Slashdot Mirror
Eric Schmidt To Sell Up To 42% of Stake In Google
derGoldstein writes "AllThingsD reports that Eric Schmidt 'plans to sell up to 3.2 million shares of his class A common stock in the company,' according to an SEC filing. 'The amount is equal to approximately 42.1 percent of his overall stake in Google.'"
I doubt this has anything to do with any bad news
for Google. It is my guess Schmidt just wants the
money here and now. Totally understandable.
Or we could have a better incremental tax system where dirt poor is not the bottom and fat rich is not the top.
> Increasing wealth at one pole, increasing misery at the other.
This has nothing to do with capitalism. This has to do with the government raising taxes aimed at the middle class since the rich can move and the poor can't pay. Decade after decade the middle class shrinks while prices go up, taxes go up and the government becomes like a pimp managing tired older whores.
When both political parties give the government's ATM card to lobbies and spend trillions on what they think will get them elected again it appears that there is no hope.
There is only one solution: become rich or become poor.
lucm, indeed.
It's news for a reason. It seems unlikely he is strapped for cash, and as he's acting Executive Chairman of Google, a significant stock sale has to mean he's convinced the market capitalization for his Outfit has peaked. Often, if you look way up ahead in the distance, you can just make out the Captain running ahead of all those rats.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
Yes, because there's no poverty or starvation in Marxist countries at all right?
Yes, because there's no poverty or starvation in Marxist countries at all right?
Nah. It is just that in Marxism, everyone is equally poor.
morcego
Careful with the vagueness there. That's 42% of his stake in Google, not to be confused with 42% of the company's stock.
Nah. It is just that in Marxism, everyone is equally poor.
The choice isn't necessarily between extreme capitalism and extreme socialism...
Socialism to the point where people don't starve, can start over after failing and are given a decent chance to go to university, isn't so expensive that hard work won't be profitable anymore.
(Socialism to that extend, does however, encourage risk taking, as there's a system to help you if you fail).
It's often called liberal socialism, many/most countries in Europe (especially northern Europe) are quite successful with this approach.
In Europe taxes are spent largely on public works, public health, and public services, so taxes are not a net loss for citizens but contribute directly to their welfare and to the smooth running of society for the man in the street.
The difference in the US isn't so much in the rate of taxation, but what is done with your tax dollars. They're not spent for the social good to any large degree, but fund the huge military complex and benefit the rich more than the poor. (Here the rich pay much more tax than anyone else.)
The US "misery" problem to which you refer is much more deeply rooted than could be solved by changing the rate of taxation. It can't. Your society is structured to create misery.
Federal Income Tax is down - almost every other tax has increased. Local wage taxes, state income taxes, sales taxes, property taxes... It took the recent financial crisis to knock us back down to 1970s levels, but expect that to ramp back up as the economy recovers. Just prior to the financial crisis, we were at an all-time high for total tax burden as a percentage of GDP.
Got my numbers here.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
I am not exactly sure what insider trading is, but since he not only knows the inner workings of Google but controls them, how is this not insider trading?
It *IS* insider trading. Any CEO selling their own stock is insider trading. That is why the SEC requires documentation and a public disclosure of any potential transaction before the sale happens, which is what the linked document is. The SEC cannot prohibit such sales, but they do put them under extremely tight restrictions - such as preventing such sales near the end of a quarter, when financial results are known internally but not yet released.
It is important to note that this does not mean that Eric *is* going to sell 42% of his stake, it means that he is now *allowed* to sell *up to* 42% of the stock. Many such filings end up with a smaller amount sold.