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.
Can you please stop derailing and focus on the topic at hand. I for get little annoyed at people who start changing the subject to focus on topics that are really US focused in nature and have nothing to do with discussion thread or do not involve the rest of the world. If your comments were valid that would be great but danvid36 link already showed that your comments were not supported (http://www.heritage.org/research/taxes/wm2420.cfm).
This is apple discussion site for all world to take part and not political site to discuss the worries of CA, teachers and budget issues in CA.
Thats only time I get annoyed when a discussion becomes USA focused for no reason and is not related to Apple news.
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.
native person, you are. Do you think middle management could handle the investors, shareholders and keeping confidence with business world with Steve away on medical leave.
We should have a reality show called 'Being a CEO for a Week' and allow people to try and manage a business in their own professional area and see how very stressful and difficult it is.
I am a shareholder and I more than happy is paid for his performance during that time.
native person, you are. Do you think middle management could handle the investors, shareholders and keeping confidence with business world with Steve away on medical leave.
You apparently did not understand my point. I do not for a moment believe Cook's skill set is 100 times greater than someone in middle management making 200k/year. Therefore, giving him 100 times the compensation of a middle manager is completely unwarranted.
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?
Shut up with this socialist crap. It's you do nothing deadbeat whiners who nip at the heels of those who actually work for a living and upon whose shoulders the whole society rides. You should be grateful that the producers aren't nearly as resentful as you--TOWARDS you--and who work for the love of working, who would much rather be working than sitting on their fat asses doing nothing and yet expecting some "equity" or "fairness."
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.
Hey, I told you to shut up with this socialist, commie crap. Executives who take the lion's share of responsibility and who successfully guide the whole or parts of a company which then prospers deserve commensurately larger compensation than employees at lower levels. As talented as engineers are, they are never the less employees who value the relative "security" of daily work schedules and pay checks over the inherent risks of starting their own companies.
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.
His on-stage persona is terrible though. He has such a monotonous way of speaking. He doesn't have to do stage presentations much but he will at one point.
The problem with Jobs' replacement is that grooming someone to fit the position isn't going to work. The way Jobs and most people like him get to where they are is by breaking the mold. If you fit someone else's mold then you're not the right guy for the job.
Rather than walking around with a bracelet saying 'WWJD' (what would Jobs do), it's having the authority to go their own way. If Cook is able to do exactly that then fair enough. Otherwise, Apple will keep making products that replicate past success and over time it will dilute their innovation. Those cracks are already starting to show.
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.
Even if his skill, ability and contribution were no greater than those in middle management, he has far greater responsibilities as COO for the entire company. If people were paid the same money for the greater risk and stress of running the entire company as those merely running a department or division then very few people would be willing to run companies.
Besides, do you know what bonus middle management have received? You may be way off the mark with the 100x figure.
They could have received $2 million for all we know.
You apparently did not understand my point. I do not for a moment believe Cook's skill set is 100 times greater than someone in middle management making 200k/year. Therefore, giving him 100 times the compensation of a middle manager is completely unwarranted.
I did understand your point, the point is middle management have no liability with concern to the company's day to day operations and responsibility to board, employees and shareholders. Again until you have walked the walk, you can not talk about situation or job, you have no understanding about with concern to day to day stresses of running a company.
His on-stage persona is terrible though. He has such a monotonous way of speaking. He doesn't have to do stage presentations much but he will at one point.
The problem with Jobs' replacement is that grooming someone to fit the position isn't going to work. The way Jobs and most people like him get to where they are is by breaking the mold. If you fit someone else's mold then you're not the right guy for the job.
Rather than walking around with a bracelet saying 'WWJD' (what would Jobs do), it's having the authority to go their own way. If Cook is able to do exactly that then fair enough. Otherwise, Apple will keep making products that replicate past success and over time it will dilute their innovation. Those cracks are already starting to show.
Interesting observation, and I (sort of) concur. I recall one area that he badly flubbed in SJ's absence: The whole China intro deal, with the wifi-less phone that has been a disaster there.
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.
Big deal, they followed the road-map Jobs set to stone, even a monkey could do that. The purpose of this bonus is more like to keep the guy at hands as he knows much about apple so may be valuable for other corps.
The real question, will they be able to set their own successful roadmap when Jobs says goodbye.
Quote:
Originally Posted by souliisoul
I did understand your point, the point is middle management have no liability with concern to the company's day to day operations and responsibility to board, employees and shareholders. Again until you have walked the walk, you can not talk about situation or job, you have no understanding about with concern to day to day stresses of running a company.
A CEO has no liability either, he/she could only loose his/her ego or the job, nothing else.
They'll leave. You'll have neither the rich nor the taxes, and still have no desks for those kids. Economics 101
Yes, but Reality 101 says that they won't go anywhere in significant numbers. Reality always trumps Economics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FormerARSgm
I DO AGREE [/B]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
Consumption based taxes are entirely regressive and guarantee that the very wealthy pay a lower percentage of their income in taxes than the middle class. The only fair tax (for individuals, and based on the principal that as one benefits from living in a society, so should one pay) that spreads taxation equally is a gross income tax. Making this a progressive tax is justifiable on the grounds that, as income rises, the benefits realized from living in a particular society increase disproportionally. Eliminating consumption, and, especially, property taxes also has the added benefit of reducing the tax burden of those on low, fixed incomes, primarily the elderly. (Do we really want to be a society that forces the elderly from their homes because they can no longer afford the property taxes?)
And, on topic, my guess is that Cook's bonus is based mainly how much they feel they need to give him to keep him from wanting to jump ship vs. how disruptive they feel it would be if he did, more so than any calculation of his exact contribution relative to other executives at Apple.
Yes, but Reality 101 says that they won't go anywhere in significant numbers. Reality always trumps Economics.
Yeah, Economics 101 is Unreality 101.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
Consumption based taxes are entirely regressive and guarantee that the very wealthy pay a lower percentage of their income in taxes than the middle class. The only fair tax ......
Yeah, the EU has greater income inequality than the US because of their VAT (a consumption tax).
A CEO has no liability either, he/she could only loose his/her ego or the job, nothing else.
CEOs are usually shareholders in their companies too, company stock is usually part of their renumeration, so they do have a stake in the health of the company.
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%
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.
At least those "leeches" at the top provide jobs_you never get a job from a poor person. There is a huge problem in this country with illegal immigrants sucking the system dry and you socialists complain because a company pays a bonus to an outstanding employee???
Don't read it then you snob. Go bow to your Queen or something.
I visit this site to read things that are relevant to Apple Inc. and its products. I didn't visit to read about politics, social policy, ecology, monarchs, etiquette etc irrelevant to Apple of which there are plenty of sites elsewhere on the internet.
You are of course welcome to set up your own internet site.
If you're going to drift off onto a topic totally irrelevant to the article then why limit yourself to taxation policy? Post the entire library of Congress.
It has nothing to do with snobbery just everything with relevance and focus.
I don't go to the gym and ask the employees to repair my car nor do I go to the hospital and ask the medical staff to build me a new house.
If Appleinsider can't focus on what's relevant then it may as well just become yet another general news site.
I visit this site to read things that are relevant to Apple Inc. and its products. I didn't visit to read about politics, social policy, ecology, monarchs, etiquette etc irrelevant to Apple of which there are plenty of sites elsewhere on the internet.
You are of course welcome to set up your own internet site.
If you're going to drift off onto a topic totally irrelevant to the article then why limit yourself to taxation policy? Post the entire library of Congress.
It has nothing to do with snobbery just everything with relevance and focus.
I don't go to the gym and ask the employees to repair my car nor do I go to the hospital and ask the medical staff to build me a new house.
If Appleinsider can't focus on what's relevant then it may as well just become yet another general news site.
Again, do NOT read it if you don't want. This is a free country.
Tangents make life interesting. Skip over the posts that you don't like and devour the ones you do. Life is good.
The most interesting discussions often occur on the periphery of a given topic or headline.
Apple's bonus system and the magnitude of the options and who they go to and for what are all interesting. The huge numbers that are thrown around elicit strong emotional reactions that are just as interesting.
For what it's worth, Cook's going to pay a lot of tax on that award. Far higher than the 15% capital gains cap. That's federal - you still have to factor in California's share. The widely-held belief of the wealthy paying little tax is just that. A myth.
Tangents make life interesting. Skip over the posts that you don't like and devour the ones you do. Life is good.
The most interesting discussions often occur on the periphery of a given topic or headline.
There are tangents and there's coming off a different curve altogether.
Perhaps we should now start talking about currency exchange as Tim Cook was paid in US dollars and he may wish to exchange them into Swiss Francs or Euros.
Maybe we should start debating good ergonomic desk design as he may donate his bonus to getting those school desks for California.
He's been paid the $22 million and it'll be taxed according to tax regulations as they stand today.
Those not happy about it can spend their time more constructively by contacting their political representatives; I don't go to a medical doctor to whinge about bad roads in the city.
Comments
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.
Can you please stop derailing and focus on the topic at hand. I for get little annoyed at people who start changing the subject to focus on topics that are really US focused in nature and have nothing to do with discussion thread or do not involve the rest of the world. If your comments were valid that would be great but danvid36 link already showed that your comments were not supported (http://www.heritage.org/research/taxes/wm2420.cfm).
This is apple discussion site for all world to take part and not political site to discuss the worries of CA, teachers and budget issues in CA.
Thats only time I get annoyed when a discussion becomes USA focused for no reason and is not related to Apple news.
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.
native person, you are. Do you think middle management could handle the investors, shareholders and keeping confidence with business world with Steve away on medical leave.
We should have a reality show called 'Being a CEO for a Week' and allow people to try and manage a business in their own professional area and see how very stressful and difficult it is.
I am a shareholder and I more than happy is paid for his performance during that time.
native person, you are. Do you think middle management could handle the investors, shareholders and keeping confidence with business world with Steve away on medical leave.
You apparently did not understand my point. I do not for a moment believe Cook's skill set is 100 times greater than someone in middle management making 200k/year. Therefore, giving him 100 times the compensation of a middle manager is completely unwarranted.
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?
Shut up with this socialist crap. It's you do nothing deadbeat whiners who nip at the heels of those who actually work for a living and upon whose shoulders the whole society rides. You should be grateful that the producers aren't nearly as resentful as you--TOWARDS you--and who work for the love of working, who would much rather be working than sitting on their fat asses doing nothing and yet expecting some "equity" or "fairness."
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.
Hey, I told you to shut up with this socialist, commie crap. Executives who take the lion's share of responsibility and who successfully guide the whole or parts of a company which then prospers deserve commensurately larger compensation than employees at lower levels. As talented as engineers are, they are never the less employees who value the relative "security" of daily work schedules and pay checks over the inherent risks of starting their own companies.
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.
His on-stage persona is terrible though. He has such a monotonous way of speaking. He doesn't have to do stage presentations much but he will at one point.
The problem with Jobs' replacement is that grooming someone to fit the position isn't going to work. The way Jobs and most people like him get to where they are is by breaking the mold. If you fit someone else's mold then you're not the right guy for the job.
Rather than walking around with a bracelet saying 'WWJD' (what would Jobs do), it's having the authority to go their own way. If Cook is able to do exactly that then fair enough. Otherwise, Apple will keep making products that replicate past success and over time it will dilute their innovation. Those cracks are already starting to show.
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.
Even if his skill, ability and contribution were no greater than those in middle management, he has far greater responsibilities as COO for the entire company. If people were paid the same money for the greater risk and stress of running the entire company as those merely running a department or division then very few people would be willing to run companies.
Besides, do you know what bonus middle management have received? You may be way off the mark with the 100x figure.
They could have received $2 million for all we know.
You apparently did not understand my point. I do not for a moment believe Cook's skill set is 100 times greater than someone in middle management making 200k/year. Therefore, giving him 100 times the compensation of a middle manager is completely unwarranted.
I did understand your point, the point is middle management have no liability with concern to the company's day to day operations and responsibility to board, employees and shareholders. Again until you have walked the walk, you can not talk about situation or job, you have no understanding about with concern to day to day stresses of running a company.
His on-stage persona is terrible though. He has such a monotonous way of speaking. He doesn't have to do stage presentations much but he will at one point.
The problem with Jobs' replacement is that grooming someone to fit the position isn't going to work. The way Jobs and most people like him get to where they are is by breaking the mold. If you fit someone else's mold then you're not the right guy for the job.
Rather than walking around with a bracelet saying 'WWJD' (what would Jobs do), it's having the authority to go their own way. If Cook is able to do exactly that then fair enough. Otherwise, Apple will keep making products that replicate past success and over time it will dilute their innovation. Those cracks are already starting to show.
Interesting observation, and I (sort of) concur. I recall one area that he badly flubbed in SJ's absence: The whole China intro deal, with the wifi-less phone that has been a disaster there.
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.
Big deal, they followed the road-map Jobs set to stone, even a monkey could do that. The purpose of this bonus is more like to keep the guy at hands as he knows much about apple so may be valuable for other corps.
The real question, will they be able to set their own successful roadmap when Jobs says goodbye.
I did understand your point, the point is middle management have no liability with concern to the company's day to day operations and responsibility to board, employees and shareholders. Again until you have walked the walk, you can not talk about situation or job, you have no understanding about with concern to day to day stresses of running a company.
A CEO has no liability either, he/she could only loose his/her ego or the job, nothing else.
They'll leave. You'll have neither the rich nor the taxes, and still have no desks for those kids. Economics 101
Yes, but Reality 101 says that they won't go anywhere in significant numbers. Reality always trumps Economics.
I DO AGREE [/B]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
Consumption based taxes are entirely regressive and guarantee that the very wealthy pay a lower percentage of their income in taxes than the middle class. The only fair tax (for individuals, and based on the principal that as one benefits from living in a society, so should one pay) that spreads taxation equally is a gross income tax. Making this a progressive tax is justifiable on the grounds that, as income rises, the benefits realized from living in a particular society increase disproportionally. Eliminating consumption, and, especially, property taxes also has the added benefit of reducing the tax burden of those on low, fixed incomes, primarily the elderly. (Do we really want to be a society that forces the elderly from their homes because they can no longer afford the property taxes?)
And, on topic, my guess is that Cook's bonus is based mainly how much they feel they need to give him to keep him from wanting to jump ship vs. how disruptive they feel it would be if he did, more so than any calculation of his exact contribution relative to other executives at Apple.
Yes, but Reality 101 says that they won't go anywhere in significant numbers. Reality always trumps Economics.
Yeah, Economics 101 is Unreality 101.
Consumption based taxes are entirely regressive and guarantee that the very wealthy pay a lower percentage of their income in taxes than the middle class. The only fair tax ......
Yeah, the EU has greater income inequality than the US because of their VAT (a consumption tax).
Not. In both cases.
A CEO has no liability either, he/she could only loose his/her ego or the job, nothing else.
CEOs are usually shareholders in their companies too, company stock is usually part of their renumeration, so they do have a stake in the health of the company.
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%
Your ignorance has been duly noted.
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.
At least those "leeches" at the top provide jobs_you never get a job from a poor person. There is a huge problem in this country with illegal immigrants sucking the system dry and you socialists complain because a company pays a bonus to an outstanding employee???
Class envy at its best.
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.
Don't read it then you snob. Go bow to your Queen or something.
Don't read it then you snob. Go bow to your Queen or something.
I visit this site to read things that are relevant to Apple Inc. and its products. I didn't visit to read about politics, social policy, ecology, monarchs, etiquette etc irrelevant to Apple of which there are plenty of sites elsewhere on the internet.
You are of course welcome to set up your own internet site.
If you're going to drift off onto a topic totally irrelevant to the article then why limit yourself to taxation policy? Post the entire library of Congress.
It has nothing to do with snobbery just everything with relevance and focus.
I don't go to the gym and ask the employees to repair my car nor do I go to the hospital and ask the medical staff to build me a new house.
If Appleinsider can't focus on what's relevant then it may as well just become yet another general news site.
I visit this site to read things that are relevant to Apple Inc. and its products. I didn't visit to read about politics, social policy, ecology, monarchs, etiquette etc irrelevant to Apple of which there are plenty of sites elsewhere on the internet.
You are of course welcome to set up your own internet site.
If you're going to drift off onto a topic totally irrelevant to the article then why limit yourself to taxation policy? Post the entire library of Congress.
It has nothing to do with snobbery just everything with relevance and focus.
I don't go to the gym and ask the employees to repair my car nor do I go to the hospital and ask the medical staff to build me a new house.
If Appleinsider can't focus on what's relevant then it may as well just become yet another general news site.
Again, do NOT read it if you don't want. This is a free country.
The most interesting discussions often occur on the periphery of a given topic or headline.
Apple's bonus system and the magnitude of the options and who they go to and for what are all interesting. The huge numbers that are thrown around elicit strong emotional reactions that are just as interesting.
For what it's worth, Cook's going to pay a lot of tax on that award. Far higher than the 15% capital gains cap. That's federal - you still have to factor in California's share. The widely-held belief of the wealthy paying little tax is just that. A myth.
Tangents make life interesting. Skip over the posts that you don't like and devour the ones you do. Life is good.
The most interesting discussions often occur on the periphery of a given topic or headline.
There are tangents and there's coming off a different curve altogether.
Perhaps we should now start talking about currency exchange as Tim Cook was paid in US dollars and he may wish to exchange them into Swiss Francs or Euros.
Maybe we should start debating good ergonomic desk design as he may donate his bonus to getting those school desks for California.
He's been paid the $22 million and it'll be taxed according to tax regulations as they stand today.
Those not happy about it can spend their time more constructively by contacting their political representatives; I don't go to a medical doctor to whinge about bad roads in the city.