What is Digg?68 Comments
- inactive, on 12/18/2008, -1/+40+100s of millions in stock options and benefits/perks.
Its a tax dodge, not any kind of philanthropic gesture. - jquipp, on 12/17/2008, -3/+25I think $1 is too much for some of them ... they're still overpaid!
- piniondna, on 12/18/2008, -1/+20$1 salaries are a complete gimmick. Look at the bonuses and stock packages these guys get and that $1 starts looking pretty silly. The fact that the traditional media (who can't find their asses with two hands) can't marshall their critical thinking skills and see past the PR ***** doesn't really surprise me.
- Phalanxia, on 12/17/2008, -5/+24Here's looking at you, Steve Jobs!
- humanerror, on 12/18/2008, -3/+14CEOs don't earn their money from wages.
Wages are what owners pay you, the worker, to keep you alive while you generate profit for the owners.
Owners get money from capital gains. They sell what you create, and keep everything. Labor (human life) is a commodity that owners buy and sell, like thumbtacks or flour or anything else plentiful and easily disposable.
So yes, the CEOs give themselves a "salary" of $1 in order to avoid paying income tax.
Wouldn't want to any of those dirty poor people getting their hands on the CEO's money after all. If you pay it to the government it's just going to end up in one of their measly schools or hospitals. ***** them, amirite? Capitalism roockkkss!! woohoo ***** everyone but me woohooo rah rah rah etc - BrettFromTibet, on 12/18/2008, -3/+14Would you like fried with that $.99 value CEO?
- inactive, on 12/18/2008, -0/+7"IMO you Cant buy stuff with Stock Options ecause all the Money is in the stock Options!"
They convert stock options to stock, then convert that to money. Not rocket science. It doesn't get publicized as part of your pay either, its all nice and quiet, good for the image.
Also part of Steve Jobs agreement to come back to apple in 1997 was to work for $1 per annum, but also a $56 million private and personal jet, amongst other perks/options. - chipsotoole, on 12/18/2008, -1/+8Which is worse? Earning $1 or having a massively distorted head (which for some reason most of these people do).
- rolf, on 12/18/2008, -0/+6It is our business as soon as they ask for bailouts. Till then, it's still a semi-public matter as it is the business of stockholders or prospective stockholders.
And yes, I'm 100% against the bailouts. - TheSkunkMonkey, on 12/18/2008, -0/+5If they worked for free they would be classified as volunteers. You can't volunteer at a for-profit company and you can't treat your volunteers like employees. The old AOL/Volunteers lawsuit made that issue very clear.
By accepting a $1 annual salary they are jumping though a huge loophole to avoid taxes and gain positive PR because most people don't see the other benefits they get, like stock options, bonuses, private jets, limos, stays at the company condo in the South Pacific, etc. - scorpioX, on 12/18/2008, -0/+5Very true. Sell a million in stock options and pay 15% capital gains tax. Or, take a million dollar salary and pay 35%+ in income tax. Not a hard decision.
- cloudberries, on 12/18/2008, -0/+5It's the effect of their bulging egos
- HHUK, on 12/18/2008, -1/+5I'd work for $0.01 if they gave me a private jet and all the benefits.
- mOdQuArK, on 12/18/2008, -0/+3These would be the hugely successful companies that are desperate for bailouts by the taxpayers? Those hugely successful companies?
- Elranzer, on 12/18/2008, -0/+3I like the part where the $1 salary is to dodge taxes.
- bc289, on 12/18/2008, -0/+3The comments all focus on how rich these people are, and how little it actually means for them to be getting $1. I agree mostly in that it is more a gesture than anything else, but it shouldn't be underestimated. Owning stock rather than getting paid a stable yearly salary is a huge difference in incentives for the CEO, and it is by no means guaranteed income. All those options are down 30-40% in value in the last several months alone.
- rune420, on 12/18/2008, -0/+3They can even skip the first step, and liquidate the options directly.
- lollercauster, on 12/18/2008, -2/+5They're ***** CEOs. Why the hell would you expect them to be poor? They didn't become successful/attain power to have a low standard of living.
- kingatrock, on 12/18/2008, -1/+4" to keep you alive while you generate profit for the owners." Laughed to that line, direct and to the point!
- StevieJanowski, on 04/02/2009, -2/+5Grinning bastard! (in a good way of course)
- rkho, on 12/18/2008, -0/+3Surely you must mean fries.
In before "Don't call me Shirley." - Jerk, on 12/18/2008, -1/+4But if the stock isn't worth ***** (presumably because the company isn't doing well), those stock packages don't mean much, do they? If the company does well, they do well, that's how it should be.
- akawraith, on 12/18/2008, -1/+4to the dollar shop!
- rolf, on 12/18/2008, -1/+3"who the CEO presumably plays golf/etc."
That's not how it really works, golf doesn't get you that far unless you're Tiger Woods. The board of directors are usually CEOs of other companies. The CEO of previously mentioned example company, sits on several of those boards.
It becomes a collective, scratch-my-back, I'll scratch yours system. - DrewPeacock, on 12/18/2008, -1/+3Bah, a 1/3 of America's GDP is already sent to the government for the express purpose of being wasted... so I'm totally down with cheating the government out of tax money.
- SuperMoses, on 12/18/2008, -1/+3Hey Rick Wagoner, are you willing to only get paid as much as Watanabe, the CEO of Toyota? No? That greedy eh.. than fail you must.
- geekboy88, on 12/18/2008, -1/+3Why not work for free? Why do they need a dollar for?
- cloudberries, on 12/18/2008, -0/+2It's mostly just a smoke screen
"Look how generous I am, I've decided I'm not going to get a salary this year to show how I'm just like the common man! Oh, but I should also mention I'm going to be getting a huge salary this year, so it's all a bit redundant" - inactive, on 12/18/2008, -0/+2"who can't find their asses with two hands"
Sorry for being off topic but i found that abnormally humorous. - omgwtflawl, on 12/18/2008, -1/+3I think you are getting the "owners" of the company and the "management" of the company mixed up. The management might own a decent chunk of the stock between them, but they probably own much less then the owners.
- PWNE, on 12/18/2008, -1/+3I forgot, didn't Jobs still get his money from a *****-ton of Apple stock? Is that how the others on the list are doing it now?
- charlietuna, on 12/18/2008, -1/+3CEOs are not owners, they are employees. Keep that in mind. Beyond that minor detail they act like kings and the shareholders rarely punish them. You are right to point out that the dollar salary is a red herring and I am sure they are either deferring the other 1.99 million for next year, or they are hiding the difference in stock options or bonuses.
- kingatrock, on 12/18/2008, -0/+2None of our business? Billions of OUR dollars given to these failures begging on their knees in public for federal assistance (a huge bailout since they FAIL at their industry, makes it our business.
- kingatrock, on 12/18/2008, -0/+2I assume the ceo's that do the $1 gimmick are safe with liquidating a small amount of their millions of shares to live comfortably. The tiny companies that are doing this as a desperation move, usually don't last long anyhow.
- kobescoresagain, on 12/18/2008, -0/+2None of these guys is truly make $1. They still bring home millions in extras. When your company pays for everything, anyone can live on $1.
- swollentiki, on 12/18/2008, -0/+2Stock options are listed in SEC filings which means it's public record.
- swollentiki, on 12/18/2008, -0/+1The shareholders are not the general public. Only those that own stock in the company are shareholders, hence why they are called "shareholders", because they "share" the company with other people.
- ren1999, on 12/19/2008, -0/+1Senator Bob Corker (Republican Tennessee) called for United Auto Workers to take a pay cut and for car companies to lay-off a bunch of them, but the senator didn't mention once about capping executive salaries. A few million per executive does matter. I say we cap executive salaries for all U.S. companies. When they don't do a good job, they shouldn't get bonuses or severance pay if they should abandon the company.
"Ford's new CEO, Alan Mulally, got $27.8 million in salary and bonus in his first few months on the job, including an $18.5 million signing bonus."
By Sharon Silke Carty, USA TODAY - inactive, on 12/19/2008, -0/+1Anyone that really believes that these CEOs will get only $1 a year also believed that the $700 Billion would go to buy up the toxic assets Wall Street banks had. Funny, when the banks came to Washington, they told Congress that if they didn't buy up these toxic assets they would have gone out of business. I guess they lied to Congress because they didn't use the money to get rid of these toxic assets and they still have them on their books and it hasn't forced these banks out of business. None of that $700 Billion have gone to what it was meant for.
- dotRoot, on 12/18/2008, -1/+2The article said he has lots of stock options, and that Apple gave him a company jet, in which they pay him to use it. That's the loop-hole. The article said in 2007, he earned around $700,000 for the plane use alone.
- inactive, on 12/19/2008, -0/+1what a load of *****. I would gladly trade my salary for his friggin stock options and tax shelters.
- bc289, on 12/18/2008, -0/+1yeah I mean they are still earning money in other ways, but the $1 salary shouldn't be underestimated completely. There is a difference between owning stock options and between earning a stable $10m paycheck every year. Having all of your income from stock options (and note that it is only income if the stock grows each year) means you have a much more vested interest in the company as a whole.
- winmywii, on 12/18/2008, -1/+2The share holders are the general public.
- PluT0, on 12/20/2008, -0/+1its just tax slip act :D
- Trini2daBone, on 12/18/2008, -0/+1Why do they all look like they are in a fishbowl?
- MoneyStriker, on 12/24/2008, -0/+1Tax hole =D
- CandidateZero, on 12/20/2008, -0/+1The idea that a CEO doing an outstanding job at leading his company (like Jobs) is somehow virtuous by not being monetarily compensated is ridiculous. The Google guys SHOULD get rich, which they are despite their $1 salaries.
But others, like the AIG *****-ups, should have their bank accounts drained. - Metasquares, on 12/18/2008, -0/+1"these corporate leaders are hardly in the poor house."
So you won't be satisfied until they are?
It's one thing to say they don't deserve ridiculous wages but quite another to say they don't deserve anything at all. - rowlodge, on 12/18/2008, -0/+1yeah,sure, i can see them saying, "can i have another bowl please?"
- publiclurker, on 12/19/2008, -0/+1Those that manage to destroy an entire company certainly don't deserve anything.
-
Show 51 - 68 of 68 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is