Apple CEO Tim Cook declines RSU dividends worth over $75M - Page 2

Sort of reminds me of some old guy that only took $1/yr salary. Just can't bet on these people that don't take all they possibly can -- I would personally like to believe that the million shares he got at becoming CEO was fair and didn't need to be padded where as others might have cried foul.

The "old guy" takes his in stock since he pays less tax on it as capital gains. Nice to have the option.

Poorer folk have to pay regular income taxes, making them... well...  poorer! 

I guess we will never find out what Tim Cook's real motivations are. But nevertheless, if it was out of some philosophical reasoning that he has more than enough money, and there is no need for any more, then I think his philosophy is misplaced.

I would rather Tim did one of the following:

- Use the $75 million to buy Macs and iPads to be given to children around the world who cannot afford to buy a Mac or an iPad.

- Establish some sort of scholarship so that under privileged kids can also get a first class education.

- Establish a VC fund that will invest in startups that have innovative ideas around Apple products, and that will make difference to quality of life for the disabled (hearing/vision impaired, movement impaired, etc).

or something else like that.

If Apple was a struggling company, or not so successful company, then his giving up the $75 million has some meaning and might help Apple. But in this case, it will not even impact Apple's cash balances at the second decimal - so why bother!

Quote:

Originally Posted by jragosta 


As usual, you're wrong.
If you take $1 M in salary or $1 M in stock, it's still classified as income. A stock grant is taxed just as if you were paid in cash. You're going to be taxed at the marginal tax rate either way.
Now, the GAINS on that stock are taxed at capital gains rates, but there is absolutely no difference between:
a. Receiving $1 M in stock
and
b. Receiving $1 M in cash and immediately buying $1 M in stock.

...Yeah other than the tax liabilities, being paid in stock or paid in cash are exactly the same. Thank you sir.

I've no doubt that someday you'll help clarify a point or assist someone in better understanding without trying to insult them at the same time. But at least you're consistent.

*Grumble*

......Stupid new forum software.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gatorguy 

...Yeah other than the tax liabilities, being paid in stock or paid in cash are exactly the same. Thank you sir.

 

I've no doubt that someday you'll help clarify a point or assist someone in better understanding without trying to insult them at the same time. But at least you're consistent.

So what is the difference in the tax liabilities between being paid in cash or stock?

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigdaddyp 

So what is the difference in the tax liabilities between being paid in cash or stock?

IMO you should get advice on that from your tax advisor rather than a random internet guy. If you don't have one or just simply curious, this is a generalized explanation. IANATA

http://www.ehow.com/about_7475249_tax-company-stock-lieu-cash.html

Quote:

Originally Posted by charlituna 

My sources tell me it is proof Apple is making a tv.

They are actually using a series of little 5" screens glued together to make a foldable 50" TV screen. Very cutting edge. 

I'm surprised people here can not realize what the simple answer to "what's going on here".

As usual, humans overcomplicate these matters and run amuck with ridiculous "reasonings". 

He's not taking it obviously because being that under Steve Jobs, Apple was "anti-Dividend", and under Tim Cook, they quickly issue a Dividend, it can appear as if they're "going behind Steve's back", per-se. Tim not taking his share is him proving that he has no personal motive by doing this, and is doing it as he feels it's what's best for the company and it's share holders.

Oh geesh, I just feel terrible now, having realized I'd make a poor tax attorney.

For the record, according to my link there appear to be definite tax considerations if stock is taken in lieu of cash, and it says much more than you apparently took note of, but to repeat IANATA. That's what I pay accountants and an advisor to take care of. I doubt anyone intends to take tax advice from either one of us anyway.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Godzilla 

I'm surprised people here can not realize what the simple answer to "what's going on here".

As usual, humans overcomplicate these matters and run amuck with ridiculous "reasonings". 

He's not taking it obviously because being that under Steve Jobs, Apple was "anti-Dividend", and under Tim Cook, they quickly issue a Dividend, it can appear as if they're "going behind Steve's back", per-se. Tim not taking his share is him proving that he has no personal motive by doing this, and is doing it as he feels it's what's best for the company and it's share holders.

Exactly what I was thinking; it's a conflict of interest thing. And he doesn't need the money. 

Jr, it's really not a requirement that you be pompous and rude with every post. With all the dishonesty you've shown the past couple of days and were called out on I'm a bit surprised you didn't learn anything from it.

I'll be happy to post the links to them if you can't recall or insist it didn't happen. Courtesy is returned in kind.

You just couldn't help yourself, could you? I was wrong, specifically in my example why someone might take stock rather than cash. BTW, contrary to your claim I never said Cook would save money by taking stock rather than cash. In fact never said anything about Cook at all. As least try to be accurate.

Perhaps you could take the time to do the same with these posts of yours from just this week, which weren't simply misspoken, but IMO intentionally dishonest, and which you've never acknowledged as false, dishonest and/or disingenuous. You just bolt from the conversation rather than admitting to your errors or worse, purposeful deceit.

http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/150261/rumor-google-asus-to-release-joint-7-inch-tablet-in-july/40#post_2115235

http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/150257/apple-says-doj-lawsuit-fundamentally-flawed-could-harm-consumers/80#post_2115032

Just the reply I expected. You've never been wrong yet.

Forum members are perfectly capable of reading and deciding for themselves. Despite requests for citations (several) or response to claims you were being you being disingenous you wouldn't either:

1. Acknowledge your errors or

2. Supply proof you were correct.

Just like I wrote you ditched the threads instead, avoiding an answer rather than admit to anything wrong. Well done.

Steve would have paid a dividend. He wouldn't have had a choice. In terms of shareholder value, Apple's cash hoard was being a drag. Apple was probably earning less than 1% on their cash hoard. If Apple paid a dividend, a shareholder could buy stock in another company and generate a much greater return on it. 

There's also the issue of share creep. A lot of people at Apple have received options grants. When they exercise these options, those are new shares on the market. That will reduce the share price due to share creep. By doing a stock buyback, Apple can combat share creep.