This is disgusting, should be a special tax on it!

Will you look at this eh?

Across the partnership, sales increase by 7.5 per cent… to take pre-tax profit to £155m. This was down on last year\’s £282m,

So, item one, a fall in profits.

staff will share £151m as a bonus

Bonuses amount to an eyewatering 97.5% of profits. That\’s item two. Item two and a half is that this is a rise in bonuses….yes, bonuses have risen even as profits have fallen.

And item three, how did these profits come about?

He put the company\’s success in 2009, especially during the second half, down to consumers having more disposable income – through lower interest rates and VAT

Yes, that\’s right, it\’s a subsidy from the taxpayer to the company.

These staff are pocketing what is rightfully the State\’s money. This simply cannot be allowed to go on. A special national insurance tax must be imposed upon these scavengers of what is properly the property of the taxpayer. They must be made to pay for the aid they\’ve received…the tax that they are simply pocketing.

R. Murphy Esq is no doubt currently penning a report on the TUC\’s dime insisting that Alistair Darling correct this matter on March 24th. And bugger the law, the tax must be retrospective.

Hmm? What\’s that? He\’s not?

Why?

What was that? It\’s John Lewis we\’re talking about, not a bank? That doesn\’t matter though, surely? The evil is in bonuses, they\’re a temptation to screw the customer aren\’t they? A bonus for a shop hand incentivises them to encourage excessive consumption just as much as a bankers\’ bonus encourages excessive risk taking, doesn\’t it? Encourages excessive debt….go on, stick it on your store card!…Bonuses at near 100% of profits, this is the same isn\’t it? Bonuses paid only because of taxpayer support for the business, this is the same, no?

Oh, you say it\’s not the same? So, umm, all this about bankers\’ bonuses, taxes on, was nothing to do with bonuses, taxpayer support or anything like that? It was simply a partisan let\’s bash the bankers?

Oh, what a disappointment. I was sure they were telling us that bonuses themselves are a bad idea, that sharing the profits of the business with the staff is what led to incidents of kitten burning and baby eating.

7 thoughts on “This is disgusting, should be a special tax on it!”

  1. Phew! I was about to explode until I came to the end 🙂

    But I think we could simplify the tax system. For example, Politicians should pay a simple tax structure.

    Backbenchers should pay 100%, on the ladder, but not a full cabinet member should pay 130%, Cabinet Ministers should pay 165% tax and Prime Ministers 200%

    And pay all their own expenses.

    But the poor dears might find this a little too draconian.

    Ampers.

  2. Indeed. When the buggers buy a telly for £200 and sell it to us for £300, it’s further evidence that they’re price-gouging innocent people.

  3. Tim, you’re a tit on at least two levels:

    1) The employees of John Lewis own the damn company. Do the CEOs etc. of the banks own them? No – we do now.

    2) They get a bonus for a profit. Remarkably, bankers get bonuses all the damn time. There’s always some excuse.

  4. “He put the company’s success in 2009, especially during the second half, down to consumers having more disposable income – through lower interest rates”

    Another good reason for a punitive tax on debtors — since when is debt ‘disposable income’?

  5. William,

    It may dissapoint you to know that Goldman Sachs is a coop owned by it’s employees just the same as John Lewis.

  6. David – it does disappoint me. One fewer thing to detest. But then, RBS, Northern Rock, and that whole shower of bastards aren’t. So the point still stands.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *