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.
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
Does the US have a minumum wage?
Can you get done for underpaying yourself, or does the wronged party have to complain to start legal action?
# cat
Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
Now i don't want to be google's next CEO any more.
var sig = function() { sig(); }
Paying less taxes is funding less evil. What more can one say?
It's neither a breech of "do no evil" nor an example of their love of work... it's a legitimate way of avoiding paying tax which is standard practice for business leaders everywhere.
Total non-story; yet completely on message for the nonsense that Slashdot has decended into over the past few years. News for nerds? Barely. A barrage of pointless bollocks? Definitely.
What a ridiculous post. How could you possibly draw an association between minimizing personal income tax and Google turning 'evil'.
Sergey Brin is, according to Forbes, already worth $7.2B. Wouldn't it be great to be so incredibly rich that you did'nt have to worry about personal income ever again?
Anyway, this is PR that's probably worth way more than the salary itself. Steve Jobs does the same thing, IIRC.
When the companies "company" is based on those algorithms how can you not patent them!
Dashboard Widgets
One *always* pays taxes on capitals gains from stock sales. Has nothing to do with salary.
Is it me or does the article poster spin from the left and ignore facts ?
Apple has been evil for a few years.
Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
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.
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; }
The article poster stated that you don't pay FICA tax (another word for social security tax), medicare tax or income tax on stock appreciations. That is completely true and all of those are different than capital gains tax - which is what they would pay based on appreciation in their stock price.
I believe the article poster's premise is that they're becoming ungodly rich because of stock appreciation and that they cut their income to $1 per year to avoid contributing to society in the way that the rest of us do.
If I had to pick a reason, I'd say it's more of a PR stunt to make the Google founders appear frugal (or froogle if you like) and make it seem like the money hasn't gone to their head. Many other CEO-types have done this (including Steve Jobs).
I'm a big tall mofo.
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.
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
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.
i imagine that patent would have expired by now, so that's kinda a moot point :)
ashridah
You guys *are* a bunch of looters.
Ed R.Zahurak
You know, oblivion keeps looking better every day.
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
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.
In the CEO biz, your total compensation is the way you get compared to other CEOs. It appears to be a kind of penis-measuring exercise (female CEOs aside) - after all, does a $20M CEO really work twice as hard as a $10M CEO? The usual justification for big CEO pay is "everyone else does it".
I hope the $1/year salary is their way of saying "we may be a public company, but we aren't going to play those games - we run Google because we want to solve hard problems and make money at it, not so we can wave our paychecks at Yahoo's management and laugh about how small they are."
To a Lisp hacker, XML is S-expressions in drag.
As your lawyer friend said, tax evasion is illegal. Tax avoidance, however, is not only legal it's encouraged -- hell, even the President wants you to pay as little tax as possible (if you're already rich). That's all these Google folks are doing. Fortunately, the law doesn't care if you're rich, even the poor can avoid taxes if they're careful. Back when I was in school and filed a 1040EZ I was able to cut my tax burden at least a little each year; now, with a house to kick me into itemized deductions, I milk it for all it's worth (e.g., don't throw anything away -- take it to Goodwill and let them throw it away; meanwhile, you claim the donation.
If all this should have a reason, we would be the last to know.