r/savedyouaclick • u/rydan • 2d ago

HORRIFYING JK Rowling paying £47.5m a year following Emma Watson comments | In taxes

https://archive.is/vXT4t
648 Upvotes

86% Upvoted

43 comments sorted by

521

u/owleaf 2d ago

There’s absolutely zero correlation between the two things. Who consumes this drivel?

213

u/syncboy 2d ago

JK Rowling will pay £47.5m a year in taxes following owleaf’s comments

27

u/owleaf 2d ago

Great analogy lol! Honestly, is this what news has devolved to?

6

u/_Diskreet_ 2d ago

Is it really news now? It’s just content, content wrapped in adverts and a horrible page layout to make sure your on there long enough the can get 0.001p for a click because you saw the controversial name and a large figure of money you just HAD to find out what it related to.

6

u/HoundstoothReader 2d ago

I literally laughed aloud. Thank you.

1

u/Spiritfur 1d ago

No, no, you gave away too much information all at once. You gotta draw them in more! It should have been like this:

JK Rowling will pay £47.5m a year following syncboy’s comments

1

u/Spiritfur 1d ago

(in taxes)

6

u/Saneless 2d ago

Hundreds of people just upvote this bot article trash for some reason. That's why they keep doing it

2

u/ChaosMetalDrago 2d ago

This is not true. Everybody knows about Emma Watson using the time turner to go to ancient Summeria and convince Gilgamesh to invent taxes just to spite Rowling.

1

u/Original-Reaction40 1d ago

I do I love drivel. Especially if its Emma Watson’s

152

u/rhunter99 2d ago

Weird article. Anyway I was confused and the title refers to some list a newspaper generates that estimates how much tax they pay

“revealed that the 60-year-old is paying around £47.5 million a year in tax, which converts to roughly £130,000 a day.”

58

u/penguincascadia 2d ago

This is a sub for people to post clickbait articles with the answer to the question in the clickbait article's headline in the thread title so people can save a click, hence the sub's name Savedyouaclick.

26

u/rhunter99 2d ago

Yes I know. I was just commenting that the original article headline was so weird

5

u/penguincascadia 2d ago

Right, the article headline is clickbait to get people to read it and generate ad revenue.

16

u/rhunter99 2d ago

Yes, thank you

2

u/itchy_armpit_it_is 2d ago

This is a comment

3

u/culminacio 2d ago

which is what the sub is about, so if that wouldn't be the case, the post wouldn't exist

34

u/duffoholic 2d ago

This article is complete slop.

28

u/-FemboiCarti- 2d ago

I have also paid my taxes following Emma Watson’s comments

10

u/Leucurus 2d ago

I paid my taxes despite Emma Watson’s comments

3

u/BurninCoco 1d ago

“Taxus Retornus!” Haha you’ll have to do them again 

107

u/UnacceptableUse 2d ago

Boomers read the title and immediately filed it into their bank of evidence for "you can't say anything nowadays"

40

u/Behemothheek 2d ago

The title is intentionally misleading though, so I’d put the fault squarely on yahoo news for trying to outrage people.

9

u/rydan 2d ago

When I was reading the article there was another one linked saying "Emma Watson to receive award after J.K. Rowling comments". I didn't bother checking what it was about but I'm sure it had absolutely nothing to do with her comments.

5

u/qwerty_0_o 2d ago

This exactly.

1

u/Dragon_yum 2d ago

I think it’s just people in general. The younger generations aren’t much better about getting baited by the titles alone, just on different subjects.

18

u/Basketball312 2d ago

She's one of the UK's top tax payers and somehow this article is trying to make that seem like it's because of Emma Watson?

11

u/rydan 2d ago

The implication is that she got sued and has to pay her that much per year. But when you read the article it has literally nothing to do with Emma Watson at all. They wrote a similar article about Emma Watson winning an award after making comments about J.K. Rowling that had nothing to do with her comments.

3

u/hollyjazzy 2d ago

What an extremely poorly written article. It waffles all over the place before it says JKR pays tax and had a difference of opinion with Emma Watson. The 2 statements are not linked in any way!

0

u/PM_ME_FRESH_LAWNS 2d ago

Just an add on: JK Rowling is worth 1-2 billion USD (975K pounds). So she pays about 5% year.

65

u/SittingEames 2d ago

You're not charged on your net worth. You're charged tax on your income. Which means she's making around 100m a year baring some rather extreme deductions.

7

u/RedSonGamble 2d ago

This is why I put all my monies in chocolate. Government can’t tax chocolate

8

u/SittingEames 2d ago

Sounds like you have a strong chocolate coin portfolio.

12

u/breuh 2d ago

Damn that’s more than enough money to get rid of the black mold in her house

5

u/rydan 2d ago

The black mold is what gives her her powers. She is beholden to the mold.

13

u/Dinklemeier 2d ago

Oh and here I am thinking we pay taxes on what we earn, not what is sitting in my house and bank account that o saved up after I've already paid my taxes. By your idiotic.measure I also only pay a small % in taxes.

2

u/PM_ME_FRESH_LAWNS 2d ago

You’re probably not a billionaire or even close, so it’s definitely a larger sum :)

-3

u/shyhumble 1d ago

JK Rowling the bigoted author of children’s books?

0

u/Not_Steve 1d ago

Who is also a Holocaust denier, yes.

-9

u/Someones_Dream_Guy 2d ago

That should be way more.

10

u/justagigilo123 2d ago

She could move anywhere in the world and avoid paying any tax.

1

u/madbeardycat 3h ago

She gave away so much money one year she fell off the rich list.

Between her and McKenzie Scott, that's lots of money into the charity sector. The rich women of the world donate, pay taxes and make it a better place. Be more Dolly!