Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
What I'm thinking is "why bonuses only?" Because they are the discretionary part of their pay? In that case, I think you should re-hash that particular point from the 2005 diary, because it is not obvious to somebody who isn't familiar with the subject (wasn't obvious to me, at least).

Basically, I think the question I still don't know the answer to is "sure, we can tax bonuses, but what will prevent them from just juggling around their income to ordinary salaries?"

If you take 90 % of the bonus and only 60 % of the salary, then naturally, you'd see a move from bonus to salary, just as we've seen a move from salary to bonus when the (effective) rate on bonuses was lowered to well below the rate on salaries. Is that in and of itself A Good Thing? It might be, if the salary is a monthly sum and the bonus scheme is some crazy short-term stock-option gimmickry, but it's not intuitively obvious that it is in general.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sat Jan 31st, 2009 at 03:43:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Others have rated this comment as follows:


Occasional Series