HardOCP News
[H] News
- Joined
- Dec 31, 1969
- Messages
- 0
I'm not for sure on this one but I would assume that, if you had stocks worth $20 billion, it would probably be pretty easy to get by on a one dollar salary for a year. 
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Google Pays CEO A Buck, 4 Other Execs Get $124M
- Thread starter HardOCP News
- Start date
Chunder
Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2011
- Messages
- 519
It's what almost every CEO truly deserves on this planet. Very few do any real work. Pass the massive savings onto company research or into employee salaries.
Maplehamwich
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2011
- Messages
- 1,539
Executive compensation packages are designed around tax evasion in these cases. Usually, "income from other sources" is taxed at a lower rate than salaried or employment income. Investment income falls under the "income from other taxes."
ITT: People who don't realize CEOs are paid in stock options so you can be sure they put all their effort in bettering the value of the company.
If they don't get stock options, they are "paid" the opportunity to increase their stock values by their own decisions. This is usually only the case in CEOs who already owned a huge percentage because they built the company (Google's duo, for example).
If they don't get stock options, they are "paid" the opportunity to increase their stock values by their own decisions. This is usually only the case in CEOs who already owned a huge percentage because they built the company (Google's duo, for example).
I'm sure it is not the case with these guys, but stock incentive can be a double edged sword. While it rewards executives who are in it for the long term as they see their wealth grow, less scrupulous executives may see their stock as more short term incentives and make decisions that effect the immediate more than the long run just to see their stock rise and then bail.
Again, that isn't a big risk for these guys who are most definitely in it for the long run.
Again, that isn't a big risk for these guys who are most definitely in it for the long run.
Unexploded
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2005
- Messages
- 265
Excellent point. And probably one of the biggest problems in publicly traded companies. I've lost count of how many boneheaded moves our various CEOs have made over the years--just to bump the stock up short-term to get their bonuses/unload their options. A year or two of this, and then it's off to mess up another company's long-term health.
Peter moore is a man that will not think twice about cutting off limbs if it is bleeding money.
That is what he has done the other guy built a huge tower that was ready to fall at any minute he cut it off. Nobody should be surprised if you joined EA you know it could come at anytime so you join at your own risk.
That is what he has done the other guy built a huge tower that was ready to fall at any minute he cut it off. Nobody should be surprised if you joined EA you know it could come at anytime so you join at your own risk.
Wrecked Em
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2004
- Messages
- 8,169
Stupid question :
Where does the stock they're awarded come from? Is it simply generated, diluting the pool, or does it exists somewhere before the exec earns it?
Where does the stock they're awarded come from? Is it simply generated, diluting the pool, or does it exists somewhere before the exec earns it?
The company lists the purchase of employee stock as an expense so even though additional shares can be generated, they're treated the same way as compensation.
Typo; purchase of stock should be issue of stock.
Marxist class warfare does nothing for society. As long as a corporation does not engage in crony capitalism or illegal activity and is continuously growing/expanding; society is benefited.
Rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer is a cliche term politicians use to seize weak hearts and grab votes. They paint the illusion that they are fighting against evil forces to demagogue their way to office.
CEO pay is irrelevant, it is all a matter of perspective. Those hearts that are easily swayed by marxism will be filled with class envy, those hearts filled with liberty and a drive to have earned prosperity will be inspired and think one day they can climb that ladder and be the CEO of their own company. The individuals who have the latter perspective will always achieve more happiness than the former.
Rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer is a cliche term politicians use to seize weak hearts and grab votes. They paint the illusion that they are fighting against evil forces to demagogue their way to office.
CEO pay is irrelevant, it is all a matter of perspective. Those hearts that are easily swayed by marxism will be filled with class envy, those hearts filled with liberty and a drive to have earned prosperity will be inspired and think one day they can climb that ladder and be the CEO of their own company. The individuals who have the latter perspective will always achieve more happiness than the former.
Did you copy and paste that from something Ayn Rand wrote? Or just some other generic propaganda source? Rich getting richer and poor getting poorer is only a cliche because it's been the trend since WWII.
Some of the comments here are so funny, and telling of how little people understand about executive compensation.
Larry and Sergey didn't get stock options. They didn't get stock. They didn't get the use of a company car, or plane, or house. What they got was exactly $1. This is all publicly disclosed (as it is with all public companies), and anyone can look it up (google EDGAR). This isn't some crazy tax scheme, and it is very common for executives that are also large shareholders.
The reason they do it is because the goodwill they earn from shareholders by not taking any compensation often outweighs the money they would have otherwise be paid. The theory being that shareholders appreciate the execs not taking compensation, which pushes up the price of the stock. Because they own so much stock, their wealth is increased much more this way than if they took a salary. And at the end of the day, because of how wealthy they are, they just don't need the compensation.
Larry and Sergey didn't get stock options. They didn't get stock. They didn't get the use of a company car, or plane, or house. What they got was exactly $1. This is all publicly disclosed (as it is with all public companies), and anyone can look it up (google EDGAR). This isn't some crazy tax scheme, and it is very common for executives that are also large shareholders.
The reason they do it is because the goodwill they earn from shareholders by not taking any compensation often outweighs the money they would have otherwise be paid. The theory being that shareholders appreciate the execs not taking compensation, which pushes up the price of the stock. Because they own so much stock, their wealth is increased much more this way than if they took a salary. And at the end of the day, because of how wealthy they are, they just don't need the compensation.
This is EXACTLY why they do it.
I really don't think you know how companies work.
It has? Since WWII individuals in this nation have actually seen their $$$ levels decrease? And this is particularly because the rich are taking all the money?
The biggest delusion being pulled over the eyes of the poor-middle class. This is precisely how the rich stay rich, by convincing everyone else that they too have an honest chance at obtaining it. Bravo sir.
How is it a delusion? What obstacles are in the way of individuals who aspire for greater things? If you are born poor or in the middle class, you are fated to remain there? Please state the obstacles placed in front of individuals by the rich in order to deceive them.
ManofGod
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2007
- Messages
- 12,864
Cool, great way to avoid paying those CEO income taxes. Chances are, he still is rolling in it with his money in tax free shelters or overseas. I do not have a problem with it per say but, I thought the rich were not paying there far share? /sarcasm off
Chances are, he still is rolling in it with his money in tax free shelters or overseas. I do not have a problem with it per say but, I thought the rich were not paying there far share? /sarcasm off
OFaceSIG
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2009
- Messages
- 4,038
Holy shit... there are seriously a bunch of haters and commies in this thread! I am all for CEOs taking a Dollar when they are loaded. However to say "all CEOs" deserve a wage like that. And ALL CEOs are evading taxes and only pay 15% is a false. Most of the wealthy people in this country pay about 45% taxes and the rest of us pay betwen 15-30.
You guys need to take that class warfare shit and GTFO.
You guys need to take that class warfare shit and GTFO.
DeathPrincess
Fully [H]
- Joined
- May 15, 2010
- Messages
- 18,205
They should make it more permanent with marriage or something!
ManofGod
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2007
- Messages
- 12,864
*their fair share. (Darn typos and not paying attention.) I am not complaining about what the person made but just making a point that even those rich who think others need to pay more will do everything they can to pay less themselves. (I would do the same as well as far as paying less, not telling others they need to pay more though.)
UrielDagda
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2004
- Messages
- 2,844
$1 a year salary lets you pay less on some of your capital gains taxes. The rich that are paying the much lower amounts (under 20%) ARE the ones that only net capital gains year in and year out. The ones that make large salaries but don't have huge capital gains are the ones paying more in taxes.
It's the capital gains tax (essentially money that sits in a pile somewhere and attracts more money) that's messed up.
It's the capital gains tax (essentially money that sits in a pile somewhere and attracts more money) that's messed up.
Death-Between-The-St
n00b
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2011
- Messages
- 8
Yes, their purchase power have been on decline since WW2. Why else do you think both parents are often working, in sometimes two-three jobs to make meet ends? Wage and purchasing power level have declined until 1980s, and then remained stagnated or decline a bit further for the next 30 years as cost of living, health expense, school rise by hundred of percent, in some cases even thousands.
Not just simply because of rich taking all of the money but through massive jobs off-shoring, "Reaganomics" of the 80s, mass population increase (illegally or legally or both), all of which serves to depressed the real wages and standard of living among other several severe social consequences (poverty, crimes, destruction of landscape).
This country actually does engage in crony capitalism-it's just not as blatant or obvious as those taking place in Russia. Additionally, this crony capitalism destroys not only from the within America but several other nations as well and create same devastating impacts as those seen here but only of larger magnitude.
Death-Between-The-St
n00b
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2011
- Messages
- 8
Edited-
"have declined since WW2 until 1980, and then remained stagnated.."
"have declined since WW2 until 1980, and then remained stagnated.."
The delusion is built to manipulate the lower classes into voting against their own best interests, by supporting legislation that only benefits the super rich, and hurts themselves, thus keeping the rich rich, and the poor poor. Poor people (and middle class) think that they have an honest chance at becoming a millionaire one day. If this were true then more than a few percent of people would be millionaires.
humor us: what do you make in a year?
I completely agree with crony capitalism and how the cost of living is increasing. The important thing to see is why and how to address it. The demonization of Reaganomics is built on a lie. How can policies who created 300K+ jobs a month be the root cause of our current situation when the last job creation #s were 88K. Additionally the offshoring of jobs is a cliche in order to grab those weak at heart. Jobs moving to other countries is a reality, we are in a global economy; but at the same time we still have jobs being created here. The economy is not a zero sum game. The best example I can give of the success of Reaganomics and how it is demonized is as follows...
Before Reaganomics lets say we had 100 jobs a month and 10 were outsourced. After Reaganomics we have 150 jobs a month and 20 were outsourced. Overall more jobs were created, but due to the sole fact 10 more jobs were outsourced; it opens itself up for demonetization. It is imperative for those who want true liberty and prosperity to swat down those marxists rants as they come. Another example is the exploitation of the gap in $$$ between the wealthy and poor by class warfare propagandists. Before Reaganomics the poorest person had $100 and the richest had $1000 with a gap of $900. Reaganomics increased the wealth of everyone by +10%. Now you have the poorest with $110 and the richest with $1100 and a gap of $990. By sole virtue of expanding the pool of wealth, you will have a greater gap than before. Its mathematics, not greed/evil. The true greed/evil lies in the manipulation through marxism, where cunning politicians can seize power on their own by seizing the hearts of those who do not realize the math behind Reaganomics. Free market enterprise has created more prosperity in the world than totalitarian marxist policies; which have created nothing but misery and poverty.
What legislation, give me examples. I want to know the specific instruments in the power scheme that is deliberately keeping the rich wealthy, the poor on the bottom, and preventing opportunity. What policies exist that prevents a kid growing up in a rural area, with a mom that works at walmart and a dad that welds for a living from having opportunity to be anything. Then tell me the corrective policies necessary in order to allow the kid to have opportunity.
I make about 50K a year. I'm in the Air Force, and I love the freedom and opportunity that exists in this country. It rips me apart to see individuals being manipulated by politicians who use class warfare to instill a culture of dependency and envy in their hearts, and its all for a vote. Then they're left with nothing but food stamps, but its ok because atleast they stuck it to the rich people who did nothing in their life to earn anything, right?
TheFlosser
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2012
- Messages
- 295
Zale, a company cannot continuously expand forever. With full on capitalism, the inevitable result is one with everything and the rest with nothing. We're getting there.
The big problem is how it becomes exponentially easier to make money when you already have money, especially a substantial sum. It leads to a self-perpetuating wealthy class, who also buy their way into our political system and manipulate things to further perpetuate the status of themselves and their families.
This. 10% on investment returns instead of 4 or 5 times more for a large salary.
Tax breaks for the rich
"Over and over again, courts have said that there is nothing sinister in arranging one's affairs as to keep taxes as low as possible. Everybody does so, rich or poor; and all do right, for nobody owes any public duty to pay more than the law demands; taxes are enforce exactions, not voluntary contributions."
Circuit Judge Learned Hand
U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
Circuit Judge Learned Hand
U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals