or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple COO Tim Cook awarded $22 million bonus
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple COO Tim Cook awarded $22 million bonus

post #1 of 65
Thread Starter 
Apple said Friday that Chief Operating Office Tim Cook was awarded nearly 22 million in stock- and cash-based compensation for his performance running the company during Steve Jobs' absence last year.

In a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, the iPhone maker said its Board of Directors unanimously approved the recommendation by Jobs to award Cook a one-time discretionary bonus of $5,000,000 in addition to 75,000 restricted stock units "in recognition of his outstanding performance in assuming the day-to-day operations of the company" when Jobs was on medical leave of absence.

Cook assumed the role of interim Apple CEO from January to June of 2009 so that Jobs could recover from liver transplant surgery. During that time, he oversaw the launch of several key products, most notably the iPhone 3GS.

At today's market value, Cook's 75,000 restricted stock units are worth $16,995,000, bringing the total current value of his compensation bonus to roughly $21,995,000. Fifty percent of the restricted stock units are scheduled to vest on each of March 10, 2011 and March 10, 2012, subject to Cook's continued employment with the company, Apple said.

The move underscores how valuable Apple considers Cook to its continued success. He was first lured to the company by Jobs in 1998 and since then has emerged as one of the stars of the Apple's management team, making him the the subject of overtures from some of the industry's biggest names, including Dell and Motorola.

Tim Cook delivers the State of the Mac address in Cupertino during October 2008.

It's widely expressed amongst Apple circles that Cook has long been groomed to succeed Jobs in leading the company should the co-founder ever have to step down. For more on Cook, see AppleInsider's recent profile.
post #2 of 65
(Deleted)
post #3 of 65
They should give him another $5,000,000 just for all the stupid analyst questions he has to suffer during earning calls...
post #4 of 65
Seems reasonable. That's what, a couple hours' of iPad sales?
post #5 of 65
Well-deserved. Apple didn't skip a beat during that time.
post #6 of 65
And thanks to American tax laws, he'll pay much less of a percentage of his income than teachers (thanks to Bush tax cuts and capital gains codes), yet probably complain and lobby against even the slightest increase his tax rate.
post #7 of 65
Have to agree with others. He did a fine job while the boss was away.

He seems confident enough in my eyes to be able to one day take over from Papa Steve one day in the future, Given a few more years of grooming to fit the Jobs mould. (i.e. he hasn't quite relaxed enough to go the full turtle neck but he's getting there )
post #8 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by stonefree View Post

yet probably complain and lobby against even the slightest increase his tax rate.

You have nothing to back that claim up with. Don't gripe about someone that you don't even know's personality, he did a good job and I as a shareholder would like to see him stick around.
MacBook Pro 17" Glossy 2.93GHz, iPad 64GB, iPhone 4 16GB, and a lot of other assorted goodies.

If you're a troll and you have been slain. Don't be a Zombie.
Reply
MacBook Pro 17" Glossy 2.93GHz, iPad 64GB, iPhone 4 16GB, and a lot of other assorted goodies.

If you're a troll and you have been slain. Don't be a Zombie.
Reply
post #9 of 65
Cheap ass Apple.
post #10 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by MsNly View Post

You have nothing to back that claim up with. Don't gripe about someone that you don't even know's personality, he did a good job and I as a shareholder would like to see him stick around.

And you have nothing to back up your claim that he wouldn't. Sure he did a good job, but any change in tax policy would have nothing to do with whether he sticks around, so I don't know why you brought that up.

It really wasn't any sort of attack on Cook personally, just the injustice and inequality rampant in America. The richest state in the richest country has schools where some students don't have desks. You don't think there's anything wrong with that?
post #11 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by stonefree View Post

And thanks to American tax laws, he'll pay much less of a percentage of his income than teachers (thanks to Bush tax cuts and capital gains codes), yet probably complain and lobby against even the slightest increase his tax rate.

You need to get informed and do some research. Rich people pay the vast majority of the taxes in this country, while there are millions of leeches sucking off the rest of us that actually work. You fail.
X7DWA-N Supermicro mobo,Dual QC 3.0 Xeons, 12Gb RAM, 6 Raptor drives + 500 Gb TM drive, 2x DVR-218L burners, M-Audio 7.1 sound card, Titan 650 case running Leopard 10.6.6,Win7 x64, Linux Fluxbox...
Reply
X7DWA-N Supermicro mobo,Dual QC 3.0 Xeons, 12Gb RAM, 6 Raptor drives + 500 Gb TM drive, 2x DVR-218L burners, M-Audio 7.1 sound card, Titan 650 case running Leopard 10.6.6,Win7 x64, Linux Fluxbox...
Reply
post #12 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by stonefree View Post

And you have nothing to back up your claim that he wouldn't. Sure he did a good job, but any change in tax policy would have nothing to do with whether he sticks around, so I don't know why you brought that up.

It really wasn't any sort of attack on Cook personally, just the injustice and inequality rampant in America. The richest state in the richest country has schools where some students don't have desks. You don't think there's anything wrong with that?

You're totally right. Everyone's income needs to be exactly the same as the next person's. We need REAL equality!

iPad2 16 GB
iPhone 5 32 GB

Reply

iPad2 16 GB
iPhone 5 32 GB

Reply
post #13 of 65
http://www.heritage.org/research/taxes/wm2420.cfm


May 4, 2009
The Rich Pay More Taxes: Top 20 Percent Pay Record Share of Income Taxes
by Curtis S. Dubay
WebMemo #2420

Since the passage of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, critics have claimed incessantly that they disproportionately benefited the rich while burdening the poor. Now that the data is in, these claims have been shown to be unquestionably false.

Squeezing the Wealthy Even More

According to a report issued by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the tax cuts significantly increased the share of federal income taxes paid by the highest-earning 20 percent of households compared to their levels in 2000, President Clinton's final year in office.

In 2006, the latest available year from CBO, the top 20 percent of income earners paid 86.3 percent of all federal income taxes, an all-time high.[1] This is an increase of over 6 percent from 2000, when the top 20 percent paid 81.2 percent. During the same period, the bottom four quintiles all saw their share of the federal income tax burden fall sharply:

* The bottom 20 percent of income earners' share of federal income taxes fell from -1.6 percent in 2000 to -2.8 percent in 2006;
* The next 20 percent's share declined from 1.1 percent to -0.8 percent;
* The middle quintile's share dropped from 5.7 percent to 4.4 percent; and
* The fourth quintile's share decreased from 13.5 percent to 12.9 percent.

Each of these four quintiles' shares was an all-time low.

2001 and 2003 Tax Cuts Removed Low-Income Earners from Roles

The 2001 and 2003 tax cuts removed millions of taxpayers from the federal income tax rolls, leaving only those at the top to pay the bill. They lowered every federal income tax rate and created a new 10 percent bracket to further reduce taxes for low-income earners.

While these tax rate cuts lowered taxes for all taxpayers, low-income earners got the biggest cut. In addition to these rate cuts, the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts expanded the refundable Child Tax Credit from $500 per child to $1,000 per child. The combination of lower tax rates and an expanded Child Tax Credit meant many low-income taxpayers no longer paid any federal income taxes.

Was Greater Income the Cause?

Critics counter that the increase in tax shares for high-earners was due to income increases at the top of the income spectrum. But a closer look at the data shows this just is not the case.

The top 20 percent of earners saw their share of pre-tax income rise from 54.8 percent to 55.7 percent, from 2000 to 2006. During that same period, their share of federal income taxes increased from 81.2 percent to 86.3 percent.

The modest increase in incomes is not large enough to explain the large increase in the share of income taxes paid by the top 20 percent. Rather, the removal of substantial numbers of low-income taxpayers from the federal income tax rolls is the real culprit.

Refundable Credits Redistribute Income

The bottom 40 percent of income earners actually paid a negative share of federal income taxes in 2006. In other words, these taxpayers are actually paid money through the tax code. This happens through refundable credits like the Child Tax Credit and the Earned Income Tax Credit, which result in "refunds" when they are greater than the taxpayer's total income tax liability.

For instance, if a family with one child has an income tax liability of $300, it can claim the Child Tax Credit, which wipes out their tax liability, and still receive $700 from the IRS for the remainder of the $1,000 credit. On April 15, not only do the bottom 40 percent of all taxpayers pay no taxes, but they actually receive additional income from the IRS.

Refundable credits redistribute income from the top 20 percent of earners to the remaining tax filers, with the bottom 20 percent the prime beneficiaries. The bottom quintile's share of income, measured after taxes, actually increased a whopping 17 percent compared to its pre-tax levels because of the income they got from refundable credits. Comparing shares of income before taxes are paid to after, only the top quintile saw their share of income decline.

Obama's Tax Policies Widen the Gap

President Obama's tax policies would cause federal income taxes paid by the top 20 percent to increase and the shares of the remaining 80 percent to decrease even further. These policies include those passed as part of the stimulus legislation and those included in the President's Budget Blueprint.

The stimulus created the Making Work Pay Credit[2] and expanded the Child Tax Credit and Earned Income Tax Credit. These refundable credits will knock even more taxpayers from the federal income tax rolls and send more money to low-income taxpayers.[3] With fewer low- and middle-income taxpayers paying federal income taxes, the burden will shift even further in the direction of top earners.

President Obama also proposed in his Budget Blueprint to increase income taxes on those making over $250,000 by increasing their tax rates on investment income and reducing the amount they could deduct.[4] This would dramatically increase the share of taxes paid by the top 20 percent while the remaining 80 percent of earners would not pay higher taxes as a result of these proposed tax hikes.

Stop Shifting Burden to Top 20 Percent

To stop the shifting of the tax burden to a dwindling number of taxpayers, Congress should:

* Make the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts permanent for all taxpayers, not just those making under $250,000. This would slow the shifting of the burden to the top 20 percent.
* Stop creating and expanding refundable credits. Welfare spending and subsidies to low-income earners should be done through traditional spending programs, not hidden in the tax code. This would stop a growing portion of the population from being removed from the tax rolls.
* Cut top tax rates to return the shares of income taxes paid by each quintile to their more-sustainable 2000 levels.

On Dangerous Ground

The shifting of the tax burden to a small segment of high-income taxpayers is economically dangerous. The beneficiaries of government services are increasingly those who share little or none of the tax burden to pay for them. As they become more numerous, they put more pressure on Congress for more services. Meanwhile, those who bear most of the burden are being squeezed even more, shrinking their number. The result is a growing group of government beneficiaries clamoring for more of a shrinking group's wealth. Congress should put an end to this practice.

Curtis S. Dubay is a Senior Analyst in Tax Policy in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.

[1]Unless otherwise noted, all data come from Congressional Budget Office, "Historical Effective Federal Tax Rates: 1979 to 2006" April 2009, at http://www.cbo.gov/publications/coll...all_tables.pdf (April 23, 2009).

[2]Curtis S. Dubay, "'Making Work Pay Credit' Will Not Stimulate the Economy," Heritage Foundation WebMemo No. 2240, January 26, 2009, at http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/wm2240.cfm.

[3]Curtis S. Dubay, "Obama's Stimulus Has "Spread the Wealth Around': Are Tax Hikes Next" Heritage Foundation WebMemo No. 2354, March 23, 2009, at http://www.heritage.org/Research/Economy/wm2354.cfm.

[4]U.S. Office of Management and Budget, A New Era of Responsibility: Renewing America's Promise (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 2009), p. 123, Table S-6, at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/assets
/fy2010_new_era/A_New_Era_of_Responsibility2.pdf (April 23, 2009).
X7DWA-N Supermicro mobo,Dual QC 3.0 Xeons, 12Gb RAM, 6 Raptor drives + 500 Gb TM drive, 2x DVR-218L burners, M-Audio 7.1 sound card, Titan 650 case running Leopard 10.6.6,Win7 x64, Linux Fluxbox...
Reply
X7DWA-N Supermicro mobo,Dual QC 3.0 Xeons, 12Gb RAM, 6 Raptor drives + 500 Gb TM drive, 2x DVR-218L burners, M-Audio 7.1 sound card, Titan 650 case running Leopard 10.6.6,Win7 x64, Linux Fluxbox...
Reply
post #14 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

It's widely expressed amongst Apple circles that Cook has long been groomed to succeed Jobs in leading the company should the co-founder ever have to step down.

When did Steve Jobs invent immortality?
post #15 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by stonefree View Post

And you have nothing to back up your claim that he wouldn't. Sure he did a good job, but any change in tax policy would have nothing to do with whether he sticks around, so I don't know why you brought that up.

It really wasn't any sort of attack on Cook personally, just the injustice and inequality rampant in America. The richest state in the richest country has schools where some students don't have desks. You don't think there's anything wrong with that?

WTF has that got to do with a bonus paid for performance much less Tim Cook? I think I smell a troll!
post #16 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by stonefree View Post

And thanks to American tax laws, he'll pay much less of a percentage of his income than teachers (thanks to Bush tax cuts and capital gains codes), yet probably complain and lobby against even the slightest increase his tax rate.

Everyone, please forgive stonefree's ignorance. You see, he went to public school and was taught by those teachers.

-kpluck

Do you use MagicJack?

The default settings will automatically charge your credit card each year for service renewal. You will not be notified or warned in anyway. You can turn auto renewal off.

Reply

Do you use MagicJack?

The default settings will automatically charge your credit card each year for service renewal. You will not be notified or warned in anyway. You can turn auto renewal off.

Reply
post #17 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by stonefree View Post

And you have nothing to back up your claim that he wouldn't. Sure he did a good job, but any change in tax policy would have nothing to do with whether he sticks around, so I don't know why you brought that up.

It really wasn't any sort of attack on Cook personally, just the injustice and inequality rampant in America. The richest state in the richest country has schools where some students don't have desks. You don't think there's anything wrong with that?

And you think that paying Cook less, or taxing him more, or taxing the teachers less will solve the problems of California kids not having desks?

If it was that simple, it would have happened by now.
post #18 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by danvid36 View Post

http://www.heritage.org/research/taxes/wm2420.cfm


May 4, 2009
The Rich Pay More Taxes: Top 20 Percent Pay Record Share of Income Taxes
by Curtis S. Dubay

And ya know, I'm OK with that.
post #19 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

And you think that paying Cook less, or taxing him more, or taxing the teachers less will solve the problems of California kids not having desks?

If it was that simple, it would have happened by now.

I didn't say teachers should be taxed less. But, yes taxing Cook and all the other executives more would definitely help schools. How wouldn't it?

Saying if it was that simple it would have happened is the height of ignorance. Politicians don't tax the rich because that's who pays for them to get elected to office.

For a good breakdown of the ever widening disparity, see http://mobile.salon.com/opinion/cona...400/index.html

Quote = "According to David Cay Johnston, America's premier tax journalist, newly released IRS data shows that the country's very wealthiest citizens -- the top 400 -- marked enormous income gains while paying less and less in taxes."

There's a reason Jobs, Larry and Sergey (Google) , and many other executives get most of their pay, or in some cases all of it, through means other than salary - capital gains are taxed substantially less.
post #20 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by stonefree View Post

I didn't say teachers should be taxed less. But, yes taxing Cook and all the other executives more would definitely help schools. How wouldn't it?

Saying if it was that simple it would have happened is the height of ignorance. Politicians don't tax the rich because that's who pays for them to get elected to office.

For a good breakdown of the ever widening disparity, see http://mobile.salon.com/opinion/cona...400/index.html

Quote = "According to David Cay Johnston, America's premier tax journalist, newly released IRS data shows that the country's very wealthiest citizens -- the top 400 -- marked enormous income gains while paying less and less in taxes."

There's a reason Jobs, Larry and Sergey (Google) , and many other executives get most of their pay, or in some cases all of it, through means other than salary - capital gains are taxed substantially less.

DC has the most well-funded, yet poorest performing schools in the nation. Throwing money at schools doesn't make them work. Neither does punishing those who do well.
post #21 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by stonefree View Post

I didn't say teachers should be taxed less. But, yes taxing Cook and all the other executives more would definitely help schools. How wouldn't it?

They'll leave. You'll have neither the rich nor the taxes, and still have no desks for those kids. Economics 101. Learn.

CA's problems are too darned entrenched to be solved by stupid, value-destroying, short-term fixes like these. You are already the highest-taxed state in the country (or at least close). Your worst nightmare would be if Silicon Valley decides to pack its bags (as Hollywood already has, and left for places like Vancouver).
post #22 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by danvid36 View Post

You need to get informed and do some research. Rich people pay the vast majority of the taxes in this country, while there are millions of leeches sucking off the rest of us that actually work. You fail.

Sorry but it's you who is uninformed and fail. Since you're quoting full articles, here' the full excerpt from my link -

***

Before angry voters restore Republicans to power -- in the name of "tea party populism" -- perhaps they should consider just how well right-wing rule worked out for them during the past decade. Last fall a Census Bureau study found that real median household income had declined from $52,500 in 2000, the last year that Bill Clinton was president, to $50,303 in 2008, George W. Bush's final year -- a period during which Republicans dominated Congress as well. Millions of those median households lost their health insurance (and, since the onset of the Great Recession, many of those same families have lost jobs as well).

So most of those middle-class Americans who flock to the tea party demonstrations were big losers during the Bush era. So who were the winners? According to David Cay Johnston, America's premier tax journalist, newly released IRS data shows that the country's very wealthiest citizens -- the top 400 -- marked enormous income gains while paying less and less in taxes. For purposes of comparison, Johnston notes that the bottom 90 percent of Americans saw their incomes rise by only 13 percent in 2009 dollars, compared with a 399 percent increase for the top 400.

In a single year, between 2006 and 2007, the income of those top 400 taxpayers rose by 31 percent -- from an average of $263.3 million to an average of $344.8 million per year. Meanwhile, Johnston writes, "Their effective income tax rate fell to 16.62 percent, down more than half a percentage point from 17.17 percent in 2006, the new data show. That rate is lower than the typical effective income tax rate paid by Americans with incomes in the low six figures, which is what each taxpayer in the top group earned in the first three hours of 2007." He also notes that the IRS data probably understates the income of the top 400, because of deferral rules enjoyed by hedge fund managers (at least three of whom earned $3 billion or more in 2007).

Johnston's data comes from the latest edition of an annual IRS study of the top 400 taxpayers, which was first made public during the Clinton presidency. When Bush became president, unsurprisingly, he curtailed public access to the top 400 report for eight years. The Obama administration has made the report available this year, but such embarrassing statistics will no doubt be buried again as soon as the Republicans return to power.

****

Note the last paragraph in particular - Bush hid access to just how much the richest earn and how little they pay in taxes. Your dubious article concentrates on the rather broad top 20 percent. I'm talking about the top 1-5%
post #23 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by danvid36 View Post

You need to get informed and do some research. Rich people pay the vast majority of the taxes in this country, while there are millions of leeches sucking off the rest of us that actually work. You fail.

Quote:
Originally Posted by stonefree View Post

And thanks to American tax laws, he'll pay much less of a percentage of his income than teachers (thanks to Bush tax cuts and capital gains codes), yet probably complain and lobby against even the slightest increase his tax rate.

Danvid - Took the words right out of my mouth.

Stone - you need to inform and educate yourself before throwing out accusations. The wealthy pay more tax dollars and a higher percentage of their income into the treasury.

And those 'codes' are called 'laws'. Currently, long term gains are capped at 15%, while any profit earned from options would be taxed as income which for Tim would be close to 35%.

For those of us that own sizeable amounts of Apple stock, we'd prefer LTG stay at 15%. If this rate is raised significantly it effects the spending power of the rich, who also spend more in the economy (trickle down economics).

Stonefree - I DO AGREE that taxation is unfair in the country. Like many, I support a consumption based tax so that everyone pays the same rate based on what they buy and consume. In my opinion, this would spread taxation equally - which is awefully important since Obama is pushing our national debt into a new stratosphere (not that Bush didn't help launch the ship). We're all going to be paying down that debt in the future - and I'd rather it be fairly divided.

Class dismissed. Have a great weekend.
post #24 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by danvid36 View Post

You need to get informed and do some research. Rich people pay the vast majority of the taxes in this country, while there are millions of leeches sucking off the rest of us that actually work. You fail.

Biggest absolute amount, maybe, but they damned well should. They get the biggest benefit from the social infrastructure. Try getting that rich without roads, schools, safe water, courts, military etc etc.
The problem is simply that as Warren Buffett says, he pays a smaller percentage of his income in taxes than his secretary does. Spin gross numbers all you want, that's simply not fair... 20% of a person's wages who makes 40K a year hurts WAY more than does 20% for a person making millions. That's why the flat tax scam is such a joke.

BTW, get off your high horse about the leeches... there are more leeches at the top than at the bottom.

BTW, (back on topic) GO TIM!!! Great job last year.
post #25 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by stonefree View Post

see http://mobile.salon.com/opinion/cona...400/index.html.

Really? You quoted salon.com? I think we now know why you seem to be so ill-informed.

Why not quote the National Inquirer or Mad Magazine?
post #26 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

They'll leave. You'll have neither the rich nor the taxes, and still have no desks for those kids. Economics 101. Learn.

CA's problems are too darned entrenched to be solved by stupid, value-destroying, short-term fixes like these. You are already the highest-taxed state in the country (or at least close). Your worst nightmare would be if Silicon Valley decides to pack its bags (as Hollywood already has, and left for places like Vancouver).

If the taxes in California are so bad why are we overflowing with rich people?

Why are places with the lowest taxes the least desirable to live? You think Cook would want to move back to Alabama if his net income went from $21M to $20M? Highly unlikely! California is an amazing place, especially if you have money and it would really take a lot to drive the rich out.

California has high taxes in some ways but in others it doesn't, because of Prop 13.

I'm not saying there aren't leaches at the bottom either. My friend is a nurse and she'd like to have a baby but she can't afford it, meanwhile she delivers babies for immigrants who receive subsidies from the state yet seem to have nice cars and clothes. So some reform is needed of the type that would satisfy conservatives. But that's not the issue being discussed, we're talking about the executives whose earning double every few years yet pay little in taxes.
post #27 of 65
It takes a lot of education, effort, and risk taking to get to the point where you're making the big bucks. Or reaching the point where you can live handsomely off of passive income. Many people fail, often many times, trying to attain this lofty perch.

When they finally get there, there's a huge mass of people who were unwilling to do what they did to succeed, standing at the sidelines, bitching about their success.

Time and time again, when tax rates are cut, treasury revenue increases. This is a concept that is very difficult to grasp by some.

Atlas is already shrugging. Let's not kill him.
post #28 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by FormerARSgm View Post

Really? You quoted salon.com? I think we now know why you seem to be so ill-informed.

Why not quote the National Inquirer or Mad Magazine?

You think Heritage is a reliable source of info? It's as fair and balanced as Fox News.
post #29 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by danvid36 View Post

You need to get informed and do some research. Rich people pay the vast majority of the taxes in this country, while there are millions of leeches sucking off the rest of us that actually work. You fail.

Please read this article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...062700097.html

Quote:
Last year, Buffett said, he was taxed at 17.7 percent on his taxable income of more than $46 million. His receptionist was taxed at about 30 percent.

For those of you who don't know, Buffet is the third richest person in the world. And obviously his receptionist gets paid less than him.

edit:
I see someone else has already posted this, my bad.
ALTER BRIDGE is the greatest rock band of today. Myspace || Street Team
Reply
ALTER BRIDGE is the greatest rock band of today. Myspace || Street Team
Reply
post #30 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobertoq View Post

Please read this article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...062700097.html

Bobertoq, facts will get you nowhere around here.
post #31 of 65
Apple could have run on auto pilot. You could have probably replaced him with 5-10 other senior Apple execs and the results would have been the same for that period. He was a caretaker while Jobs was out. Not saying whether he deserved the bonus or not, but lets not make him out to be the one and only option. Execs are often glorified when in fact most could be replaced.
post #32 of 65
It's incredible how quickly this thread has been hijacked into irrelevant discussion of how much tax the rich should pay instead of considering whether Mr. Cook deserved his bonus or not.

Moderators, it's time to rename this website www.USApoliticaloutsider.com

Tim Cook has helped Apple to record sales and record profits. Everyone benefits, from the shareholders, the employees with their families and yes, the consumers of the company's products.

Better to have successful, motivated directors than directors which lead companies toward ruin - take Palm and Woolworths UK for example. Redundancies and uncertainties all round...
post #33 of 65
I think it's well deserved. Tim Cook did a great job holding things together while Steve was gone, as well as Phil Schiler. That goes to show that Apple will survive when Steve decides to retire.
post #34 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vandelay Industries View Post

When did Steve Jobs invent immortality?

iGod.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

 

Get the lowdown on the coming collapse:  http://www.cbo.gov/publication/45010

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

 

Get the lowdown on the coming collapse:  http://www.cbo.gov/publication/45010

Reply
post #35 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by GQB View Post

Biggest absolute amount, maybe, but they damned well should. They get the biggest benefit from the social infrastructure. Try getting that rich without roads, schools, safe water, courts, military etc etc.
The problem is simply that as Warren Buffett says, he pays a smaller percentage of his income in taxes than his secretary does. Spin gross numbers all you want, that's simply not fair... 20% of a person's wages who makes 40K a year hurts WAY more than does 20% for a person making millions. That's why the flat tax scam is such a joke.

BTW, get off your high horse about the leeches... there are more leeches at the top than at the bottom.

BTW, (back on topic) GO TIM!!! Great job last year.

Warren Buffet has been getting kooky in his advanced years. He knows he's reaching end of life status.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

 

Get the lowdown on the coming collapse:  http://www.cbo.gov/publication/45010

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

 

Get the lowdown on the coming collapse:  http://www.cbo.gov/publication/45010

Reply
post #36 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiA View Post

It's incredible how quickly this thread has been hijacked into irrelevant discussion of how much tax the rich should pay instead of considering whether Mr. Cook deserved his bonus or not.

Moderators, it's time to rename this website www.USApoliticaloutsider.com

Thank you. On the bright side, this thread has convinced me to spend more time on constructive activities.
post #37 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by danvid36 View Post

http://www.heritage.org/research/taxes/wm2420.cfm

May 4, 2009
The Rich Pay More Taxes...

Are you struggling to post the rest of the Library of Congress?

Let's not restrict your bandwidth with seemingly irrelevant posts about Apple Inc. on this website.
post #38 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

Warren Buffet has been getting kooky in his advanced years. He knows he's reaching end of life status.

So you're saying Buffett really isn't actually paying a substantially less percentage of his income than his secretary?

For those who say Cook deserved it - why not $35M, $50M or even $100M. How much is too much? If he only got a measley $15M do you really think he'd leave? Why not give more money to the engineers who actually design and build the revolutionary products that Apple creates? Without them, Cook would be nothing. I doubt the highest paid among them gets more than $150,000 a year.
post #39 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by stonefree View Post

Why not give more money to the engineers who actually design and build the revolutionary products that Apple creates? Without them, Cook would be nothing. I doubt the highest paid among them gets more than $150,000 a year.

PhD in computer science will get you free lobster tail for lunch at Google. Maybe they should all bail from Apple and show Tim who's boss.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #40 of 65
Getting back on topic...I think a $22 million bonus is obscene. There is NOTHING Tim Cook does that makes him worth that much money. His contributions to Apple cannot possibly be 100 times more valuable than someone in middle management making a couple hundred grand per year.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple COO Tim Cook awarded $22 million bonus