regardless of who awards the bonus.
This means to me, that the tax = 50% of the Bonus amount. So for a bonus of $6.66 the tax would be $3.33 paid by the bank. So if the bank bonus pool is $10, then 1/3 gets withheld by the bank to pay the tax and 2/3 goes to the employee (pre-tax).
@14, in your example you have a Super tax of 1.45 and a bonus of 1.52 or a tax which is almost 100% of the bonus… I remain, firm in my belief that AGW is a hoax, and you all suck at math.
Here is the text..
Legislation in Finance Bill 2010 will introduce a new bank payroll tax. This will be set at 50 per cent. It will be payable by a bank, on the amount of a bonus to which a banking employee is entitled, to the extent that the bonus exceeds £25,000. A bank will also be liable to the bank payroll tax where the bonus entitlement arises in respect of services performed for the bank regardless of who awards the bonus.
This means to me, that the tax = 50% of the Bonus amount. So for a bonus of $6.66 the tax would be $3.33 paid by the bank. So if the bank bonus pool is $10, then 1/3 gets withheld by the bank to pay the tax and 2/3 goes to the employee (pre-tax).
@14, in your example you have a Super tax of 1.45 and a bonus of 1.52 or a tax which is almost 100% of the bonus… I remain, firm in my belief that AGW is a hoax, and you all suck at math.
Here is the text..
Legislation in Finance Bill 2010 will introduce a new bank payroll tax. This will be set at 50 per cent. It will be payable by a bank, on the amount of a bonus to which a banking employee is entitled, to the extent that the bonus exceeds £25,000. A bank will also be liable to the bank payroll tax where the bonus entitlement arises in respect of services performed for the bank regardless of who awards the bonus.
This means to me, that the tax = 50% of the Bonus amount. So for a bonus of $6.66 the tax would be $3.33 paid by the bank. So if the bank bonus pool is $10, then 1/3 gets withheld by the bank to pay the tax and 2/3 goes to the employee (pre-tax).
@14, in your example you have a Super tax of 1.45 and a bonus of 1.52 or a tax which is almost 100% of the bonus… I remain, firm in my belief that AGW is a hoax, and you all suck at math.
Here is the text..
Legislation in Finance Bill 2010 will introduce a new bank payroll tax. This will be set at 50 per cent. It will be payable by a bank, on the amount of a bonus to which a banking employee is entitled, to the extent that the bonus exceeds £25,000. A bank will also be liable to the bank payroll tax where the bonus entitlement arises in respect of services performed for the bank regardless of who awards the bonus.
This means to me, that the tax = 50% of the Bonus amount. So for a bonus of $6.66 the tax would be $3.33 paid by the bank. So if the bank bonus pool is $10, then 1/3 gets withheld by the bank to pay the tax and 2/3 goes to the employee (pre-tax).
@14, in your example you have a Super tax of 1.45 and a bonus of 1.52 or a tax which is almost 100% of the bonus… I remain, firm in my belief that AGW is a hoax, and you all suck at math.
Here is the text..
Legislation in Finance Bill 2010 will introduce a new bank payroll tax. This will be set at 50 per cent. It will be payable by a bank, on the amount of a bonus to which a banking employee is entitled, to the extent that the bonus exceeds £25,000. A bank will also be liable to the bank payroll tax where the bonus entitlement arises in respect of services performed for the bank regardless of who awards the bonus.
This means to me, that the tax = 50% of the Bonus amount. So for a bonus of $6.66 the tax would be $3.33 paid by the bank. So if the bank bonus pool is $10, then 1/3 gets withheld by the bank to pay the tax and 2/3 goes to the employee (pre-tax).
@14, in your example you have a Super tax of 1.45 and a bonus of 1.52 or a tax which is almost 100% of the bonus… I remain, firm in my belief that AGW is a hoax, and you all suck at math.
Here is the text..
Legislation in Finance Bill 2010 will introduce a new bank payroll tax. This will be set at 50 per cent. It will be payable by a bank, on the amount of a bonus to which a banking employee is entitled, to the extent that the bonus exceeds £25,000. A bank will also be liable to the bank payroll tax where the bonus entitlement arises in respect of services performed for the bank regardless of who awards the bonus.
This means to me, that the tax = 50% of the Bonus amount. So for a bonus of $6.66 the tax would be $3.33 paid by the bank. So if the bank bonus pool is $10, then 1/3 gets withheld by the bank to pay the tax and 2/3 goes to the employee (pre-tax).
@14, in your example you have a Super tax of 1.45 and a bonus of 1.52 or a tax which is almost 100% of the bonus… I remain, firm in my belief that AGW is a hoax, and you all suck at math.
Here is the text..
Legislation in Finance Bill 2010 will introduce a new bank payroll tax. This will be set at 50 per cent. It will be payable by a bank, on the amount of a bonus to which a banking employee is entitled, to the extent that the bonus exceeds £25,000. A bank will also be liable to the bank payroll tax where the bonus entitlement arises in respect of services performed for the bank regardless of who awards the bonus.
This means to me, that the tax = 50% of the Bonus amount. So for a bonus of $6.66 the tax would be $3.33 paid by the bank. So if the bank bonus pool is $10, then 1/3 gets withheld by the bank to pay the tax and 2/3 goes to the employee (pre-tax).
@14, in your example you have a Super tax of 1.45 and a bonus of 1.52 or a tax which is almost 100% of the bonus… I remain, firm in my belief that AGW is a hoax, and you all suck at math.
Here is the text..
Legislation in Finance Bill 2010 will introduce a new bank payroll tax. This will be set at 50 per cent. It will be payable by a bank, on the amount of a bonus to which a banking employee is entitled, to the extent that the bonus exceeds £25,000. A bank will also be liable to the bank payroll tax where the bonus entitlement arises in respect of services performed for the bank regardless of who awards the bonus.
This means to me, that the tax = 50% of the Bonus amount. So for a bonus of $6.66 the tax would be $3.33 paid by the bank. So if the bank bonus pool is $10, then 1/3 gets withheld by the bank to pay the tax and 2/3 goes to the employee (pre-tax).
@14, in your example you have a Super tax of 1.45 and a bonus of 1.52 or a tax which is almost 100% of the bonus… I remain, firm in my belief that AGW is a hoax, and you all suck at math.
Here is the text..
Legislation in Finance Bill 2010 will introduce a new bank payroll tax. This will be set at 50 per cent. It will be payable by a bank, on the amount of a bonus to which a banking employee is entitled, to the extent that the bonus exceeds £25,000. A bank will also be liable to the bank payroll tax where the bonus entitlement arises in respect of services performed for the bank regardless of who awards the bonus.
This means to me, that the tax = 50% of the Bonus amount. So for a bonus of $6.66 the tax would be $3.33 paid by the bank. So if the bank bonus pool is $10, then 1/3 gets withheld by the bank to pay the tax and 2/3 goes to the employee (pre-tax).
@14, in your example you have a Super tax of 1.45 and a bonus of 1.52 or a tax which is almost 100% of the bonus… I remain, firm in my belief that AGW is a hoax, and you all suck at math.
Here is the text..
Legislation in Finance Bill 2010 will introduce a new bank payroll tax. This will be set at 50 per cent. It will be payable by a bank, on the amount of a bonus to which a banking employee is entitled, to the extent that the bonus exceeds £25,000. A bank will also be liable to the bank payroll tax where the bonus entitlement arises in respect of services performed for the bank regardless of who awards the bonus.
This means to me, that the tax = 50% of the Bonus amount. So for a bonus of $6.66 the tax would be $3.33 paid by the bank. So if the bank bonus pool is $10, then 1/3 gets withheld by the bank to pay the tax and 2/3 goes to the employee (pre-tax).
@14, in your example you have a Super tax of 1.45 and a bonus of 1.52 or a tax which is almost 100% of the bonus… I remain, firm in my belief that AGW is a hoax, and you all suck at math.
Here is the text..
Legislation in Finance Bill 2010 will introduce a new bank payroll tax. This will be set at 50 per cent. It will be payable by a bank, on the amount of a bonus to which a banking employee is entitled, to the extent that the bonus exceeds £25,000. A bank will also be liable to the bank payroll tax where the bonus entitlement arises in respect of services performed for the bank regardless of who awards the bonus.
This means to me, that the tax = 50% of the Bonus amount. So for a bonus of $6.66 the tax would be $3.33 paid by the bank. So if the bank bonus pool is $10, then 1/3 gets withheld by the bank to pay the tax and 2/3 goes to the employee (pre-tax).
@14, in your example you have a Super tax of 1.45 and a bonus of 1.52 or a tax which is almost 100% of the bonus… I remain, firm in my belief that AGW is a hoax, and you all suck at math.
Here is the text..
Legislation in Finance Bill 2010 will introduce a new bank payroll tax. This will be set at 50 per cent. It will be payable by a bank, on the amount of a bonus to which a banking employee is entitled, to the extent that the bonus exceeds £25,000. A bank will also be liable to the bank payroll tax where the bonus entitlement arises in respect of services performed for the bank regardless of who awards the bonus.
This means to me, that the tax = 50% of the Bonus amount. So for a bonus of $6.66 the tax would be $3.33 paid by the bank. So if the bank bonus pool is $10, then 1/3 gets withheld by the bank to pay the tax and 2/3 goes to the employee (pre-tax).
@14, in your example you have a Super tax of 1.45 and a bonus of 1.52 or a tax which is almost 100% of the bonus… I remain, firm in my belief that AGW is a hoax, and you all suck at math.
Here is the text..
Legislation in Finance Bill 2010 will introduce a new bank payroll tax. This will be set at 50 per cent. It will be payable by a bank, on the amount of a bonus to which a banking employee is entitled, to the extent that the bonus exceeds £25,000. A bank will also be liable to the bank payroll tax where the bonus entitlement arises in respect of services performed for the bank regardless of who awards the bonus.
This means to me, that the tax = 50% of the Bonus amount. So for a bonus of $6.66 the tax would be $3.33 paid by the bank. So if the bank bonus pool is $10, then 1/3 gets withheld by the bank to pay the tax and 2/3 goes to the employee (pre-tax).
@14, in your example you have a Super tax of 1.45 and a bonus of 1.52 or a tax which is almost 100% of the bonus… I remain, firm in my belief that AGW is a hoax, and you all suck at math.
Here is the text..
Legislation in Finance Bill 2010 will introduce a new bank payroll tax. This will be set at 50 per cent. It will be payable by a bank, on the amount of a bonus to which a banking employee is entitled, to the extent that the bonus exceeds £25,000. A bank will also be liable to the bank payroll tax where the bonus entitlement arises in respect of services performed for the bank regardless of who awards the bonus.
This means to me, that the tax = 50% of the Bonus amount. So for a bonus of $6.66 the tax would be $3.33 paid by the bank. So if the bank bonus pool is $10, then 1/3 gets withheld by the bank to pay the tax and 2/3 goes to the employee (pre-tax).
@14, in your example you have a Super tax of 1.45 and a bonus of 1.52 or a tax which is almost 100% of the bonus… I remain, firm in my belief that AGW is a hoax, and you all suck at math.
Here is the text..
Legislation in Finance Bill 2010 will introduce a new bank payroll tax. This will be set at 50 per cent. It will be payable by a bank, on the amount of a bonus to which a banking employee is entitled, to the extent that the bonus exceeds £25,000. A bank will also be liable to the bank payroll tax where the bonus entitlement arises in respect of services performed for the bank regardless of who awards the bonus.
This means to me, that the tax = 50% of the Bonus amount. So for a bonus of $6.66 the tax would be $3.33 paid by the bank. So if the bank bonus pool is $10, then 1/3 gets withheld by the bank to pay the tax and 2/3 goes to the employee (pre-tax).
@14, in your example you have a Super tax of 1.45 and a bonus of 1.52 or a tax which is almost 100% of the bonus… I remain, firm in my belief that AGW is a hoax, and you all suck at math.
Here is the text..
Legislation in Finance Bill 2010 will introduce a new bank payroll tax. This will be set at 50 per cent. It will be payable by a bank, on the amount of a bonus to which a banking employee is entitled, to the extent that the bonus exceeds £25,000. A bank will also be liable to the bank payroll tax where the bonus entitlement arises in respect of services performed for the bank regardless of who awards the bonus.
This means to me, that the tax = 50% of the Bonus amount. So for a bonus of $6.66 the tax would be $3.33 paid by the bank. So if the bank bonus pool is $10, then 1/3 gets withheld by the bank to pay the tax and 2/3 goes to the employee (pre-tax).
@14, in your example you have a Super tax of 1.45 and a bonus of 1.52 or a tax which is almost 100% of the bonus… I remain, firm in my belief that AGW is a hoax, and you all suck at math.
Here is the text..
Legislation in Finance Bill 2010 will introduce a new bank payroll tax. This will be set at 50 per cent. It will be payable by a bank, on the amount of a bonus to which a banking employee is entitled, to the extent that the bonus exceeds £25,000. A bank will also be liable to the bank payroll tax where the bonus entitlement arises in respect of services performed for the bank regardless of who awards the bonus.
This means to me, that the tax = 50% of the Bonus amount. So for a bonus of $6.66 the tax would be $3.33 paid by the bank. So if the bank bonus pool is $10, then 1/3 gets withheld by the bank to pay the tax and 2/3 goes to the employee (pre-tax).
@14, in your example you have a Super tax of 1.45 and a bonus of 1.52 or a tax which is almost 100% of the bonus… I remain, firm in my belief that AGW is a hoax, and you all suck at math.
Here is the text..
Legislation in Finance Bill 2010 will introduce a new bank payroll tax. This will be set at 50 per cent. It will be payable by a bank, on the amount of a bonus to which a banking employee is entitled, to the extent that the bonus exceeds £25,000. A bank will also be liable to the bank payroll tax where the bonus entitlement arises in respect of services performed for the bank regardless of who awards the bonus.
This means to me, that the tax = 50% of the Bonus amount. So for a bonus of $6.66 the tax would be $3.33 paid by the bank. So if the bank bonus pool is $10, then 1/3 gets withheld by the bank to pay the tax and 2/3 goes to the employee (pre-tax).
@14, in your example you have a Super tax of 1.45 and a bonus of 1.52 or a tax which is almost 100% of the bonus… I remain, firm in my belief that AGW is a hoax, and you all suck at math.
Here is the text..
Legislation in Finance Bill 2010 will introduce a new bank payroll tax. This will be set at 50 per cent. It will be payable by a bank, on the amount of a bonus to which a banking employee is entitled, to the extent that the bonus exceeds £25,000. A bank will also be liable to the bank payroll tax where the bonus entitlement arises in respect of services performed for the bank regardless of who awards the bonus.
This means to me, that the tax = 50% of the Bonus amount. So for a bonus of $6.66 the tax would be $3.33 paid by the bank. So if the bank bonus pool is $10, then 1/3 gets withheld by the bank to pay the tax and 2/3 goes to the employee (pre-tax).
@14, in your example you have a Super tax of 1.45 and a bonus of 1.52 or a tax which is almost 100% of the bonus… I remain, firm in my belief that AGW is a hoax, and you all suck at math.
Here is the text..
Legislation in Finance Bill 2010 will introduce a new bank payroll tax. This will be set at 50 per cent. It will be payable by a bank, on the amount of a bonus to which a banking employee is entitled, to the extent that the bonus exceeds £25,000. A bank will also be liable to the bank payroll tax where the bonus entitlement arises in respect of services performed for the bank regardless of who awards the bonus.
This means to me, that the tax = 50% of the Bonus amount. So for a bonus of $6.66 the tax would be $3.33 paid by the bank. So if the bank bonus pool is $10, then 1/3 gets withheld by the bank to pay the tax and 2/3 goes to the employee (pre-tax).
@14, in your example you have a Super tax of 1.45 and a bonus of 1.52 or a tax which is almost 100% of the bonus… I remain, firm in my belief that AGW is a hoax, and you all suck at math.
Here is the text..
Legislation in Finance Bill 2010 will introduce a new bank payroll tax. This will be set at 50 per cent. It will be payable by a bank, on the amount of a bonus to which a banking employee is entitled, to the extent that the bonus exceeds £25,000. A bank will also be liable to the bank payroll tax where the bonus entitlement arises in respect of services performed for the bank regardless of who awards the bonus.
This means to me, that the tax = 50% of the Bonus amount. So for a bonus of $6.66 the tax would be $3.33 paid by the bank. So if the bank bonus pool is $10, then 1/3 gets withheld by the bank to pay the tax and 2/3 goes to the employee (pre-tax).
@14, in your example you have a Super tax of 1.45 and a bonus of 1.52 or a tax which is almost 100% of the bonus… I remain, firm in my belief that AGW is a hoax, and you all suck at math.
Here is the text..
Legislation in Finance Bill 2010 will introduce a new bank payroll tax. This will be set at 50 per cent. It will be payable by a bank, on the amount of a bonus to which a banking employee is entitled, to the extent that the bonus exceeds £25,000. A bank will also be liable to the bank payroll tax where the bonus entitlement arises in respect of services performed for the bank regardless of who awards the bonus.
This means to me, that the tax = 50% of the Bonus amount. So for a bonus of $6.66 the tax would be $3.33 paid by the bank. So if the bank bonus pool is $10, then 1/3 gets withheld by the bank to pay the tax and 2/3 goes to the employee (pre-tax).
@14, in your example you have a Super tax of 1.45 and a bonus of 1.52 or a tax which is almost 100% of the bonus… I remain, firm in my belief that AGW is a hoax, and you all suck at math.
Here is the text..
Legislation in Finance Bill 2010 will introduce a new bank payroll tax. This will be set at 50 per cent. It will be payable by a bank, on the amount of a bonus to which a banking employee is entitled, to the extent that the bonus exceeds £25,000. A bank will also be liable to the bank payroll tax where the bonus entitlement arises in respect of services performed for the bank regardless of who awards the bonus.
This means to me, that the tax = 50% of the Bonus amount. So for a bonus of $6.66 the tax would be $3.33 paid by the bank. So if the bank bonus pool is $10, then 1/3 gets withheld by the bank to pay the tax and 2/3 goes to the employee (pre-tax).
@14, in your example you have a Super tax of 1.45 and a bonus of 1.52 or a tax which is almost 100% of the bonus… I remain, firm in my belief that AGW is a hoax, and you all suck at math.
Here is the text..
Legislation in Finance Bill 2010 will introduce a new bank payroll tax. This will be set at 50 per cent. It will be payable by a bank, on the amount of a bonus to which a banking employee is entitled, to the extent that the bonus exceeds £25,000. A bank will also be liable to the bank payroll tax where the bonus entitlement arises in respect of services performed for the bank regardless of who awards the bonus.
This means to me, that the tax = 50% of the Bonus amount. So for a bonus of $6.66 the tax would be $3.33 paid by the bank. So if the bank bonus pool is $10, then 1/3 gets withheld by the bank to pay the tax and 2/3 goes to the employee (pre-tax).
@14, in your example you have a Super tax of 1.45 and a bonus of 1.52 or a tax which is almost 100% of the bonus… I remain, firm in my belief that AGW is a hoax, and you all suck at math.
Here is the text..
Legislation in Finance Bill 2010 will introduce a new bank payroll tax. This will be set at 50 per cent. It will be payable by a bank, on the amount of a bonus to which a banking employee is entitled, to the extent that the bonus exceeds £25,000. A bank will also be liable to the bank payroll tax where the bonus entitlement arises in respect of services performed for the bank regardless of who awards the bonus.
This means to me, that the tax = 50% of the Bonus amount. So for a bonus of $6.66 the tax would be $3.33 paid by the bank. So if the bank bonus pool is $10, then 1/3 gets withheld by the bank to pay the tax and 2/3 goes to the employee (pre-tax).
@14, in your example you have a Super tax of 1.45 and a bonus of 1.52 or a tax which is almost 100% of the bonus… I remain, firm in my belief that AGW is a hoax, and you all suck at math.
Here is the text..
Legislation in Finance Bill 2010 will introduce a new bank payroll tax. This will be set at 50 per cent. It will be payable by a bank, on the amount of a bonus to which a banking employee is entitled, to the extent that the bonus exceeds £25,000. A bank will also be liable to the bank payroll tax where the bonus entitlement arises in respect of services performed for the bank regardless of who awards the bonus.
This means to me, that the tax = 50% of the Bonus amount. So for a bonus of $6.66 the tax would be $3.33 paid by the bank. So if the bank bonus pool is $10, then 1/3 gets withheld by the bank to pay the tax and 2/3 goes to the employee (pre-tax).
@14, in your example you have a Super tax of 1.45 and a bonus of 1.52 or a tax which is almost 100% of the bonus… I remain, firm in my belief that AGW is a hoax, and you all suck at math.
Here is the text..
Legislation in Finance Bill 2010 will introduce a new bank payroll tax. This will be set at 50 per cent. It will be payable by a bank, on the amount of a bonus to which a banking employee is entitled, to the extent that the bonus exceeds £25,000. A bank will also be liable to the bank payroll tax where the bonus entitlement arises in respect of services performed for the bank regardless of who awards the bonus.
This means to me, that the tax = 50% of the Bonus amount. So for a bonus of $6.66 the tax would be $3.33 paid by the bank. So if the bank bonus pool is $10, then 1/3 gets withheld by the bank to pay the tax and 2/3 goes to the employee (pre-tax).
@14, in your example you have a Super tax of 1.45 and a bonus of 1.52 or a tax which is almost 100% of the bonus… I remain, firm in my belief that AGW is a hoax, and you all suck at math.
Here is the text..
Legislation in Finance Bill 2010 will introduce a new bank payroll tax. This will be set at 50 per cent. It will be payable by a bank, on the amount of a bonus to which a banking employee is entitled, to the extent that the bonus exceeds £25,000. A bank will also be liable to the bank payroll tax where the bonus entitlement arises in respect of services performed for the bank regardless of who awards the bonus.
This means to me, that the tax = 50% of the Bonus amount. So for a bonus of $6.66 the tax would be $3.33 paid by the bank. So if the bank bonus pool is $10, then 1/3 gets withheld by the bank to pay the tax and 2/3 goes to the employee (pre-tax).
@14, in your example you have a Super tax of 1.45 and a bonus of 1.52 or a tax which is almost 100% of the bonus… I remain, firm in my belief that AGW is a hoax, and you all suck at math.
Here is the text..
Legislation in Finance Bill 2010 will introduce a new bank payroll tax. This will be set at 50 per cent. It will be payable by a bank, on the amount of a bonus to which a banking employee is entitled, to the extent that the bonus exceeds £25,000. A bank will also be liable to the bank payroll tax where the bonus entitlement arises in respect of services performed for the bank regardless of who awards the bonus.
This means to me, that the tax = 50% of the Bonus amount. So for a bonus of $6.66 the tax would be $3.33 paid by the bank. So if the bank bonus pool is $10, then 1/3 gets withheld by the bank to pay the tax and 2/3 goes to the employee (pre-tax).
@14, in your example you have a Super tax of 1.45 and a bonus of 1.52 or a tax which is almost 100% of the bonus… I remain, firm in my belief that AGW is a hoax, and you all suck at math.
Here is the text..
Legislation in Finance Bill 2010 will introduce a new bank payroll tax. This will be set at 50 per cent. It will be payable by a bank, on the amount of a bonus to which a banking employee is entitled, to the extent that the bonus exceeds £25,000. A bank will also be liable to the bank payroll tax where the bonus entitlement arises in respect of services performed for the bank regardless of who awards the bonus.
This means to me, that the tax = 50% of the Bonus amount. So for a bonus of $6.66 the tax would be $3.33 paid by the bank. So if the bank bonus pool is $10, then 1/3 gets withheld by the bank to pay the tax and 2/3 goes to the employee (pre-tax).
@14, in your example you have a Super tax of 1.45 and a bonus of 1.52 or a tax which is almost 100% of the bonus… I remain, firm in my belief that AGW is a hoax, and you all suck at math.
Here is the text..
Legislation in Finance Bill 2010 will introduce a new bank payroll tax. This will be set at 50 per cent. It will be payable by a bank, on the amount of a bonus to which a banking employee is entitled, to the extent that the bonus exceeds £25,000. A bank will also be liable to the bank payroll tax where the bonus entitlement arises in respect of services performed for the bank regardless of who awards the bonus.
This means to me, that the tax = 50% of the Bonus amount. So for a bonus of $6.66 the tax would be $3.33 paid by the bank. So if the bank bonus pool is $10, then 1/3 gets withheld by the bank to pay the tax and 2/3 goes to the employee (pre-tax).
@14, in your example you have a Super tax of 1.45 and a bonus of 1.52 or a tax which is almost 100% of the bonus… I remain, firm in my belief that AGW is a hoax, and you all suck at math.
Here is the text..
Legislation in Finance Bill 2010 will introduce a new bank payroll tax. This will be set at 50 per cent. It will be payable by a bank, on the amount of a bonus to which a banking employee is entitled, to the extent that the bonus exceeds £25,000. A bank will also be liable to the bank payroll tax where the bonus entitlement arises in respect of services performed for the bank regardless of who awards the bonus.
This means to me, that the tax = 50% of the Bonus amount. So for a bonus of $6.66 the tax would be $3.33 paid by the bank. So if the bank bonus pool is $10, then 1/3 gets withheld by the bank to pay the tax and 2/3 goes to the employee (pre-tax).
@14, in your example you have a Super tax of 1.45 and a bonus of 1.52 or a tax which is almost 100% of the bonus… I remain, firm in my belief that AGW is a hoax, and you all suck at math.
Here is the text..
Legislation in Finance Bill 2010 will introduce a new bank payroll tax. This will be set at 50 per cent. It will be payable by a bank, on the amount of a bonus to which a banking employee is entitled, to the extent that the bonus exceeds £25,000. A bank will also be liable to the bank payroll tax where the bonus entitlement arises in respect of services performed for the bank regardless of who awards the bonus.
This means to me, that the tax = 50% of the Bonus amount. So for a bonus of $6.66 the tax would be $3.33 paid by the bank. So if the bank bonus pool is $10, then 1/3 gets withheld by the bank to pay the tax and 2/3 goes to the employee (pre-tax).
@14, in your example you have a Super tax of 1.45 and a bonus of 1.52 or a tax which is almost 100% of the bonus… I remain, firm in my belief that AGW is a hoax, and you all suck at math.
Here is the text..
Legislation in Finance Bill 2010 will introduce a new bank payroll tax. This will be set at 50 per cent. It will be payable by a bank, on the amount of a bonus to which a banking employee is entitled, to the extent that the bonus exceeds £25,000. A bank will also be liable to the bank payroll tax where the bonus entitlement arises in respect of services performed for the bank regardless of who awards the bonus.
This means to me, that the tax = 50% of the Bonus amount. So for a bonus of $6.66 the tax would be $3.33 paid by the bank. So if the bank bonus pool is $10, then 1/3 gets withheld by the bank to pay the tax and 2/3 goes to the employee (pre-tax).
@14, in your example you have a Super tax of 1.45 and a bonus of 1.52 or a tax which is almost 100% of the bonus… I remain, firm in my belief that AGW is a hoax, and you all suck at math.
Here is the text..
Legislation in Finance Bill 2010 will introduce a new bank payroll tax. This will be set at 50 per cent. It will be payable by a bank, on the amount of a bonus to which a banking employee is entitled, to the extent that the bonus exceeds £25,000. A bank will also be liable to the bank payroll tax where the bonus entitlement arises in respect of services performed for the bank regardless of who awards the bonus.
This means to me, that the tax = 50% of the Bonus amount. So for a bonus of $6.66 the tax would be $3.33 paid by the bank. So if the bank bonus pool is $10, then 1/3 gets withheld by the bank to pay the tax and 2/3 goes to the employee (pre-tax).
@14, in your example you have a Super tax of 1.45 and a bonus of 1.52 or a tax which is almost 100% of the bonus… I remain, firm in my belief that AGW is a hoax, and you all suck at math.
Here is the text..
Legislation in Finance Bill 2010 will introduce a new bank payroll tax. This will be set at 50 per cent. It will be payable by a bank, on the amount of a bonus to which a banking employee is entitled, to the extent that the bonus exceeds £25,000. A bank will also be liable to the bank payroll tax where the bonus entitlement arises in respect of services performed for the bank regardless of who awards the bonus.
This means to me, that the tax = 50% of the Bonus amount. So for a bonus of $6.66 the tax would be $3.33 paid by the bank. So if the bank bonus pool is $10, then 1/3 gets withheld by the bank to pay the tax and 2/3 goes to the employee (pre-tax).
@14, in your example you have a Super tax of 1.45 and a bonus of 1.52 or a tax which is almost 100% of the bonus… I remain, firm in my belief that AGW is a hoax, and you all suck at math.
Here is the text..
Legislation in Finance Bill 2010 will introduce a new bank payroll tax. This will be set at 50 per cent. It will be payable by a bank, on the amount of a bonus to which a banking employee is entitled, to the extent that the bonus exceeds £25,000. A bank will also be liable to the bank payroll tax where the bonus entitlement arises in respect of services performed for the bank regardless of who awards the bonus.
This means to me, that the tax = 50% of the Bonus amount. So for a bonus of $6.66 the tax would be $3.33 paid by the bank. So if the bank bonus pool is $10, then 1/3 gets withheld by the bank to pay the tax and 2/3 goes to the employee (pre-tax).
@14, in your example you have a Super tax of 1.45 and a bonus of 1.52 or a tax which is almost 100% of the bonus… I remain, firm in my belief that AGW is a hoax, and you all suck at math.
Here is the text..
Legislation in Finance Bill 2010 will introduce a new bank payroll tax. This will be set at 50 per cent. It will be payable by a bank, on the amount of a bonus to which a banking employee is entitled, to the extent that the bonus exceeds £25,000. A bank will also be liable to the bank payroll tax where the bonus entitlement arises in respect of services performed for the bank regardless of who awards the bonus.
This means to me, that the tax = 50% of the Bonus amount. So for a bonus of $6.66 the tax would be $3.33 paid by the bank. So if the bank bonus pool is $10, then 1/3 gets withheld by the bank to pay the tax and 2/3 goes to the employee (pre-tax).
@14, in your example you have a Super tax of 1.45 and a bonus of 1.52 or a tax which is almost 100% of the bonus… I remain, firm in my belief that AGW is a hoax, and you all suck at math.
Here is the text..
Legislation in Finance Bill 2010 will introduce a new bank payroll tax. This will be set at 50 per cent. It will be payable by a bank, on the amount of a bonus to which a banking employee is entitled, to the extent that the bonus exceeds £25,000. A bank will also be liable to the bank payroll tax where the bonus entitlement arises in respect of services performed for the bank regardless of who awards the bonus.
This means to me, that the tax = 50% of the Bonus amount. So for a bonus of $6.66 the tax would be $3.33 paid by the bank. So if the bank bonus pool is $10, then 1/3 gets withheld by the bank to pay the tax and 2/3 goes to the employee (pre-tax).
@14, in your example you have a Super tax of 1.45 and a bonus of 1.52 or a tax which is almost 100% of the bonus… I remain, firm in my belief that AGW is a hoax, and you all suck at math.
Here is the text..
Legislation in Finance Bill 2010 will introduce a new bank payroll tax. This will be set at 50 per cent. It will be payable by a bank, on the amount of a bonus to which a banking employee is entitled, to the extent that the bonus exceeds £25,000. A bank will also be liable to the bank payroll tax where the bonus entitlement arises in respect of services performed for the bank regardless of who awards the bonus.
This means to me, that the tax = 50% of the Bonus amount. So for a bonus of $6.66 the tax would be $3.33 paid by the bank. So if the bank bonus pool is $10, then 1/3 gets withheld by the bank to pay the tax and 2/3 goes to the employee (pre-tax).
@14, in your example you have a Super tax of 1.45 and a bonus of 1.52 or a tax which is almost 100% of the bonus… I remain, firm in my belief that AGW is a hoax, and you all suck at math.
@15 in the text you cite, the bank pays 50% of the bonus (>25k) off the top and, regardless of that fact, witholds as usual for the employee based on the gross amount.
Isn’t the whole purpose to confiscate bonuses?
@15 in the text you cite, the bank pays 50% of the bonus (>25k) off the top and, regardless of that fact, witholds as usual for the employee based on the gross amount.
Isn’t the whole purpose to confiscate bonuses?
@15 in the text you cite, the bank pays 50% of the bonus (>25k) off the top and, regardless of that fact, witholds as usual for the employee based on the gross amount.
Isn’t the whole purpose to confiscate bonuses?
@15 in the text you cite, the bank pays 50% of the bonus (>25k) off the top and, regardless of that fact, witholds as usual for the employee based on the gross amount.
Isn’t the whole purpose to confiscate bonuses?
@15 in the text you cite, the bank pays 50% of the bonus (>25k) off the top and, regardless of that fact, witholds as usual for the employee based on the gross amount.
Isn’t the whole purpose to confiscate bonuses?
@15 in the text you cite, the bank pays 50% of the bonus (>25k) off the top and, regardless of that fact, witholds as usual for the employee based on the gross amount.
Isn’t the whole purpose to confiscate bonuses?
@15 in the text you cite, the bank pays 50% of the bonus (>25k) off the top and, regardless of that fact, witholds as usual for the employee based on the gross amount.
Isn’t the whole purpose to confiscate bonuses?
@15 in the text you cite, the bank pays 50% of the bonus (>25k) off the top and, regardless of that fact, witholds as usual for the employee based on the gross amount.
Isn’t the whole purpose to confiscate bonuses?
@15 in the text you cite, the bank pays 50% of the bonus (>25k) off the top and, regardless of that fact, witholds as usual for the employee based on the gross amount.
Isn’t the whole purpose to confiscate bonuses?
@15 in the text you cite, the bank pays 50% of the bonus (>25k) off the top and, regardless of that fact, witholds as usual for the employee based on the gross amount.
Isn’t the whole purpose to confiscate bonuses?
@15 in the text you cite, the bank pays 50% of the bonus (>25k) off the top and, regardless of that fact, witholds as usual for the employee based on the gross amount.
Isn’t the whole purpose to confiscate bonuses?
@15 in the text you cite, the bank pays 50% of the bonus (>25k) off the top and, regardless of that fact, witholds as usual for the employee based on the gross amount.
Isn’t the whole purpose to confiscate bonuses?
@15 in the text you cite, the bank pays 50% of the bonus (>25k) off the top and, regardless of that fact, witholds as usual for the employee based on the gross amount.
Isn’t the whole purpose to confiscate bonuses?
@15 in the text you cite, the bank pays 50% of the bonus (>25k) off the top and, regardless of that fact, witholds as usual for the employee based on the gross amount.
Isn’t the whole purpose to confiscate bonuses?
@15 in the text you cite, the bank pays 50% of the bonus (>25k) off the top and, regardless of that fact, witholds as usual for the employee based on the gross amount.
Isn’t the whole purpose to confiscate bonuses?
@15 in the text you cite, the bank pays 50% of the bonus (>25k) off the top and, regardless of that fact, witholds as usual for the employee based on the gross amount.
Isn’t the whole purpose to confiscate bonuses?
@15 in the text you cite, the bank pays 50% of the bonus (>25k) off the top and, regardless of that fact, witholds as usual for the employee based on the gross amount.
Isn’t the whole purpose to confiscate bonuses?
@15 in the text you cite, the bank pays 50% of the bonus (>25k) off the top and, regardless of that fact, witholds as usual for the employee based on the gross amount.
Isn’t the whole purpose to confiscate bonuses?
@15 in the text you cite, the bank pays 50% of the bonus (>25k) off the top and, regardless of that fact, witholds as usual for the employee based on the gross amount.
Isn’t the whole purpose to confiscate bonuses?
@15 in the text you cite, the bank pays 50% of the bonus (>25k) off the top and, regardless of that fact, witholds as usual for the employee based on the gross amount.
Isn’t the whole purpose to confiscate bonuses?
@15 in the text you cite, the bank pays 50% of the bonus (>25k) off the top and, regardless of that fact, witholds as usual for the employee based on the gross amount.
Isn’t the whole purpose to confiscate bonuses?
@15 in the text you cite, the bank pays 50% of the bonus (>25k) off the top and, regardless of that fact, witholds as usual for the employee based on the gross amount.
Isn’t the whole purpose to confiscate bonuses?
@15 in the text you cite, the bank pays 50% of the bonus (>25k) off the top and, regardless of that fact, witholds as usual for the employee based on the gross amount.
Isn’t the whole purpose to confiscate bonuses?
@15 in the text you cite, the bank pays 50% of the bonus (>25k) off the top and, regardless of that fact, witholds as usual for the employee based on the gross amount.
Isn’t the whole purpose to confiscate bonuses?
@15 in the text you cite, the bank pays 50% of the bonus (>25k) off the top and, regardless of that fact, witholds as usual for the employee based on the gross amount.
Isn’t the whole purpose to confiscate bonuses?
@15 in the text you cite, the bank pays 50% of the bonus (>25k) off the top and, regardless of that fact, witholds as usual for the employee based on the gross amount.
Isn’t the whole purpose to confiscate bonuses?
@15 in the text you cite, the bank pays 50% of the bonus (>25k) off the top and, regardless of that fact, witholds as usual for the employee based on the gross amount.
Isn’t the whole purpose to confiscate bonuses?
@15 in the text you cite, the bank pays 50% of the bonus (>25k) off the top and, regardless of that fact, witholds as usual for the employee based on the gross amount.
Isn’t the whole purpose to confiscate bonuses?
@15 in the text you cite, the bank pays 50% of the bonus (>25k) off the top and, regardless of that fact, witholds as usual for the employee based on the gross amount.
Isn’t the whole purpose to confiscate bonuses?
@15 in the text you cite, the bank pays 50% of the bonus (>25k) off the top and, regardless of that fact, witholds as usual for the employee based on the gross amount.
Isn’t the whole purpose to confiscate bonuses?
@15 in the text you cite, the bank pays 50% of the bonus (>25k) off the top and, regardless of that fact, witholds as usual for the employee based on the gross amount.
Isn’t the whole purpose to confiscate bonuses?
@15 in the text you cite, the bank pays 50% of the bonus (>25k) off the top and, regardless of that fact, witholds as usual for the employee based on the gross amount.
Isn’t the whole purpose to confiscate bonuses?
@15 in the text you cite, the bank pays 50% of the bonus (>25k) off the top and, regardless of that fact, witholds as usual for the employee based on the gross amount.
Isn’t the whole purpose to confiscate bonuses?
@15 in the text you cite, the bank pays 50% of the bonus (>25k) off the top and, regardless of that fact, witholds as usual for the employee based on the gross amount.
Isn’t the whole purpose to confiscate bonuses?
@15 in the text you cite, the bank pays 50% of the bonus (>25k) off the top and, regardless of that fact, witholds as usual for the employee based on the gross amount.
Isn’t the whole purpose to confiscate bonuses?
@15 in the text you cite, the bank pays 50% of the bonus (>25k) off the top and, regardless of that fact, witholds as usual for the employee based on the gross amount.
Isn’t the whole purpose to confiscate bonuses?
@15 in the text you cite, the bank pays 50% of the bonus (>25k) off the top and, regardless of that fact, witholds as usual for the employee based on the gross amount.
Isn’t the whole purpose to confiscate bonuses?
@15 in the text you cite, the bank pays 50% of the bonus (>25k) off the top and, regardless of that fact, witholds as usual for the employee based on the gross amount.
Isn’t the whole purpose to confiscate bonuses?
@15 in the text you cite, the bank pays 50% of the bonus (>25k) off the top and, regardless of that fact, witholds as usual for the employee based on the gross amount.
Isn’t the whole purpose to confiscate bonuses?
@15 in the text you cite, the bank pays 50% of the bonus (>25k) off the top and, regardless of that fact, witholds as usual for the employee based on the gross amount.
Isn’t the whole purpose to confiscate bonuses?
@15 in the text you cite, the bank pays 50% of the bonus (>25k) off the top and, regardless of that fact, witholds as usual for the employee based on the gross amount.
Isn’t the whole purpose to confiscate bonuses?
@15 in the text you cite, the bank pays 50% of the bonus (>25k) off the top and, regardless of that fact, witholds as usual for the employee based on the gross amount.
Isn’t the whole purpose to confiscate bonuses?
@15 in the text you cite, the bank pays 50% of the bonus (>25k) off the top and, regardless of that fact, witholds as usual for the employee based on the gross amount.
Isn’t the whole purpose to confiscate bonuses?
@15 in the text you cite, the bank pays 50% of the bonus (>25k) off the top and, regardless of that fact, witholds as usual for the employee based on the gross amount.
Isn’t the whole purpose to confiscate bonuses?
@15 in the text you cite, the bank pays 50% of the bonus (>25k) off the top and, regardless of that fact, witholds as usual for the employee based on the gross amount.
Isn’t the whole purpose to confiscate bonuses?
@15 in the text you cite, the bank pays 50% of the bonus (>25k) off the top and, regardless of that fact, witholds as usual for the employee based on the gross amount.
Isn’t the whole purpose to confiscate bonuses?
@15 in the text you cite, the bank pays 50% of the bonus (>25k) off the top and, regardless of that fact, witholds as usual for the employee based on the gross amount.
Isn’t the whole purpose to confiscate bonuses?
@15 in the text you cite, the bank pays 50% of the bonus (>25k) off the top and, regardless of that fact, witholds as usual for the employee based on the gross amount.
Isn’t the whole purpose to confiscate bonuses?
@15 in the text you cite, the bank pays 50% of the bonus (>25k) off the top and, regardless of that fact, witholds as usual for the employee based on the gross amount.
Isn’t the whole purpose to confiscate bonuses?
@15 in the text you cite, the bank pays 50% of the bonus (>25k) off the top and, regardless of that fact, witholds as usual for the employee based on the gross amount.
Isn’t the whole purpose to confiscate bonuses?
@15 in the text you cite, the bank pays 50% of the bonus (>25k) off the top and, regardless of that fact, witholds as usual for the employee based on the gross amount.
Isn’t the whole purpose to confiscate bonuses?
@15 in the text you cite, the bank pays 50% of the bonus (>25k) off the top and, regardless of that fact, witholds as usual for the employee based on the gross amount.
Isn’t the whole purpose to confiscate bonuses?
@15 in the text you cite, the bank pays 50% of the bonus (>25k) off the top and, regardless of that fact, witholds as usual for the employee based on the gross amount.
Isn’t the whole purpose to confiscate bonuses?
@15 in the text you cite, the bank pays 50% of the bonus (>25k) off the top and, regardless of that fact, witholds as usual for the employee based on the gross amount.
Isn’t the whole purpose to confiscate bonuses?
@15 in the text you cite, the bank pays 50% of the bonus (>25k) off the top and, regardless of that fact, witholds as usual for the employee based on the gross amount.
Isn’t the whole purpose to confiscate bonuses?
@15 in the text you cite, the bank pays 50% of the bonus (>25k) off the top and, regardless of that fact, witholds as usual for the employee based on the gross amount.
Isn’t the whole purpose to confiscate bonuses?
@15 in the text you cite, the bank pays 50% of the bonus (>25k) off the top and, regardless of that fact, witholds as usual for the employee based on the gross amount.
Isn’t the whole purpose to confiscate bonuses?
@15 in the text you cite, the bank pays 50% of the bonus (>25k) off the top and, regardless of that fact, witholds as usual for the employee based on the gross amount.
Isn’t the whole purpose to confiscate bonuses?
@15 in the text you cite, the bank pays 50% of the bonus (>25k) off the top and, regardless of that fact, witholds as usual for the employee based on the gross amount.
Isn’t the whole purpose to confiscate bonuses?
@15 in the text you cite, the bank pays 50% of the bonus (>25k) off the top and, regardless of that fact, witholds as usual for the employee based on the gross amount.
Isn’t the whole purpose to confiscate bonuses?
@15 in the text you cite, the bank pays 50% of the bonus (>25k) off the top and, regardless of that fact, witholds as usual for the employee based on the gross amount.
Isn’t the whole purpose to confiscate bonuses?
@15 in the text you cite, the bank pays 50% of the bonus (>25k) off the top and, regardless of that fact, witholds as usual for the employee based on the gross amount.
Isn’t the whole purpose to confiscate bonuses?
@15 in the text you cite, the bank pays 50% of the bonus (>25k) off the top and, regardless of that fact, witholds as usual for the employee based on the gross amount.
Isn’t the whole purpose to confiscate bonuses?
@15 in the text you cite, the bank pays 50% of the bonus (>25k) off the top and, regardless of that fact, witholds as usual for the employee based on the gross amount.
Isn’t the whole purpose to confiscate bonuses?
@15 in the text you cite, the bank pays 50% of the bonus (>25k) off the top and, regardless of that fact, witholds as usual for the employee based on the gross amount.
Isn’t the whole purpose to confiscate bonuses?
@15 in the text you cite, the bank pays 50% of the bonus (>25k) off the top and, regardless of that fact, witholds as usual for the employee based on the gross amount.
Isn’t the whole purpose to confiscate bonuses?
@15 in the text you cite, the bank pays 50% of the bonus (>25k) off the top and, regardless of that fact, witholds as usual for the employee based on the gross amount.
Isn’t the whole purpose to confiscate bonuses?
@15 in the text you cite, the bank pays 50% of the bonus (>25k) off the top and, regardless of that fact, witholds as usual for the employee based on the gross amount.
Isn’t the whole purpose to confiscate bonuses?
@15 in the text you cite, the bank pays 50% of the bonus (>25k) off the top and, regardless of that fact, witholds as usual for the employee based on the gross amount.
Isn’t the whole purpose to confiscate bonuses?
@15 in the text you cite, the bank pays 50% of the bonus (>25k) off the top and, regardless of that fact, witholds as usual for the employee based on the gross amount.
Isn’t the whole purpose to confiscate bonuses?
@15 in the text you cite, the bank pays 50% of the bonus (>25k) off the top and, regardless of that fact, witholds as usual for the employee based on the gross amount.
Isn’t the whole purpose to confiscate bonuses?
@15 in the text you cite, the bank pays 50% of the bonus (>25k) off the top and, regardless of that fact, witholds as usual for the employee based on the gross amount.
Isn’t the whole purpose to confiscate bonuses?
@15 in the text you cite, the bank pays 50% of the bonus (>25k) off the top and, regardless of that fact, witholds as usual for the employee based on the gross amount.
Isn’t the whole purpose to confiscate bonuses?
@15 in the text you cite, the bank pays 50% of the bonus (>25k) off the top and, regardless of that fact, witholds as usual for the employee based on the gross amount.
Isn’t the whole purpose to confiscate bonuses?
@15 in the text you cite, the bank pays 50% of the bonus (>25k) off the top and, regardless of that fact, witholds as usual for the employee based on the gross amount.
Isn’t the whole purpose to confiscate bonuses?
@15 in the text you cite, the bank pays 50% of the bonus (>25k) off the top and, regardless of that fact, witholds as usual for the employee based on the gross amount.
Isn’t the whole purpose to confiscate bonuses?
@15 in the text you cite, the bank pays 50% of the bonus (>25k) off the top and, regardless of that fact, witholds as usual for the employee based on the gross amount.
Isn’t the whole purpose to confiscate bonuses?
@15 in the text you cite, the bank pays 50% of the bonus (>25k) off the top and, regardless of that fact, witholds as usual for the employee based on the gross amount.
Isn’t the whole purpose to confiscate bonuses?
@ 17, Yes, you are correct. The point is to confiscate (part) but not all of the bonus. In the example where the bank has reserved a $10 bonus pool, they would pay a pre-tax bonus of $6.66 to the employee, of which $3.33 approx depending on tax bracket. So of the $10, $3.33 is paid by the bank for the super tax ($6.66*50%=3.33), and another $3.33 is witheld for the employees individual income tax and appox $3.33 is after tax income. So the net effect is reducing the employee pre-tax bonus from $10 to $6.66 and the after tax goes down from $5 to $3.33
@ 17, Yes, you are correct. The point is to confiscate (part) but not all of the bonus. In the example where the bank has reserved a $10 bonus pool, they would pay a pre-tax bonus of $6.66 to the employee, of which $3.33 approx depending on tax bracket. So of the $10, $3.33 is paid by the bank for the super tax ($6.66*50%=3.33), and another $3.33 is witheld for the employees individual income tax and appox $3.33 is after tax income. So the net effect is reducing the employee pre-tax bonus from $10 to $6.66 and the after tax goes down from $5 to $3.33
@ 17, Yes, you are correct. The point is to confiscate (part) but not all of the bonus. In the example where the bank has reserved a $10 bonus pool, they would pay a pre-tax bonus of $6.66 to the employee, of which $3.33 approx depending on tax bracket. So of the $10, $3.33 is paid by the bank for the super tax ($6.66*50%=3.33), and another $3.33 is witheld for the employees individual income tax and appox $3.33 is after tax income. So the net effect is reducing the employee pre-tax bonus from $10 to $6.66 and the after tax goes down from $5 to $3.33
@ 17, Yes, you are correct. The point is to confiscate (part) but not all of the bonus. In the example where the bank has reserved a $10 bonus pool, they would pay a pre-tax bonus of $6.66 to the employee, of which $3.33 approx depending on tax bracket. So of the $10, $3.33 is paid by the bank for the super tax ($6.66*50%=3.33), and another $3.33 is witheld for the employees individual income tax and appox $3.33 is after tax income. So the net effect is reducing the employee pre-tax bonus from $10 to $6.66 and the after tax goes down from $5 to $3.33
@ 17, Yes, you are correct. The point is to confiscate (part) but not all of the bonus. In the example where the bank has reserved a $10 bonus pool, they would pay a pre-tax bonus of $6.66 to the employee, of which $3.33 approx depending on tax bracket. So of the $10, $3.33 is paid by the bank for the super tax ($6.66*50%=3.33), and another $3.33 is witheld for the employees individual income tax and appox $3.33 is after tax income. So the net effect is reducing the employee pre-tax bonus from $10 to $6.66 and the after tax goes down from $5 to $3.33
@ 17, Yes, you are correct. The point is to confiscate (part) but not all of the bonus. In the example where the bank has reserved a $10 bonus pool, they would pay a pre-tax bonus of $6.66 to the employee, of which $3.33 approx depending on tax bracket. So of the $10, $3.33 is paid by the bank for the super tax ($6.66*50%=3.33), and another $3.33 is witheld for the employees individual income tax and appox $3.33 is after tax income. So the net effect is reducing the employee pre-tax bonus from $10 to $6.66 and the after tax goes down from $5 to $3.33
@ 17, Yes, you are correct. The point is to confiscate (part) but not all of the bonus. In the example where the bank has reserved a $10 bonus pool, they would pay a pre-tax bonus of $6.66 to the employee, of which $3.33 approx depending on tax bracket. So of the $10, $3.33 is paid by the bank for the super tax ($6.66*50%=3.33), and another $3.33 is witheld for the employees individual income tax and appox $3.33 is after tax income. So the net effect is reducing the employee pre-tax bonus from $10 to $6.66 and the after tax goes down from $5 to $3.33
@ 17, Yes, you are correct. The point is to confiscate (part) but not all of the bonus. In the example where the bank has reserved a $10 bonus pool, they would pay a pre-tax bonus of $6.66 to the employee, of which $3.33 approx depending on tax bracket. So of the $10, $3.33 is paid by the bank for the super tax ($6.66*50%=3.33), and another $3.33 is witheld for the employees individual income tax and appox $3.33 is after tax income. So the net effect is reducing the employee pre-tax bonus from $10 to $6.66 and the after tax goes down from $5 to $3.33
@ 17, Yes, you are correct. The point is to confiscate (part) but not all of the bonus. In the example where the bank has reserved a $10 bonus pool, they would pay a pre-tax bonus of $6.66 to the employee, of which $3.33 approx depending on tax bracket. So of the $10, $3.33 is paid by the bank for the super tax ($6.66*50%=3.33), and another $3.33 is witheld for the employees individual income tax and appox $3.33 is after tax income. So the net effect is reducing the employee pre-tax bonus from $10 to $6.66 and the after tax goes down from $5 to $3.33
@ 17, Yes, you are correct. The point is to confiscate (part) but not all of the bonus. In the example where the bank has reserved a $10 bonus pool, they would pay a pre-tax bonus of $6.66 to the employee, of which $3.33 approx depending on tax bracket. So of the $10, $3.33 is paid by the bank for the super tax ($6.66*50%=3.33), and another $3.33 is witheld for the employees individual income tax and appox $3.33 is after tax income. So the net effect is reducing the employee pre-tax bonus from $10 to $6.66 and the after tax goes down from $5 to $3.33
@ 17, Yes, you are correct. The point is to confiscate (part) but not all of the bonus. In the example where the bank has reserved a $10 bonus pool, they would pay a pre-tax bonus of $6.66 to the employee, of which $3.33 approx depending on tax bracket. So of the $10, $3.33 is paid by the bank for the super tax ($6.66*50%=3.33), and another $3.33 is witheld for the employees individual income tax and appox $3.33 is after tax income. So the net effect is reducing the employee pre-tax bonus from $10 to $6.66 and the after tax goes down from $5 to $3.33
@ 17, Yes, you are correct. The point is to confiscate (part) but not all of the bonus. In the example where the bank has reserved a $10 bonus pool, they would pay a pre-tax bonus of $6.66 to the employee, of which $3.33 approx depending on tax bracket. So of the $10, $3.33 is paid by the bank for the super tax ($6.66*50%=3.33), and another $3.33 is witheld for the employees individual income tax and appox $3.33 is after tax income. So the net effect is reducing the employee pre-tax bonus from $10 to $6.66 and the after tax goes down from $5 to $3.33
@ 17, Yes, you are correct. The point is to confiscate (part) but not all of the bonus. In the example where the bank has reserved a $10 bonus pool, they would pay a pre-tax bonus of $6.66 to the employee, of which $3.33 approx depending on tax bracket. So of the $10, $3.33 is paid by the bank for the super tax ($6.66*50%=3.33), and another $3.33 is witheld for the employees individual income tax and appox $3.33 is after tax income. So the net effect is reducing the employee pre-tax bonus from $10 to $6.66 and the after tax goes down from $5 to $3.33
@ 17, Yes, you are correct. The point is to confiscate (part) but not all of the bonus. In the example where the bank has reserved a $10 bonus pool, they would pay a pre-tax bonus of $6.66 to the employee, of which $3.33 approx depending on tax bracket. So of the $10, $3.33 is paid by the bank for the super tax ($6.66*50%=3.33), and another $3.33 is witheld for the employees individual income tax and appox $3.33 is after tax income. So the net effect is reducing the employee pre-tax bonus from $10 to $6.66 and the after tax goes down from $5 to $3.33
@ 17, Yes, you are correct. The point is to confiscate (part) but not all of the bonus. In the example where the bank has reserved a $10 bonus pool, they would pay a pre-tax bonus of $6.66 to the employee, of which $3.33 approx depending on tax bracket. So of the $10, $3.33 is paid by the bank for the super tax ($6.66*50%=3.33), and another $3.33 is witheld for the employees individual income tax and appox $3.33 is after tax income. So the net effect is reducing the employee pre-tax bonus from $10 to $6.66 and the after tax goes down from $5 to $3.33
@ 17, Yes, you are correct. The point is to confiscate (part) but not all of the bonus. In the example where the bank has reserved a $10 bonus pool, they would pay a pre-tax bonus of $6.66 to the employee, of which $3.33 approx depending on tax bracket. So of the $10, $3.33 is paid by the bank for the super tax ($6.66*50%=3.33), and another $3.33 is witheld for the employees individual income tax and appox $3.33 is after tax income. So the net effect is reducing the employee pre-tax bonus from $10 to $6.66 and the after tax goes down from $5 to $3.33
@ 17, Yes, you are correct. The point is to confiscate (part) but not all of the bonus. In the example where the bank has reserved a $10 bonus pool, they would pay a pre-tax bonus of $6.66 to the employee, of which $3.33 approx depending on tax bracket. So of the $10, $3.33 is paid by the bank for the super tax ($6.66*50%=3.33), and another $3.33 is witheld for the employees individual income tax and appox $3.33 is after tax income. So the net effect is reducing the employee pre-tax bonus from $10 to $6.66 and the after tax goes down from $5 to $3.33
@ 17, Yes, you are correct. The point is to confiscate (part) but not all of the bonus. In the example where the bank has reserved a $10 bonus pool, they would pay a pre-tax bonus of $6.66 to the employee, of which $3.33 approx depending on tax bracket. So of the $10, $3.33 is paid by the bank for the super tax ($6.66*50%=3.33), and another $3.33 is witheld for the employees individual income tax and appox $3.33 is after tax income. So the net effect is reducing the employee pre-tax bonus from $10 to $6.66 and the after tax goes down from $5 to $3.33
@ 17, Yes, you are correct. The point is to confiscate (part) but not all of the bonus. In the example where the bank has reserved a $10 bonus pool, they would pay a pre-tax bonus of $6.66 to the employee, of which $3.33 approx depending on tax bracket. So of the $10, $3.33 is paid by the bank for the super tax ($6.66*50%=3.33), and another $3.33 is witheld for the employees individual income tax and appox $3.33 is after tax income. So the net effect is reducing the employee pre-tax bonus from $10 to $6.66 and the after tax goes down from $5 to $3.33
@ 17, Yes, you are correct. The point is to confiscate (part) but not all of the bonus. In the example where the bank has reserved a $10 bonus pool, they would pay a pre-tax bonus of $6.66 to the employee, of which $3.33 approx depending on tax bracket. So of the $10, $3.33 is paid by the bank for the super tax ($6.66*50%=3.33), and another $3.33 is witheld for the employees individual income tax and appox $3.33 is after tax income. So the net effect is reducing the employee pre-tax bonus from $10 to $6.66 and the after tax goes down from $5 to $3.33
@ 17, Yes, you are correct. The point is to confiscate (part) but not all of the bonus. In the example where the bank has reserved a $10 bonus pool, they would pay a pre-tax bonus of $6.66 to the employee, of which $3.33 approx depending on tax bracket. So of the $10, $3.33 is paid by the bank for the super tax ($6.66*50%=3.33), and another $3.33 is witheld for the employees individual income tax and appox $3.33 is after tax income. So the net effect is reducing the employee pre-tax bonus from $10 to $6.66 and the after tax goes down from $5 to $3.33
@ 17, Yes, you are correct. The point is to confiscate (part) but not all of the bonus. In the example where the bank has reserved a $10 bonus pool, they would pay a pre-tax bonus of $6.66 to the employee, of which $3.33 approx depending on tax bracket. So of the $10, $3.33 is paid by the bank for the super tax ($6.66*50%=3.33), and another $3.33 is witheld for the employees individual income tax and appox $3.33 is after tax income. So the net effect is reducing the employee pre-tax bonus from $10 to $6.66 and the after tax goes down from $5 to $3.33
@ 17, Yes, you are correct. The point is to confiscate (part) but not all of the bonus. In the example where the bank has reserved a $10 bonus pool, they would pay a pre-tax bonus of $6.66 to the employee, of which $3.33 approx depending on tax bracket. So of the $10, $3.33 is paid by the bank for the super tax ($6.66*50%=3.33), and another $3.33 is witheld for the employees individual income tax and appox $3.33 is after tax income. So the net effect is reducing the employee pre-tax bonus from $10 to $6.66 and the after tax goes down from $5 to $3.33
@ 17, Yes, you are correct. The point is to confiscate (part) but not all of the bonus. In the example where the bank has reserved a $10 bonus pool, they would pay a pre-tax bonus of $6.66 to the employee, of which $3.33 approx depending on tax bracket. So of the $10, $3.33 is paid by the bank for the super tax ($6.66*50%=3.33), and another $3.33 is witheld for the employees individual income tax and appox $3.33 is after tax income. So the net effect is reducing the employee pre-tax bonus from $10 to $6.66 and the after tax goes down from $5 to $3.33
@ 17, Yes, you are correct. The point is to confiscate (part) but not all of the bonus. In the example where the bank has reserved a $10 bonus pool, they would pay a pre-tax bonus of $6.66 to the employee, of which $3.33 approx depending on tax bracket. So of the $10, $3.33 is paid by the bank for the super tax ($6.66*50%=3.33), and another $3.33 is witheld for the employees individual income tax and appox $3.33 is after tax income. So the net effect is reducing the employee pre-tax bonus from $10 to $6.66 and the after tax goes down from $5 to $3.33
@ 17, Yes, you are correct. The point is to confiscate (part) but not all of the bonus. In the example where the bank has reserved a $10 bonus pool, they would pay a pre-tax bonus of $6.66 to the employee, of which $3.33 approx depending on tax bracket. So of the $10, $3.33 is paid by the bank for the super tax ($6.66*50%=3.33), and another $3.33 is witheld for the employees individual income tax and appox $3.33 is after tax income. So the net effect is reducing the employee pre-tax bonus from $10 to $6.66 and the after tax goes down from $5 to $3.33
@ 17, Yes, you are correct. The point is to confiscate (part) but not all of the bonus. In the example where the bank has reserved a $10 bonus pool, they would pay a pre-tax bonus of $6.66 to the employee, of which $3.33 approx depending on tax bracket. So of the $10, $3.33 is paid by the bank for the super tax ($6.66*50%=3.33), and another $3.33 is witheld for the employees individual income tax and appox $3.33 is after tax income. So the net effect is reducing the employee pre-tax bonus from $10 to $6.66 and the after tax goes down from $5 to $3.33
@ 17, Yes, you are correct. The point is to confiscate (part) but not all of the bonus. In the example where the bank has reserved a $10 bonus pool, they would pay a pre-tax bonus of $6.66 to the employee, of which $3.33 approx depending on tax bracket. So of the $10, $3.33 is paid by the bank for the super tax ($6.66*50%=3.33), and another $3.33 is witheld for the employees individual income tax and appox $3.33 is after tax income. So the net effect is reducing the employee pre-tax bonus from $10 to $6.66 and the after tax goes down from $5 to $3.33
@ 17, Yes, you are correct. The point is to confiscate (part) but not all of the bonus. In the example where the bank has reserved a $10 bonus pool, they would pay a pre-tax bonus of $6.66 to the employee, of which $3.33 approx depending on tax bracket. So of the $10, $3.33 is paid by the bank for the super tax ($6.66*50%=3.33), and another $3.33 is witheld for the employees individual income tax and appox $3.33 is after tax income. So the net effect is reducing the employee pre-tax bonus from $10 to $6.66 and the after tax goes down from $5 to $3.33
@ 17, Yes, you are correct. The point is to confiscate (part) but not all of the bonus. In the example where the bank has reserved a $10 bonus pool, they would pay a pre-tax bonus of $6.66 to the employee, of which $3.33 approx depending on tax bracket. So of the $10, $3.33 is paid by the bank for the super tax ($6.66*50%=3.33), and another $3.33 is witheld for the employees individual income tax and appox $3.33 is after tax income. So the net effect is reducing the employee pre-tax bonus from $10 to $6.66 and the after tax goes down from $5 to $3.33
@ 17, Yes, you are correct. The point is to confiscate (part) but not all of the bonus. In the example where the bank has reserved a $10 bonus pool, they would pay a pre-tax bonus of $6.66 to the employee, of which $3.33 approx depending on tax bracket. So of the $10, $3.33 is paid by the bank for the super tax ($6.66*50%=3.33), and another $3.33 is witheld for the employees individual income tax and appox $3.33 is after tax income. So the net effect is reducing the employee pre-tax bonus from $10 to $6.66 and the after tax goes down from $5 to $3.33
@ 17, Yes, you are correct. The point is to confiscate (part) but not all of the bonus. In the example where the bank has reserved a $10 bonus pool, they would pay a pre-tax bonus of $6.66 to the employee, of which $3.33 approx depending on tax bracket. So of the $10, $3.33 is paid by the bank for the super tax ($6.66*50%=3.33), and another $3.33 is witheld for the employees individual income tax and appox $3.33 is after tax income. So the net effect is reducing the employee pre-tax bonus from $10 to $6.66 and the after tax goes down from $5 to $3.33
@ 17, Yes, you are correct. The point is to confiscate (part) but not all of the bonus. In the example where the bank has reserved a $10 bonus pool, they would pay a pre-tax bonus of $6.66 to the employee, of which $3.33 approx depending on tax bracket. So of the $10, $3.33 is paid by the bank for the super tax ($6.66*50%=3.33), and another $3.33 is witheld for the employees individual income tax and appox $3.33 is after tax income. So the net effect is reducing the employee pre-tax bonus from $10 to $6.66 and the after tax goes down from $5 to $3.33
@ 17, Yes, you are correct. The point is to confiscate (part) but not all of the bonus. In the example where the bank has reserved a $10 bonus pool, they would pay a pre-tax bonus of $6.66 to the employee, of which $3.33 approx depending on tax bracket. So of the $10, $3.33 is paid by the bank for the super tax ($6.66*50%=3.33), and another $3.33 is witheld for the employees individual income tax and appox $3.33 is after tax income. So the net effect is reducing the employee pre-tax bonus from $10 to $6.66 and the after tax goes down from $5 to $3.33
@ 17, Yes, you are correct. The point is to confiscate (part) but not all of the bonus. In the example where the bank has reserved a $10 bonus pool, they would pay a pre-tax bonus of $6.66 to the employee, of which $3.33 approx depending on tax bracket. So of the $10, $3.33 is paid by the bank for the super tax ($6.66*50%=3.33), and another $3.33 is witheld for the employees individual income tax and appox $3.33 is after tax income. So the net effect is reducing the employee pre-tax bonus from $10 to $6.66 and the after tax goes down from $5 to $3.33
@ 17, Yes, you are correct. The point is to confiscate (part) but not all of the bonus. In the example where the bank has reserved a $10 bonus pool, they would pay a pre-tax bonus of $6.66 to the employee, of which $3.33 approx depending on tax bracket. So of the $10, $3.33 is paid by the bank for the super tax ($6.66*50%=3.33), and another $3.33 is witheld for the employees individual income tax and appox $3.33 is after tax income. So the net effect is reducing the employee pre-tax bonus from $10 to $6.66 and the after tax goes down from $5 to $3.33
@ 17, Yes, you are correct. The point is to confiscate (part) but not all of the bonus. In the example where the bank has reserved a $10 bonus pool, they would pay a pre-tax bonus of $6.66 to the employee, of which $3.33 approx depending on tax bracket. So of the $10, $3.33 is paid by the bank for the super tax ($6.66*50%=3.33), and another $3.33 is witheld for the employees individual income tax and appox $3.33 is after tax income. So the net effect is reducing the employee pre-tax bonus from $10 to $6.66 and the after tax goes down from $5 to $3.33
@ 17, Yes, you are correct. The point is to confiscate (part) but not all of the bonus. In the example where the bank has reserved a $10 bonus pool, they would pay a pre-tax bonus of $6.66 to the employee, of which $3.33 approx depending on tax bracket. So of the $10, $3.33 is paid by the bank for the super tax ($6.66*50%=3.33), and another $3.33 is witheld for the employees individual income tax and appox $3.33 is after tax income. So the net effect is reducing the employee pre-tax bonus from $10 to $6.66 and the after tax goes down from $5 to $3.33
@ 17, Yes, you are correct. The point is to confiscate (part) but not all of the bonus. In the example where the bank has reserved a $10 bonus pool, they would pay a pre-tax bonus of $6.66 to the employee, of which $3.33 approx depending on tax bracket. So of the $10, $3.33 is paid by the bank for the super tax ($6.66*50%=3.33), and another $3.33 is witheld for the employees individual income tax and appox $3.33 is after tax income. So the net effect is reducing the employee pre-tax bonus from $10 to $6.66 and the after tax goes down from $5 to $3.33
@ 17, Yes, you are correct. The point is to confiscate (part) but not all of the bonus. In the example where the bank has reserved a $10 bonus pool, they would pay a pre-tax bonus of $6.66 to the employee, of which $3.33 approx depending on tax bracket. So of the $10, $3.33 is paid by the bank for the super tax ($6.66*50%=3.33), and another $3.33 is witheld for the employees individual income tax and appox $3.33 is after tax income. So the net effect is reducing the employee pre-tax bonus from $10 to $6.66 and the after tax goes down from $5 to $3.33
@ 17, Yes, you are correct. The point is to confiscate (part) but not all of the bonus. In the example where the bank has reserved a $10 bonus pool, they would pay a pre-tax bonus of $6.66 to the employee, of which $3.33 approx depending on tax bracket. So of the $10, $3.33 is paid by the bank for the super tax ($6.66*50%=3.33), and another $3.33 is witheld for the employees individual income tax and appox $3.33 is after tax income. So the net effect is reducing the employee pre-tax bonus from $10 to $6.66 and the after tax goes down from $5 to $3.33
@ 17, Yes, you are correct. The point is to confiscate (part) but not all of the bonus. In the example where the bank has reserved a $10 bonus pool, they would pay a pre-tax bonus of $6.66 to the employee, of which $3.33 approx depending on tax bracket. So of the $10, $3.33 is paid by the bank for the super tax ($6.66*50%=3.33), and another $3.33 is witheld for the employees individual income tax and appox $3.33 is after tax income. So the net effect is reducing the employee pre-tax bonus from $10 to $6.66 and the after tax goes down from $5 to $3.33
@ 17, Yes, you are correct. The point is to confiscate (part) but not all of the bonus. In the example where the bank has reserved a $10 bonus pool, they would pay a pre-tax bonus of $6.66 to the employee, of which $3.33 approx depending on tax bracket. So of the $10, $3.33 is paid by the bank for the super tax ($6.66*50%=3.33), and another $3.33 is witheld for the employees individual income tax and appox $3.33 is after tax income. So the net effect is reducing the employee pre-tax bonus from $10 to $6.66 and the after tax goes down from $5 to $3.33
@ 17, Yes, you are correct. The point is to confiscate (part) but not all of the bonus. In the example where the bank has reserved a $10 bonus pool, they would pay a pre-tax bonus of $6.66 to the employee, of which $3.33 approx depending on tax bracket. So of the $10, $3.33 is paid by the bank for the super tax ($6.66*50%=3.33), and another $3.33 is witheld for the employees individual income tax and appox $3.33 is after tax income. So the net effect is reducing the employee pre-tax bonus from $10 to $6.66 and the after tax goes down from $5 to $3.33
@ 17, Yes, you are correct. The point is to confiscate (part) but not all of the bonus. In the example where the bank has reserved a $10 bonus pool, they would pay a pre-tax bonus of $6.66 to the employee, of which $3.33 approx depending on tax bracket. So of the $10, $3.33 is paid by the bank for the super tax ($6.66*50%=3.33), and another $3.33 is witheld for the employees individual income tax and appox $3.33 is after tax income. So the net effect is reducing the employee pre-tax bonus from $10 to $6.66 and the after tax goes down from $5 to $3.33
@ 17, Yes, you are correct. The point is to confiscate (part) but not all of the bonus. In the example where the bank has reserved a $10 bonus pool, they would pay a pre-tax bonus of $6.66 to the employee, of which $3.33 approx depending on tax bracket. So of the $10, $3.33 is paid by the bank for the super tax ($6.66*50%=3.33), and another $3.33 is witheld for the employees individual income tax and appox $3.33 is after tax income. So the net effect is reducing the employee pre-tax bonus from $10 to $6.66 and the after tax goes down from $5 to $3.33
@ 17, Yes, you are correct. The point is to confiscate (part) but not all of the bonus. In the example where the bank has reserved a $10 bonus pool, they would pay a pre-tax bonus of $6.66 to the employee, of which $3.33 approx depending on tax bracket. So of the $10, $3.33 is paid by the bank for the super tax ($6.66*50%=3.33), and another $3.33 is witheld for the employees individual income tax and appox $3.33 is after tax income. So the net effect is reducing the employee pre-tax bonus from $10 to $6.66 and the after tax goes down from $5 to $3.33
@ 17, Yes, you are correct. The point is to confiscate (part) but not all of the bonus. In the example where the bank has reserved a $10 bonus pool, they would pay a pre-tax bonus of $6.66 to the employee, of which $3.33 approx depending on tax bracket. So of the $10, $3.33 is paid by the bank for the super tax ($6.66*50%=3.33), and another $3.33 is witheld for the employees individual income tax and appox $3.33 is after tax income. So the net effect is reducing the employee pre-tax bonus from $10 to $6.66 and the after tax goes down from $5 to $3.33
@ 17, Yes, you are correct. The point is to confiscate (part) but not all of the bonus. In the example where the bank has reserved a $10 bonus pool, they would pay a pre-tax bonus of $6.66 to the employee, of which $3.33 approx depending on tax bracket. So of the $10, $3.33 is paid by the bank for the super tax ($6.66*50%=3.33), and another $3.33 is witheld for the employees individual income tax and appox $3.33 is after tax income. So the net effect is reducing the employee pre-tax bonus from $10 to $6.66 and the after tax goes down from $5 to $3.33
@ 17, Yes, you are correct. The point is to confiscate (part) but not all of the bonus. In the example where the bank has reserved a $10 bonus pool, they would pay a pre-tax bonus of $6.66 to the employee, of which $3.33 approx depending on tax bracket. So of the $10, $3.33 is paid by the bank for the super tax ($6.66*50%=3.33), and another $3.33 is witheld for the employees individual income tax and appox $3.33 is after tax income. So the net effect is reducing the employee pre-tax bonus from $10 to $6.66 and the after tax goes down from $5 to $3.33
@ 17, Yes, you are correct. The point is to confiscate (part) but not all of the bonus. In the example where the bank has reserved a $10 bonus pool, they would pay a pre-tax bonus of $6.66 to the employee, of which $3.33 approx depending on tax bracket. So of the $10, $3.33 is paid by the bank for the super tax ($6.66*50%=3.33), and another $3.33 is witheld for the employees individual income tax and appox $3.33 is after tax income. So the net effect is reducing the employee pre-tax bonus from $10 to $6.66 and the after tax goes down from $5 to $3.33
@ 17, Yes, you are correct. The point is to confiscate (part) but not all of the bonus. In the example where the bank has reserved a $10 bonus pool, they would pay a pre-tax bonus of $6.66 to the employee, of which $3.33 approx depending on tax bracket. So of the $10, $3.33 is paid by the bank for the super tax ($6.66*50%=3.33), and another $3.33 is witheld for the employees individual income tax and appox $3.33 is after tax income. So the net effect is reducing the employee pre-tax bonus from $10 to $6.66 and the after tax goes down from $5 to $3.33
@ 17, Yes, you are correct. The point is to confiscate (part) but not all of the bonus. In the example where the bank has reserved a $10 bonus pool, they would pay a pre-tax bonus of $6.66 to the employee, of which $3.33 approx depending on tax bracket. So of the $10, $3.33 is paid by the bank for the super tax ($6.66*50%=3.33), and another $3.33 is witheld for the employees individual income tax and appox $3.33 is after tax income. So the net effect is reducing the employee pre-tax bonus from $10 to $6.66 and the after tax goes down from $5 to $3.33
@ 17, Yes, you are correct. The point is to confiscate (part) but not all of the bonus. In the example where the bank has reserved a $10 bonus pool, they would pay a pre-tax bonus of $6.66 to the employee, of which $3.33 approx depending on tax bracket. So of the $10, $3.33 is paid by the bank for the super tax ($6.66*50%=3.33), and another $3.33 is witheld for the employees individual income tax and appox $3.33 is after tax income. So the net effect is reducing the employee pre-tax bonus from $10 to $6.66 and the after tax goes down from $5 to $3.33
@ 17, Yes, you are correct. The point is to confiscate (part) but not all of the bonus. In the example where the bank has reserved a $10 bonus pool, they would pay a pre-tax bonus of $6.66 to the employee, of which $3.33 approx depending on tax bracket. So of the $10, $3.33 is paid by the bank for the super tax ($6.66*50%=3.33), and another $3.33 is witheld for the employees individual income tax and appox $3.33 is after tax income. So the net effect is reducing the employee pre-tax bonus from $10 to $6.66 and the after tax goes down from $5 to $3.33
@ 17, Yes, you are correct. The point is to confiscate (part) but not all of the bonus. In the example where the bank has reserved a $10 bonus pool, they would pay a pre-tax bonus of $6.66 to the employee, of which $3.33 approx depending on tax bracket. So of the $10, $3.33 is paid by the bank for the super tax ($6.66*50%=3.33), and another $3.33 is witheld for the employees individual income tax and appox $3.33 is after tax income. So the net effect is reducing the employee pre-tax bonus from $10 to $6.66 and the after tax goes down from $5 to $3.33
@ 17, Yes, you are correct. The point is to confiscate (part) but not all of the bonus. In the example where the bank has reserved a $10 bonus pool, they would pay a pre-tax bonus of $6.66 to the employee, of which $3.33 approx depending on tax bracket. So of the $10, $3.33 is paid by the bank for the super tax ($6.66*50%=3.33), and another $3.33 is witheld for the employees individual income tax and appox $3.33 is after tax income. So the net effect is reducing the employee pre-tax bonus from $10 to $6.66 and the after tax goes down from $5 to $3.33
@ 17, Yes, you are correct. The point is to confiscate (part) but not all of the bonus. In the example where the bank has reserved a $10 bonus pool, they would pay a pre-tax bonus of $6.66 to the employee, of which $3.33 approx depending on tax bracket. So of the $10, $3.33 is paid by the bank for the super tax ($6.66*50%=3.33), and another $3.33 is witheld for the employees individual income tax and appox $3.33 is after tax income. So the net effect is reducing the employee pre-tax bonus from $10 to $6.66 and the after tax goes down from $5 to $3.33
@ 17, Yes, you are correct. The point is to confiscate (part) but not all of the bonus. In the example where the bank has reserved a $10 bonus pool, they would pay a pre-tax bonus of $6.66 to the employee, of which $3.33 approx depending on tax bracket. So of the $10, $3.33 is paid by the bank for the super tax ($6.66*50%=3.33), and another $3.33 is witheld for the employees individual income tax and appox $3.33 is after tax income. So the net effect is reducing the employee pre-tax bonus from $10 to $6.66 and the after tax goes down from $5 to $3.33
@ 17, Yes, you are correct. The point is to confiscate (part) but not all of the bonus. In the example where the bank has reserved a $10 bonus pool, they would pay a pre-tax bonus of $6.66 to the employee, of which $3.33 approx depending on tax bracket. So of the $10, $3.33 is paid by the bank for the super tax ($6.66*50%=3.33), and another $3.33 is witheld for the employees individual income tax and appox $3.33 is after tax income. So the net effect is reducing the employee pre-tax bonus from $10 to $6.66 and the after tax goes down from $5 to $3.33
@ 17, Yes, you are correct. The point is to confiscate (part) but not all of the bonus. In the example where the bank has reserved a $10 bonus pool, they would pay a pre-tax bonus of $6.66 to the employee, of which $3.33 approx depending on tax bracket. So of the $10, $3.33 is paid by the bank for the super tax ($6.66*50%=3.33), and another $3.33 is witheld for the employees individual income tax and appox $3.33 is after tax income. So the net effect is reducing the employee pre-tax bonus from $10 to $6.66 and the after tax goes down from $5 to $3.33
@ 17, Yes, you are correct. The point is to confiscate (part) but not all of the bonus. In the example where the bank has reserved a $10 bonus pool, they would pay a pre-tax bonus of $6.66 to the employee, of which $3.33 approx depending on tax bracket. So of the $10, $3.33 is paid by the bank for the super tax ($6.66*50%=3.33), and another $3.33 is witheld for the employees individual income tax and appox $3.33 is after tax income. So the net effect is reducing the employee pre-tax bonus from $10 to $6.66 and the after tax goes down from $5 to $3.33
@ 17, Yes, you are correct. The point is to confiscate (part) but not all of the bonus. In the example where the bank has reserved a $10 bonus pool, they would pay a pre-tax bonus of $6.66 to the employee, of which $3.33 approx depending on tax bracket. So of the $10, $3.33 is paid by the bank for the super tax ($6.66*50%=3.33), and another $3.33 is witheld for the employees individual income tax and appox $3.33 is after tax income. So the net effect is reducing the employee pre-tax bonus from $10 to $6.66 and the after tax goes down from $5 to $3.33
@ 17, Yes, you are correct. The point is to confiscate (part) but not all of the bonus. In the example where the bank has reserved a $10 bonus pool, they would pay a pre-tax bonus of $6.66 to the employee, of which $3.33 approx depending on tax bracket. So of the $10, $3.33 is paid by the bank for the super tax ($6.66*50%=3.33), and another $3.33 is witheld for the employees individual income tax and appox $3.33 is after tax income. So the net effect is reducing the employee pre-tax bonus from $10 to $6.66 and the after tax goes down from $5 to $3.33
@ 17, Yes, you are correct. The point is to confiscate (part) but not all of the bonus. In the example where the bank has reserved a $10 bonus pool, they would pay a pre-tax bonus of $6.66 to the employee, of which $3.33 approx depending on tax bracket. So of the $10, $3.33 is paid by the bank for the super tax ($6.66*50%=3.33), and another $3.33 is witheld for the employees individual income tax and appox $3.33 is after tax income. So the net effect is reducing the employee pre-tax bonus from $10 to $6.66 and the after tax goes down from $5 to $3.33
@ 17, Yes, you are correct. The point is to confiscate (part) but not all of the bonus. In the example where the bank has reserved a $10 bonus pool, they would pay a pre-tax bonus of $6.66 to the employee, of which $3.33 approx depending on tax bracket. So of the $10, $3.33 is paid by the bank for the super tax ($6.66*50%=3.33), and another $3.33 is witheld for the employees individual income tax and appox $3.33 is after tax income. So the net effect is reducing the employee pre-tax bonus from $10 to $6.66 and the after tax goes down from $5 to $3.33
@ 17, Yes, you are correct. The point is to confiscate (part) but not all of the bonus. In the example where the bank has reserved a $10 bonus pool, they would pay a pre-tax bonus of $6.66 to the employee, of which $3.33 approx depending on tax bracket. So of the $10, $3.33 is paid by the bank for the super tax ($6.66*50%=3.33), and another $3.33 is witheld for the employees individual income tax and appox $3.33 is after tax income. So the net effect is reducing the employee pre-tax bonus from $10 to $6.66 and the after tax goes down from $5 to $3.33
@ 17, Yes, you are correct. The point is to confiscate (part) but not all of the bonus. In the example where the bank has reserved a $10 bonus pool, they would pay a pre-tax bonus of $6.66 to the employee, of which $3.33 approx depending on tax bracket. So of the $10, $3.33 is paid by the bank for the super tax ($6.66*50%=3.33), and another $3.33 is witheld for the employees individual income tax and appox $3.33 is after tax income. So the net effect is reducing the employee pre-tax bonus from $10 to $6.66 and the after tax goes down from $5 to $3.33
@ 17, Yes, you are correct. The point is to confiscate (part) but not all of the bonus. In the example where the bank has reserved a $10 bonus pool, they would pay a pre-tax bonus of $6.66 to the employee, of which $3.33 approx depending on tax bracket. So of the $10, $3.33 is paid by the bank for the super tax ($6.66*50%=3.33), and another $3.33 is witheld for the employees individual income tax and appox $3.33 is after tax income. So the net effect is reducing the employee pre-tax bonus from $10 to $6.66 and the after tax goes down from $5 to $3.33
@ 17, Yes, you are correct. The point is to confiscate (part) but not all of the bonus. In the example where the bank has reserved a $10 bonus pool, they would pay a pre-tax bonus of $6.66 to the employee, of which $3.33 approx depending on tax bracket. So of the $10, $3.33 is paid by the bank for the super tax ($6.66*50%=3.33), and another $3.33 is witheld for the employees individual income tax and appox $3.33 is after tax income. So the net effect is reducing the employee pre-tax bonus from $10 to $6.66 and the after tax goes down from $5 to $3.33
@ 17, Yes, you are correct. The point is to confiscate (part) but not all of the bonus. In the example where the bank has reserved a $10 bonus pool, they would pay a pre-tax bonus of $6.66 to the employee, of which $3.33 approx depending on tax bracket. So of the $10, $3.33 is paid by the bank for the super tax ($6.66*50%=3.33), and another $3.33 is witheld for the employees individual income tax and appox $3.33 is after tax income. So the net effect is reducing the employee pre-tax bonus from $10 to $6.66 and the after tax goes down from $5 to $3.33
@ 17, Yes, you are correct. The point is to confiscate (part) but not all of the bonus. In the example where the bank has reserved a $10 bonus pool, they would pay a pre-tax bonus of $6.66 to the employee, of which $3.33 approx depending on tax bracket. So of the $10, $3.33 is paid by the bank for the super tax ($6.66*50%=3.33), and another $3.33 is witheld for the employees individual income tax and appox $3.33 is after tax income. So the net effect is reducing the employee pre-tax bonus from $10 to $6.66 and the after tax goes down from $5 to $3.33
@ 17, Yes, you are correct. The point is to confiscate (part) but not all of the bonus. In the example where the bank has reserved a $10 bonus pool, they would pay a pre-tax bonus of $6.66 to the employee, of which $3.33 approx depending on tax bracket. So of the $10, $3.33 is paid by the bank for the super tax ($6.66*50%=3.33), and another $3.33 is witheld for the employees individual income tax and appox $3.33 is after tax income. So the net effect is reducing the employee pre-tax bonus from $10 to $6.66 and the after tax goes down from $5 to $3.33
@ 17, Yes, you are correct. The point is to confiscate (part) but not all of the bonus. In the example where the bank has reserved a $10 bonus pool, they would pay a pre-tax bonus of $6.66 to the employee, of which $3.33 approx depending on tax bracket. So of the $10, $3.33 is paid by the bank for the super tax ($6.66*50%=3.33), and another $3.33 is witheld for the employees individual income tax and appox $3.33 is after tax income. So the net effect is reducing the employee pre-tax bonus from $10 to $6.66 and the after tax goes down from $5 to $3.33
@ 17, Yes, you are correct. The point is to confiscate (part) but not all of the bonus. In the example where the bank has reserved a $10 bonus pool, they would pay a pre-tax bonus of $6.66 to the employee, of which $3.33 approx depending on tax bracket. So of the $10, $3.33 is paid by the bank for the super tax ($6.66*50%=3.33), and another $3.33 is witheld for the employees individual income tax and appox $3.33 is after tax income. So the net effect is reducing the employee pre-tax bonus from $10 to $6.66 and the after tax goes down from $5 to $3.33
@ 17, Yes, you are correct. The point is to confiscate (part) but not all of the bonus. In the example where the bank has reserved a $10 bonus pool, they would pay a pre-tax bonus of $6.66 to the employee, of which $3.33 approx depending on tax bracket. So of the $10, $3.33 is paid by the bank for the super tax ($6.66*50%=3.33), and another $3.33 is witheld for the employees individual income tax and appox $3.33 is after tax income. So the net effect is reducing the employee pre-tax bonus from $10 to $6.66 and the after tax goes down from $5 to $3.33
@ 17, Yes, you are correct. The point is to confiscate (part) but not all of the bonus. In the example where the bank has reserved a $10 bonus pool, they would pay a pre-tax bonus of $6.66 to the employee, of which $3.33 approx depending on tax bracket. So of the $10, $3.33 is paid by the bank for the super tax ($6.66*50%=3.33), and another $3.33 is witheld for the employees individual income tax and appox $3.33 is after tax income. So the net effect is reducing the employee pre-tax bonus from $10 to $6.66 and the after tax goes down from $5 to $3.33
@ 17, Yes, you are correct. The point is to confiscate (part) but not all of the bonus. In the example where the bank has reserved a $10 bonus pool, they would pay a pre-tax bonus of $6.66 to the employee, of which $3.33 approx depending on tax bracket. So of the $10, $3.33 is paid by the bank for the super tax ($6.66*50%=3.33), and another $3.33 is witheld for the employees individual income tax and appox $3.33 is after tax income. So the net effect is reducing the employee pre-tax bonus from $10 to $6.66 and the after tax goes down from $5 to $3.33
@ 17, Yes, you are correct. The point is to confiscate (part) but not all of the bonus. In the example where the bank has reserved a $10 bonus pool, they would pay a pre-tax bonus of $6.66 to the employee, of which $3.33 approx depending on tax bracket. So of the $10, $3.33 is paid by the bank for the super tax ($6.66*50%=3.33), and another $3.33 is witheld for the employees individual income tax and appox $3.33 is after tax income. So the net effect is reducing the employee pre-tax bonus from $10 to $6.66 and the after tax goes down from $5 to $3.33
@ 17, Yes, you are correct. The point is to confiscate (part) but not all of the bonus. In the example where the bank has reserved a $10 bonus pool, they would pay a pre-tax bonus of $6.66 to the employee, of which $3.33 approx depending on tax bracket. So of the $10, $3.33 is paid by the bank for the super tax ($6.66*50%=3.33), and another $3.33 is witheld for the employees individual income tax and appox $3.33 is after tax income. So the net effect is reducing the employee pre-tax bonus from $10 to $6.66 and the after tax goes down from $5 to $3.33
@ 17, Yes, you are correct. The point is to confiscate (part) but not all of the bonus. In the example where the bank has reserved a $10 bonus pool, they would pay a pre-tax bonus of $6.66 to the employee, of which $3.33 approx depending on tax bracket. So of the $10, $3.33 is paid by the bank for the super tax ($6.66*50%=3.33), and another $3.33 is witheld for the employees individual income tax and appox $3.33 is after tax income. So the net effect is reducing the employee pre-tax bonus from $10 to $6.66 and the after tax goes down from $5 to $3.33
@ 17, Yes, you are correct. The point is to confiscate (part) but not all of the bonus. In the example where the bank has reserved a $10 bonus pool, they would pay a pre-tax bonus of $6.66 to the employee, of which $3.33 approx depending on tax bracket. So of the $10, $3.33 is paid by the bank for the super tax ($6.66*50%=3.33), and another $3.33 is witheld for the employees individual income tax and appox $3.33 is after tax income. So the net effect is reducing the employee pre-tax bonus from $10 to $6.66 and the after tax goes down from $5 to $3.33
@ 17, Yes, you are correct. The point is to confiscate (part) but not all of the bonus. In the example where the bank has reserved a $10 bonus pool, they would pay a pre-tax bonus of $6.66 to the employee, of which $3.33 approx depending on tax bracket. So of the $10, $3.33 is paid by the bank for the super tax ($6.66*50%=3.33), and another $3.33 is witheld for the employees individual income tax and appox $3.33 is after tax income. So the net effect is reducing the employee pre-tax bonus from $10 to $6.66 and the after tax goes down from $5 to $3.33
@ 17, Yes, you are correct. The point is to confiscate (part) but not all of the bonus. In the example where the bank has reserved a $10 bonus pool, they would pay a pre-tax bonus of $6.66 to the employee, of which $3.33 approx depending on tax bracket. So of the $10, $3.33 is paid by the bank for the super tax ($6.66*50%=3.33), and another $3.33 is witheld for the employees individual income tax and appox $3.33 is after tax income. So the net effect is reducing the employee pre-tax bonus from $10 to $6.66 and the after tax goes down from $5 to $3.33
@ 17, Yes, you are correct. The point is to confiscate (part) but not all of the bonus. In the example where the bank has reserved a $10 bonus pool, they would pay a pre-tax bonus of $6.66 to the employee, of which $3.33 approx depending on tax bracket. So of the $10, $3.33 is paid by the bank for the super tax ($6.66*50%=3.33), and another $3.33 is witheld for the employees individual income tax and appox $3.33 is after tax income. So the net effect is reducing the employee pre-tax bonus from $10 to $6.66 and the after tax goes down from $5 to $3.33
@ 17, Yes, you are correct. The point is to confiscate (part) but not all of the bonus. In the example where the bank has reserved a $10 bonus pool, they would pay a pre-tax bonus of $6.66 to the employee, of which $3.33 approx depending on tax bracket. So of the $10, $3.33 is paid by the bank for the super tax ($6.66*50%=3.33), and another $3.33 is witheld for the employees individual income tax and appox $3.33 is after tax income. So the net effect is reducing the employee pre-tax bonus from $10 to $6.66 and the after tax goes down from $5 to $3.33
Why is everybody getting so bent out of shape over $3.33?
- another former Lehman quant
Why is everybody getting so bent out of shape over $3.33?
- another former Lehman quant
Why is everybody getting so bent out of shape over $3.33?
- another former Lehman quant
Why is everybody getting so bent out of shape over $3.33?
- another former Lehman quant
Why is everybody getting so bent out of shape over $3.33?
- another former Lehman quant