Slashdot Mirror


Google Founders Cut Salaries to $1

GeneralCern writes "MSNBC Reports that Google founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin, and CEO Eric Schmidt all slashed their salaries to $1 last year. Since you do not have to pay FICA, Medicare, or income taxes on the capital gains associated with stock sales, they stand to substantially decrease their tax burden. Is this a breach of the company's "do no evil" mission statement, or just an example of people who love their jobs so much they don't need to be paid to go to work?" Update: 04/09 13:11 GMT by H :And don't trust the above tax lines; it all depends on how sales are done; moreover when you are worth X amount with stock, I suspect the "tax burden" of what is, relatively speaking, a salary that's small compared to networth isn't a substantial impact. Sorry folks; poor story.

19 of 652 comments (clear)

  1. What does it matter? by cowboy76Spain · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They will get paid by stock options and alike, paying much less taxes for the same income... anyway, I think it is more a PR stunt ("we work because we are fierce of our product") than any other thing...

    --
    Why can't /. have a rich-text editor? Editing your own HTML is so XXth century.
  2. Doing less evil by Green+Salad · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Paying less taxes is funding less evil. What more can one say?

  3. Ridiculous by m101 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What a ridiculous post. How could you possibly draw an association between minimizing personal income tax and Google turning 'evil'.

  4. Re:"do no evil" from a company that patents algori by sammykrupa · · Score: 5, Insightful

    When the companies "company" is based on those algorithms how can you not patent them!

  5. Blame The Government by mikeplokta · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's just one of the many idiocies that arise from taxing "unearned" income less than "earned" income. Income from all sources should be taxed the same, to avoid giving people reason to come up with complicated schemes to move their income between categories. But given that the tax system sucks, you can't blame people for taking advantage of that fact.

  6. Geez by Megane · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Someone has to find the bad in everything. First we get people complaining about C*Os and their multimillion dollar salaries and comparable golden parachutes. Now we get some who reduce their salary to $1 (not the first to do this, by the way) meaning that their income is totally defined by the performance of the company, and someone whines that they're dodging taxes.

    Quit your whining, people. Oh, and look up the "Minimum Alternative Tax" while you're at it. It may have been a good idea at first, but it's getting to be a real mess these days.

    --
    #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
  7. Re:They are a corporation. Profits"doing no evil" by Chicane-UK · · Score: 3, Insightful

    They are a company. Their sole point of existance is to make money. They aren't a charity FFS.

    They have employees that need to be paid, and they have probably enormous bills that need to be paid. Its going to be in their interest to make money.

    I think as companies go, they are pretty generous.. they still get respect from me.

    --
    "Hey! Unless this is a nude love-in, get the hell off my property!!"
  8. Re:"do no evil" from a company that patents algori by 0x461FAB0BD7D2 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    To Google, evil means ruining the web experience for its customers and users. Given that Google defines evil as such, it is doing a marvelous job of living up to its promise.

    Evil is a subjective concept. To you, and others, perhaps, patents are wrong. But to Google, the sole criterion for evil is the user experience. Therefore, patent issues do not apply.

  9. Re:How stupid are you? Or are you a troll? by rueba · · Score: 5, Insightful

    THANK YOU!!

    Amazing how many people are willing to leap to the "GOOGLE IS EVIL" conclusion without thinking it through.

    (1) These guys are all billionaires. Saving a few hundred thousand dollars on taxes is very unlikely to be their main motivation.

    (2) Their absolute income will still go DOWN, regardless of how much they save in taxes. It would be a pretty poor move to quit your job just so you could save on taxes!

    I think they are just saying, "Hey, we're rich. We don't really need this money so screw it."

    Not really a big deal, but definitely not evil either.

    --
    The only reason all cover-ups appear to fail is that you never hear about the ones that succeed.
  10. Re:Minimum wage? by jonadab · · Score: 3, Insightful

    > Does the US have a minumum wage?

    We have a minimum wage for hourly employees, but there's a loophole: salaried
    employees (those paid by the month or by the year irrespective of how many
    hours they work) are, as near as I can determine, completely exempt from it.
    I haven't actually read the law, but it seems that when a formerly hourly
    employee gets promoted to a salaried position, they always seem to suddenly
    go from working 35-39 hours a week (because after 40 you have to pay an hourly
    employee half again his regular hourly wage) to more like 60 hours/week once
    they're salaried. *Maybe* this is just employers taking advantage of workers
    who don't know the law well enough to know they can complain, but I suspect
    it's an actual loophole.

    --
    Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
  11. Re:False premise of article poster - capital gains by Motherfucking+Shit · · Score: 3, Insightful
    One *always* pays taxes on capitals gains from stock sales. Is it me or does the article poster spin from the left and ignore facts ?
    Is it me or does the right always try to blame the left, even if there's not a fucking issue to place blame about?

    Talk about false premises, your statement assumes that the Google guys are going to be selling their stock sometime soon. If you'd RTFA, you'd know that Page and Brin earned 150K a year, and Schmidt earned 250K/year. Cutting their salaries to $1 does mean a substantial tax savings, as the poster indicated.

    Not that it really matters when you're worth what these guys are worth. I think they're doing it as a statement, not to save a few inconsequential thousand dollars in taxes.

    Your attempt to politicize the issue is really scummy.
    --
    "BSD: Free as in speech. Linux: Free as in beer. Windows 10: Free as in herpes." --Man On Pink Corner in #52607549.
  12. Re:Not exactly false premise by Lawrence_Bird · · Score: 3, Insightful

    yes and the poster has their head up their ass too. Read
    the article. Two were making 150k the other 250k a year.
    Given the large wealth they have in the stock do you think
    they really give a rats about 60K in taxes?

    Does the poster think the same thing about Steve Jobs?

    When high ranking execs take no salary it is to say to the
    shareholders 'we only do well for ourself if we do well for
    you'. The could easily have turned around and said the
    company is a success we should be getting paid at least
    1M in salary a year, sucking cash out of the company instead
    of the stock market.

    Slashdot posters need to spend less time at democraticunderground.com and dailykos

  13. Re:They are a corporation. Profits"doing no evil" by daviddennis · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Could you describe the things Google has done that are not "nice"?

    I haven't seen any Google products that aren't pretty darn impressive, and free for use by the public.

    Yes, they make their money off advertising, and that's great. It gives us free toys and advertisers get exposure, just like old-fashioned over the air TV.

    What's wrong with making money by providing great services? If they lose money, they can't provide the services anymore :-(.

    D

  14. Re:"do no evil" from a company that patents algori by TheoMurpse · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm sorry, it's doing evil. How can you patent a mathematical expression? That's like patenting a statement of truth! I outright denounce any patenting of mathematical expressions, which includes, but is not limited to, encryption methods and software. You shouldn't be able to patent a philosophical expression. What if "I think therefore I am" had been patented by Descartes?

  15. Re:What is Slashdot now? by chrome · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yup.

    So far this year we've had lots of advertisements for Thinkgeek, fud about google at every turn, fud about microsoft, stupid stories that the GPL is going to require companies to pay money ... um ...

    You know, I am one of the first people who used/read slashdot. You can tell, you know, by the 4 digit user number.

    Slashdot is sucking. Hard. Its been bad for at least 2-3 years now. Its not getting any better. Regurgitating stories that are from The Register/Engaged/Ars Technica/etc is NOT news for nerds! Its not even news when its 4 DAYS OLD!. If I wanted a syndicated news site, I'd go to one of the 5000 that are out there, or just do an RSS feed of what I want, NOT have it delayed by Slashdot - with editorials that twist the story or even miss the point.

    COME ON. /. can do better than this.

    Agree with parent 100%.

  16. Re:"do no evil" from a company that patents algori by Rick+the+Red · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The way it's spent, sending money to the US Government is evil, so Google's "no evil" policy
    requires them to avoid as much tax as possible.

    --
    If all this should have a reason, we would be the last to know.
  17. The Objectivists are right. by TrebleJunkie · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You guys *are* a bunch of looters.

    --

    Ed R.Zahurak

    You know, oblivion keeps looking better every day.

  18. Re:"do no evil" from a company that patents algori by MooseGuy529 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How is keeping earnings evil? Everybody, yourself included, seems to think that any attempt by Google to make money is evil. You are wrong. To be evil is to do things like run ugly ads on your webmail and charge people money to remove them, or, worse, to accept payment for changes in PageRank. If they can find a legitimate and doable way to increase their profits, it's a good thing, because they have more money to fund stuff and their shareholders are happy. Pleasing your shareholders is not evil unless it is at the expense of your customers.

    --

    Tired of free iPod sigs? Subscribe to my blacklist

  19. Re:They are a corporation. Profits"doing no evil" by nathanh · · Score: 5, Insightful
    They are a company. Their sole point of existance is to make money. They aren't a charity FFS.

    What is it with you Americans and this dogged obsession with "companies only exist to make money"?

    Making money isn't the sole point of a company. Companies exist to fulfil their owners objectives as expressed by the mission statement. A side product of fulfilling those objectives is to make money, because an unprofitable company won't fulfil the objectives for very long.

    Money is a means to an end, not the end in and of itself. Companies exist to make cars, build furniture, produce electricity, sell food, provide services, and literally 1000s of other purposes. Making money is part of that process, but it is not the actual objective.

    When CEOs forget the company's objectives and pursue making money, that's when a company fails. Witness what's happening to HP; Carly tried to make more profit at the expense of the companies objectives. Thanks to her, HP might as well be dead. All the brilliance that once embodied "all things HP" has vanished. They are now a hollow shell of their former selves; little more than an expensive kind of Dell. Companies that focus on their objectives make money without even trying; look at Google.

    For an even better example, look at Apple. In the mid-90s, during the absence of Steve, Apple lost sight of their objective; building the best personal computers. They started to produce some godawful crap like the PowerMac 4400. They wanted to make more money by producing a "cheap Mac" and selling to a larger audience. Combined with a whole lot of other boneheaded schemes to "make money quick", Apple almost went bankrupt. That's because the guys in charge never understood what Apple was all about.

    Steve comes back and reinstates his vision of producing the best personal computers. Bam, Apple is back in the black and the industry darling again. Is Steve a brainiac? No. Is he just lucky? No. He simply knows to focus on the company's core objectives and that's why Steve's companies always succeed. Whether he's at Pixar or Apple, he pursues the objectives first, knowing full well that the money will come after.

    Stop pursuing the money. Counterintuitively that's not how you make money! Make a great product, or provide a great service, and money will come naturally. That's how great companies and great people manage to succeed.