• slimarev92@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    65
    arrow-down
    35
    ·
    10 months ago

    He wasn’t paid that amount. He got 341,000 in cash and the rest was in stocks and options (which will only be worth that much if the company performs well financially). This us place is just like Reddit, nobody ever reads the article.

    • nyctre@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      42
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      10 months ago

      It doesn’t really need to perform well financially. He can sell everything as soon as it goes public and retire

      • SkippingRelax@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        10 months ago

        But they never do that. Musk could have been supping margaritas on a man made island with oompa loompas in a private ocean a long time ago

    • CurbsTickle@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      36
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      That is how they all get paid, so they can pay less in taxes.

      It’s irrelevant.

      • SupraMario@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        12
        ·
        10 months ago

        Still not how that works, if he wants cash he has to sell, selling stocks is heavily taxed. Now he can take a loan against the stocks but if they don’t do well then he’s not going to get much for them. It’s a risk and taxes is paid like it or not.

        Still a shit system, but that’s a different discussion, but they pay taxes.

        • Socsa@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          21
          ·
          10 months ago

          I wouldn’t say heavily taxed. If he exercised his options more than 6 months ago he’ll pay the flat 15% capital gains tax. Whereas his effective tax rate on his salary will be around 30%

            • RaoulDook@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              10 months ago

              I have read that that’s one of the wealthy’s “big secret” ways to avoid taxes. They allegedly live off of those loans as their spending money, while the value of the investments they use as collateral increases over time, but they don’t pay taxes on the Unrealized gains. And they can keep borrowing more as needed with those same investments as collateral.

              I don’t have the whole scam figured out though. I’m not sure how they pay back the loans without having to cash out something that would generate a tax burden.

              • nilloc@discuss.tchncs.de
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                7
                ·
                10 months ago

                I’m assuming s long s they spread out payments over time and roll lots of the debt into the next loan.

                That’s how they become too big to fail at their banks. At least that’s the Donald Trump method. His problem is that he has fuck all for collateral at this point.

              • cole@lemdro.id
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                10 months ago

                I wonder if you can pay off loans by transferring the stock. Idk, just a thought

              • dan@upvote.au
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                10 months ago

                Another thing to avoid taxes is donating stock to charities, as you can deduct the market value of the stock rather than just the cost basis.

                Say you buy some stock for $100 and it goes up in value to $400. If you sell it, you have to pay capital gains tax on the $300 gain.

                However, if you donate it, you don’t have to pay any tax and can deduct the whole $400, meaning your taxable income is reduced by $400 (which would be a ~$120 reduction in income tax for someone with a 30% effective tax rate).

                Of course, you still end up with less money than you would have if you didn’t donate. But if you’re going to donate anyways, donating stock with gains is better than donating cash because you’ve already paid income tax on the cash but haven’t paid any tax on the stock gains.

          • SupraMario@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            If he waits for longer than a year, short term under a year is taxed at normal income rates.

          • falsem@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            10 months ago

            It’s taxed as income when you receive it. If you hold onto it for over a year then sell it you pay capital gains (which are lower) on the difference between the grant price and current price (if it went up).

        • Natanael@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          10 months ago

          The interest rate on taking loans against assets is usually less than paying the taxes for selling the same assets

        • CurbsTickle@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          10 months ago

          “They pay taxes” - right, and the effective rate is lower this way. That’s why executive compensation went this route decades ago.

          Which is why, as I said, they all get paid this way.

          • SupraMario@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            If they sell after holding it for more than a year, if they short term sell the stock under a year it’s a normal income tax on said stock.

            • CurbsTickle@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              10 months ago

              If they sell all of it that year. Which they don’t, even if they sell any at all the same year as issued. They stagger sales, and generally are doing it a year after, if they aren’t just taking a loan against the stock and using that.

              It’s part of the compensation regardless of if you want to pretend otherwise. It’s income, it belongs in the total.

              • SupraMario@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                10 months ago

                I’m not disagreeing with you, I think it’s a shit system as well, I’m just pointing out what a lot of people seem to think is 0 taxes on stocks.

        • BradleyUffner@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          They can take out loans with the stocks as collateral. The money received from loans isn’t taxable.

          • SupraMario@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            That still requires you to make sure the stock are worth something, and you have to pay interest on that loan.

            I think people are thinking I’m defending the system, I’m not, I’m just pointing out how it works.

    • deweydecibel@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      36
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      This place is also just like reddit in that comments like yours seeking to seem smarter than everyone else by pointing out technicalities in the article as evidence everyone has the wrong idea, without appreciating the full context, and deliberately ignoring the overall point.

      Executives paid in stocks and options are completely normal, and those stock options have a value. Moreover, those things were not given to other employees nearly as much as they were given to the CEO.

      The actual dollar amount he receives from Reddit is not what matters. What matters is the amount of compensation given to him in comparison to everyone else at Reddit and to other CEOs at other companies, especially when taking his performance into account.

      The point is Reddit is effectively giving way too much of its value to one person who has done little to actually make it profitable in all the time he’s been there while routinely making mistakes and allowing scandals that have hurt Reddit’s reputation.

      • fidodo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        10 months ago

        The context is important since it informs us about why he’s doing this, which is probably to further inflate his stock value

    • TheOneCurly@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      10 months ago

      But also Tim Cook’s total compensation for 2022 was $99 million and Satya Nadella’s 2023 was $48 million. Paying him more than CEOs of actually profitable companies and what amounts to nearly 1/4 of revenue is a pretty big outlier.

      • slimarev92@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        Arw you suggesting that reddit shares are going to be worth a lot of money? I see a an 18 year old company that still can’t turn a profit, so I don’t exactly see how the IPO can be a success.