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.

15 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. Minimum wage? by bcmm · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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 /dev/mem | strings | grep -i llama
    Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
    1. Re:Minimum wage? by rudbek · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually, it is has nothing to do with salary versus wages. It has do with whether the job description is exempt or non-exempt. Most managerial positions are exempt (meaning minimum wage/overtime etc. don't apply). Just because your paid by salary doesn't mean your not entitled under the law to overtime. Lots of white collar employees are incorrectly considered exempt by their employers. Unfortunately for Slashdot, sys admins by definition are non-exempt.

      Also - it is stupid to say that accepting one dollar is a tax avoidance scheme. Earning less is always and option but not a smart way to lower your tax bill. Refusing to accept a salary because 37% of it (or whatever the top rate is) will go to the IRS is sort of silly if you are trying to maximize your after tax salary. After all 63% of it (minus state income tax) is still yours. You have more not less by accepting the salary. I'd fire my accountant for coming up with a tax strategy that resulted in me having less money.

  3. That's it. by Rui+Lopes · · Score: 5, Funny

    Now i don't want to be google's next CEO any more.

    --
    var sig = function() { sig(); }
  4. Doing less evil by Green+Salad · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

  5. What is Slashdot now? by BristolCream · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    1. 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%.

  6. 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'.

  7. It's not like they're starving. by Fyz · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  8. 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!

  9. If a $1 Salary Makes Google Evil... by WhatAmIDoingHere · · Score: 5, Informative

    Apple has been evil for a few years.

    --
    Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
  10. 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.

  11. 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; }
  12. 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.
  13. 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.