What is Digg?88 Comments
- fnorre, on 10/12/2007, -3/+41"Did Jobs invent everything???"
Welcome to Digg - IvanB, on 10/12/2007, -1/+38I'm happy the article actually talked of the multiple shares they own.
- EmileVictor, on 10/12/2007, -6/+41Nothing evil about it at all. It's called being smart.
- MAdaXe42, on 10/12/2007, -0/+34Indeed - I run my own business - my salaray is £5 per year. Dividends are far, far more tax efficient.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+31You get taxed on income and capital games, not on net worth. Otherwise if you had $100 in an account, you'd be taxed on it every year. I suspect getting a $1 year salary is tax efficient...
- Spankov, on 10/12/2007, -2/+29"And Steve Jobs is a genius for thinking of the whole 1$ salary thing. Really helped the whole "think different" campaign"
Did Jobs invent everything???
He wasn't the first to do this. - Tordenflesk, on 10/12/2007, -1/+23"Google CEO, Eric Schmidt, and co-founders stick with $1 salary"
So, everything will just stay the same? how newsworthy
/sarcasm - Y0tsuya, on 10/12/2007, -2/+19When your stock options are worth billions, you don't need a salary. This is a gimmick a la Steve Jobs.
- basket548, on 10/12/2007, -4/+18@hendzen
Would they not have unrestricted use of the company's assets if they drew a salary? I think the real point of the $1 salary is to express confidence in the company. Yeah, they all have millions (billions?) in stock, but that doesn't mean anything if the share price falls. This is certainly not passive income - these guys work hard to make sure that the stock price keeps rising. As far as the perks, well, every major executive gets these, and the vast majority of them get paid as well. - nthpro, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15I wonder how this effects there taxes? Do you think they get taxed less because they get paid a dollar a year or just the same because they are worth billions?
- Moocat, on 10/12/2007, -4/+16@mastersmatty
If you've ever used a road, free medical service to save your life, stop lights, police, or any number of other things the government pays for, yes, your tax money is being used on things you get back in return. Now that's not to say the government doesn't spend money on some stupid *****, and some things that are wasteful or things I disagree with. The purpose of our setup however is to allow people to vote in those who will spend our money on things they believe will help the overall common good. If you still disagree with someone in power, write a letter. If they don't listen, get all your friends to write letters and call as well. If that doesn't work, form a group and shout it from the rooftops, eventually someone is going to hear you.
It's not a perfect system, but we don't live in a perfect world. Try improving upon it instead of arguing about and try to see the other side now and then. - etnu, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14Capital Gains are only going to yield a lower tax bill if you hold onto the assets for at least 2 years. Otherwise, capital gains are treated the same as income and are taxed at the appropriate rate.
$1 salaries are ***** anyway, since the executives at any given company are always paid hundreds (if not thousands) of times the average employee's pay in stock options and grants (exception here for Whole Foods).
The business world is totally ***** at this point in time. Incompetent CEOs who aren't worth a tenth of their pay are raking in 9 figure salaries while their shareholders see the value of their stock plummet. The best performing CEOs (as measured in terms of business performance, since that's what stock holders and board members care about) make, on average, 30-40% less than the worst performing at fortune 500 companies. Most of these companies won't even consider replacing their leadership because their boards are usually run by the same people who are in executive positions.
The average CEO gets paid 430 times the average non-management salary. In 1980 the average was only 40 times! CEOs today sure as ***** aren't making 10x as much money for the shareholders, and employees sure as ***** aren't 1/10th as productive as they used to be.
If you want a surefire way to destroy the rapid progress rates that the world has seen, this is the way to do it. We're on the road back to the elimination of the middle class. - chaersi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12Only the good things, apparently. All the bad stuff was invented by Bill Gates.
/s - sorrow, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11...or maybe Steve Jobs was copying Martin Luther King Jr. who did this with the SCLC "way back when" -- but he did it so he could have health insurance through the program.
- id34, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8This shouldn't be on the front page... its not like they are living on a dollar.. move on.
- basket548, on 10/12/2007, -7/+14@nthpro
there != their
effects != affects - orlyfactor, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Wow, those guys must be struggling and on welfare. They are such good humanitarians, sacrificing SO much so that others can have more.
- catalysis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7They have already sold some stock and they are billionaires. A billion dollars is enough money for at least 1000 people to never have to work again. I think they will do just fine.
- right75, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Who gives a crap. Am I supposed to feel good that they are not taking a salary? If so, why?
- Moocat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6They don't go around the legal system either, they are still required to pay tax on dividends and any money they get from selling stocks. The only thing they don't have to pay for is income tax on their annual salary since it's only $1. It's symbolic mostly, and they are still contributing toward the same fund, just in a different manner.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Think Greedy (tm)
- MasterSmatty, on 10/12/2007, -12/+17@Dickbutterworth
The government did nothing to earn the money, of which you claim that google employees are not paying enough . Why should they pay the government anything if they can find a way not to? After all, you and other taxpayers will pay for everything that they will not. This is the end game of a socialistic tax system. This is wrong? Are taxes patriotic? If they are, then is it more patriotic to pay more in taxes than someone who pays less?(progressive tax code - ie bill gates is more patriotic than anyone else if this is true) No? Then perhaps - "Taxes are the bill we pay for a civilized society". I love that line. If this is the case, then shouldn't areas(countries) that have higher tax rates be more civilized(less crime, violence, more order) than areas(countries) that have lower ones?( Also, what does my paying for government pork(www.cagw.org) have to do with an orderly and civilized society?) There isn't any correlation? Then what 'right' does the government have to Schmidt's money? If they have a right to it then why not take it all? They only have a right to some of it? How much? Who decides? If society or the government decides then can society/government decide to take away anything else that belongs to him? After all if they have a right to some(remember some is however much they decide it is) of his belongings then where do they stop? Can't they take(his share of) Google? His house? His car? Your Car? Your house? To say that society( a group of individuals) can determine how much of your belongings they will take for their needs isn't that tantamount to stealing?(even if it is done in broad daylight)
When income taxes were first put in place, government told the people it wouldn't affect them...it would only affect the rich. Which is ridiculous and obviously a lie because if you don't have a right to one man's personal property(ie his money) why would you have a right to another's just because he has more? They(Google inventors) came up with one of the best inventions for the best technology of our time and they deserve to keep what they have earned. I applaud them for paying as little as they legally can. - Darcy, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9Your test was successful, congrats.
- pegisys, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7@skyshock21 with a one dollar salary they aren't paying much of that either
These guys, that make millions of dollars, go around the system so that they can avoid taxes and leave all the taxes that need to be paid(bitch and moan all you want they aren't going anywhere, and someone has to pay them) to the less fortunate people, the people that need more of their money to survive
I can understand that people don't agree with some of the government programs, I don't agree with them all either, but there are a few social programs that are needed. Yes they are abused sometimes but the last study I saw put it around 5-10% abuse rate which isn't that bad. - libertao, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Am I the only one who thinks this is a great alternative to CEOs who get multi-million dollar bonuses on top of their guaranteed salary while the company and stocks (and shareholders) flounder? These guys on the other hand only make money if the company does well. I love google.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4This is an outrage! I thought with Democrats in control, there'd be no more injustices like this! There's no way these Google guys are worth less that $7.45 per hour! The government needs to step in and do something!
- byronm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Pretty easy. Some of the stocks are already PAR value - that means not an option but a cash asset so they sell these off and fun a large account (hundreds of millions of dolalrs). Eventually they spend themselves stupid in many cases and have to excercise future options for more cash, but that is the simple way.
Some companies restrict the sales of stocks so they give there C level execs and interest free loan for a few hundred million. That is a real scam since it doesn't show up as salary at all and you can live off a few hundred million pretty darn easily and there is more often than not, no plan for payback. Usually backed/guaranteed by stocks or other assets. scam of the century. - tarmithius, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@basket548
They've already cashed out several billion worth of options since going public, it is not like they would lose much if the stock price dropped.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/05/09/MNGSVIO7NG1.DTL - dafragsta, on 10/12/2007, -0/+45-10%? Thats an arbitrary number. I believe in a tax system, but I also believe in accountability on both ends. We are held accountable by threat of bad credit, liens, wage garnishes (mmm, garnish) and jail time if we cheat on our taxes. If the government cheats on spending them, who is held accountable? If the myopic views of a few old crusty shallow white men of great means are the views that dictate how that money is spent, I think the system is broken but should be fixed. The sad reality is that our government is set up on a system of checks and balances, and we take that to actually mean something. Let me tell you, it doesn't. Our check on government is so infrequently polled to keep things going the way the public would like to see them going that congressmen, supreme court judges and executive appointed positions know that our anger can be curbed since we can only exercise it during election years. Poor performance is never disciplined and most offenders don't even get a slightly humiliating slap on the wrist. Watch the proceedings on "Scooter" now that he's been convicted. I bet there is a pardon in there somewhere. Who pulled the trigger on that anyway?
At the end of the day, we give these jokers our money to spend. They use it against us. - weiran, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5madaxe42: why not pay yourself upto the 32K cut off for the low tax band, as you have to pay low tax for dividends anyway. Infact the first £4K of your salary is tax free, hoorar!
- BigSlacker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I lose respect for people that do this kind of thing. He's making a mint and this is just an accounting column shuffle purely for PR. It shows a disrespect for the intelligence of stockholders and customers. Does anyone really think he's only getting a $1 a year out of the company?
- SansSociety, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3This talk of CEO's being grossly overpaid is hogwash. People at the top in any commerce field in America gets paid grossly disproportionately to the minions at the bottom, and this just isn't CEO's. The income of top Investment Bankers and Attorneys can rival that of your average CEO. In contrast, being an I banker or an Attorney at a top firm is much less demanding publicly. A banker short-changing the firm in a deal has much less public scrutiny. And Attorneys? We already consider them scum, so we don't even pay attention to Them.
I'm not a big fan of Corporate Executives, but we'll always be bitching about them regardless so we should look at it from different points of view. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Surry to hear aboot your low income. Hope you get some extra spending money from your mum.
- nOOBert, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4btw for those bitching about them working around the laws... Something like the Top 5% of the richest people/companies in the US pay more then 50% of what the government gets in taxes.
- ArizonaKid, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5As a stock holder, I would take umbrage with a corporate 767 being used for leasure; however, that article is not accurate. That story is old and has appeared in the past several times before accurate information was finally digested.
You can check out the article:
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05308/600836.stm
And the article quotes, "Mr. Page says he and Mr. Brin bought the plane themselves and will use it for personal travel. He says there's no plan for Google to reimburse the duo for its costs. A Google spokesman says the plane has no formal connection with the company." - drilldown, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6I suppose that makes them eligible for welfare/well-care in their home state on top of not paying much in the way of taxes unless the stocks suddenly explode with capital gains. The government will have to pay them to survive. Priceless.
- Rethcir, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Maybe I'll do this too. But Craigslist won't let me search for rentals with $.03/month rent.
- d17182, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2If we had the FairTax instead of the income tax, rich business owners wouldn't be able to get around of the system this way.
- raynar, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Uncle Sam gets his share. Dont think that some geeks are going to beat the system by having a $1 salary, and a billion dollar company.
- serpentor, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4"Uncle Sam gets his share."
A much smaller share. If they sell their shares after 12 months, their tax rate is only 15%, or less than half the top tax bracket if they were paid in cash. - hendzen, on 10/12/2007, -11/+13Free, unrestricted use of all of Google's assets, as well as thousands if not millions of stock options more than make up for their salary. The whole 1$ salary is a genius ploy by executives. Why get taxed on income when you can get taxed less on passive income/capitol gains from stocks?
Also, Google gets awesome PR.
Oh, and having a private jet that you can go anywhere with, as well as the security that you can just quit your job, and live a life of pure bliss and luxury on the stocks you have, while leaving others to make your stocks worth more.
Lucky bastards.
And Steve Jobs is a genius for thinking of the whole 1$ salary thing. Really helped the whole "think different" campaign. - TubaTechno, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3"The average CEO gets paid 430 times the average non-management salary. In 1980 the average was only 40 times! CEOs today sure as ***** aren't making 10x as much money for the shareholders, and employees sure as ***** aren't 1/10th as productive as they used to be."
The main problem is CEO's (some of them) aren't being paid according to their performance.
However, increasing shareholder's value isn't the reason why CEO's make more. CEO's have a lot more legal responsibilities than they did in the 80's. You're comparing numbers and years without taking into account all the laws that were passed governing corporate roles. It's a common mistake for those who don't know any better. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7"If you've ever used a road, free medical service to save your life, stop lights, police, or any number of other things the government pays for, yes, your tax money is being used on things you get back in return"
Those aren't paid for by income tax, those are paid for by state and local taxes. He's not saying go 100% consumption on everything. You should maybe read up about where your Federal income tax money goes, and I think you might have a change of opinion. - neom, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I just reported my $10 income this year to revenue canada.. yey deductions.
- G-RaZoR, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3stocks are considered capital gains. When doing a tax return, the income would be considered the difference between the buy and sell. (when the person cashes it in). If the stocks were to actually go down, and lose money, it would be considered a lost (obviously). If this is the person's only form of income (other than the dollar which does practically nothing to the return), then the person could technically have a negative AGI (Adjusted Gross Income).
Long story short, the money from capital gains is STILL taxable income, therefore subject to the same tax.
If the person receives a paycheck for $100,000 a year, he or she pays the tax for that $100k. If they receive $100k in stock, he or she has to pay THE SAME tax. Usually in this case, someone would have to have a lot of deductions to get the tax down (or else they would be owing a ton of money to the IRS). - AbortedFetus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Most people that do this earn so much money anyway that they end up contributing lots of money to charities anyway - a lot more than what would be taken out by Income Tax. So I applaud them for sticking it to our greedy, wastful, crooked government.
- flukierdonut, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It truly is time for a reform lol
- deviouster, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Also, you must remember. If Google fell through, or they lost their jobs, or whatever the hell could possibly happen... these guys would NOT have a problem finding a hell of a job!
- MDrake, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2This is really smart, created by Steve or the tooth fairy or whomever. Like someone mentioned, you are taxed on capital gaines/losses. So for example, if they were to sell $1bil worth of their stock, they would be taxed on it because it is a gain. Also, by taking a $1 salary, they are taxed maybe .20 cents for their salary for the year. So instead of having a massive salary and little stock, they keep their money within shareholdings and other investments to where it is much more tax efficient, rather than pissing it away to the man. :)
- nOOBert, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2My heart doesnt bleed for the rich. However money doesnt solve anything. In fact the more of it you have the more problem you have to deal with. Money is one of those things that can be great when you have it but also has a pretty bad dark side when abused. In fact most marriages these break up over money then anything else.
-
Show 51 - 85 of 85 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is