Slashdot Mirror
Facebook Details Executive Salaries, Bonuses
An anonymous reader writes "Facebook has detailed the pay of 27-year-old Facebook co-founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg as well as four other executives. These are people who are set to be billionaires at least on paper when the company goes public as part of its $5 billion initial public offering (IPO). All five individuals are in line for annual target bonuses of 45 percent of their salary plus other base wages. For Zuckerberg, the bonus could amount to roughly $225,000 this year, based on his annual salary of $500,000."
Comment removed based on user account deletion
FTFA "These salaries of course don’t take into account the executives’ stocks in the social networking giant. If you were worried their salaries are on the low side, don’t be."
Oh thank god! I can finally sleep easy tonight. Phew!
It's a great free app that I can choose to use, or not to use. It has brought me in contact with people I haven't talked to for decades. I hope you become fabulously rich. I also hope that Facebook doesn't engineer itself into oblivion before an alternative comes along...
For in politics, as in religion, it is equally absurd to aim at making proselytes by fire and sword. - Publius
FWIW, Jobs only got $1 annual salary, plus lots of stock options (at a "special" rate). Since he didn't get paid a salary that could be taxed, he "borrowed" against his stock and options, which is not taxable until the options are converted to stock, or the stock sold, and then it is "capital gains", and not simple income, at a much lower tax rate... So, in effect, he was paid million$, but had a tax burden much less, percentage-wise, than the rest of us working schlubs!
Those cynics are idiots. His dividend/capital gains are going to be the same whether he has a salary or not. So yeah, he'd have to pay more taxes if he made more money, but he'd... wait for it... make more money!
The cynics are right in cases where the employee takes a salary cut but is instead compensated in some other way which is taxed at a lower level.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Public education for him and his employees. Infrastructure to help him and his employees get around and provide them with the electricity needed for their work. Safety and stability so that he doesn't have to pay millions of dollars in protection money to organized crime. Safe, plentiful food and clean water, so that he didn't die as a child. Clean air, so that he doesn't have horrible respiratory illnesses. Social safety nets so that he could take risks without fear of dying in the gutter if he failed. And so on.
Nobody gets where they are alone. Everyone relies on the society they live in for support. That's why you don't see people like Steve Jobs or Mark Zuckerberg coming out of Somalia. Unfortunately, it's now become commonplace to deny this obvious truth, because "Greed is Good", at least in the minds of the greedy.
Those cynics are idiots. His dividend/capital gains are going to be the same whether he has a salary or not. So yeah, he'd have to pay more taxes if he made more money, but he'd... wait for it... make more money! The cynics are right in cases where the employee takes a salary cut but is instead compensated in some other way which is taxed at a lower level.
Bonuses in shares instead of salary are just such compensation taxed at a very low rate and the employee can borrow against the stocks and still come out ahead of paying taxes. The executive is happy. The bank is happy. The government and the people who expect taxation to be fair and just... screwed.
Jobs and Zuck will also own a large chunk of a different class of shares that the typical stock price. These special shares will have things like more voting rights, potentially pay a dividend or similar every year, they may (or may not, depending) be unlimited liability rather than traditional limited liability stocks and so on. I'm not quite sure how apple and facebook do (or will do) it, but this is pretty common for most big companies.
It's because of these different share classes that zuck will be able to give himself 60% of the voting power in the company, despite owning only about 25% of the value of the company.
Being the CEO of a company comes with a few perks too. That private jet the company owns? You're using it for business purposes, even if you're flying to florida for golfing, it's always part of your security/connectedness/etc. requirement, and because you're golfing with the CEO of another company it's business meeting, so it's not a taxable benefit since it is for work.
Over the years regulators have become less fond of the more archaic schemes, like rather than hiring you, they're contracting sir_sri management services, a wholly own subsidiary of Sri's Cayman Island management group, where Sri officially claims residence, so the housing, provided by the company, is a 'temporary residence' and for the use of any of Sir_Sri Management services employees who may be required to fulfill the terms of the contract (not disclosed), and they're families who may also have an expense account to deal with the temporary relocation from the Cayman islands. Oh and because you're only there temporarily, all your meals, and general housing services are also covered expenses*.
* a lot of this still happens a lot, justifiably so, on shorter term stuff.
Nobody gets where they are alone. Everyone relies on the society they live in for support. That's why you don't see people like Steve Jobs or Mark Zuckerberg coming out of Somalia.
No, no, no! Somalia's not like American because it doesn't have enough Jobses and Zuckerbergs! They're the job creators! If Somalians had more of that entrepeneurial spirit, they'd be rich too!
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
"Capitalism doesn't work without strong property rights and an equal rule of law. Somalia has neither."
It's only the Somalia *does* have equal rule of law, in fact a single law, "the one on the right side of the AK-47 commands" and *does* have the strongest of property rights, just try to take off the AK-47 from the hands that hold it from the right side.
It's only ridiculous to claim that Somalia doesn't enjoys the benefits of capitalism in its purest form.
When people make my entire retirement savings (me+wife working for 30 years) in a weekend, I wonder why I bothered doing science. Clearly, I was in the wrong line of work and the world changed out from under me.
Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.
Speak for yourself!
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Wow! I didn't realize it was charity to pay taxes, given it's taxes that provide services oneself enjoys* but, if wealthy enough, services that others enjoy as well. Well, I guess it is charity in the sense that it means potentially paying more than you get out for the benefit of others. Personally, I'd just consider that a common duty of anyone with the means towards humanity. But, then, I take that from the idea that just because you're not a completely selfish dick and rose above doing the absolute minimum when it comes to contributing to the world doesn't make your actions charity.
When the tax laws are rewritten so that "reduce my tax burden as much as is legal" is pretty fluid on the word "legal" precisely because you money can more or less help buy what "legal" is, I think "that particular score" is very different. That's precisely why Warren Buffet bitched about the point that capital gains taxes are so ludicrously low, given it's precisely the rich that have the means to have so much of their assets tied up in stock and hence benefit from such an effectively low income tax rate. I mean, I don't know about you, but when companies require you to buy at least 1,000 shares of stock and stocks sell for at least $1, it's easy to see why the average person isn't going to buy much in the way of stock. Hell, when middle and upper middle class people started actually buying stocks directly (as day traders), their was an incredible amount of bitching and moaning from the rich (through a receptive media) precisely because their actions were causing disruptions in stock prices which represented a significant instability in expected returns. Of course, mutual funds were just as bitchy as they being the middlemen in stocks for the middle class didn't like missing the potential customers nor how it became clear just how illusionary stock prices really are when a relatively few can have significant disruptive effect on the stock market. But, I digress...
*Yes, I realize not everyone uses all services and plenty of people don't pay enough to cover their share of what they use. But, then short of every paying on a per-use basis, there's no way to be "fair" in that sense. Having said that, there's already the absurdity of people today who bitch they paid $X into social security and expect to get $X out, either to themselves or to their loved ones when they die, ignoring that plenty of people on social security get more than they ever paid in (the disabled, the elderly who live longer than average, etc) which makes that entirely unreasonable unless there's some expectation that the government either (a) take the $X and invest it into companies and use dividends or later sales or something to cover the difference (which wouldn't work, given the relatively low rate of return to the demand) or (b) take taxes from some other source to make up the difference (which makes social security not self-sustaining and rather misses the whole point of budgeting). Meanwhile, per-use services fall on their face for many obvious reasons (a person who is robbed of their money, is murdered, etc obviously can't pay) behind the whole injustice of such a system (not that people seem to think too much about that, but it's easy to not think about when you spend all your efforts painting government as the source of injustice). But, then, I digress again..
Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
That might make it a pretty dreary work environment. That office party you throw for every 10th/100th product you sell, that christmas party, that free lunch fridays are all unnecessary to the core function of the business. So they'd be taxable benefits, so who would do any of it? Treat your employees like drones, and you get drones. Germany up until relatively recently even let bribes be a deductible business expense, because well, that's the cost of doing business a lot of places. I think you lose a competitive edge if you can't wine and dine other guys, and there really is a lot to be said for having semi-casual business discussions.
Don't get me wrong, I mentioned it because it is abused, but there's probably a legitimate case for business expenses to include treating your people and customers like more than just drones.
I mean no offense to you or your line of work, I am in the same boat. I followed. I am happy where I am at. I know where I want to be and work to get there.
Just like there are superstars in sports there are superstars in business. Whether they bring new products or innovation matters not, their drive is wholly different.
Now I know some will write it off to luck and yes, there are many cases of luck. Guess what, you don't get lucky not doing. You get lucky by trying, in some cases over and over and over.
Look at it this way, I would rather live in a system where there are untold riches for those who succeed. He isn't some politician deciding from up on high the winner or losers. He is deciding for himself and there are hundreds, if not thousands along for the ride. He created something many people value.
Some need that mythical pot of gold on the other side of the rainbow, others just feel the need to do. Which is he? Hell if I know. I don't have the drive but am quite happy to be in their world.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
You are correct, but I imagine that what you do creates less value and is less unique than what they do. We're not paid by how long and hard we work, but rather by the combined perception of how much value we provide and how hard it would be to replace us. Is it always fair? No. Is it always unfair? Also no.
Absolutely. I purely take exception to the story that we're rewarding risk taking and hard work. We're not. We don't reward those things. We reward success in the marketplace, and that's it.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
Actually, it is. He entered into a secret, probably illegal (still to be tested in court) agreement with my potential employers to hold down wages.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking