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

13

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 63
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,363member


    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! image

  • Reply 42 of 63
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    gatorguy wrote: »
    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! :lol:

    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.
  • Reply 43 of 63
    macarenamacarena Posts: 365member


    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!

  • Reply 44 of 63
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    macarena wrote: »
    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!

    While your suggestions are good ones, I suspect that he didn't do so because his attention is focused internally. He wants to show the rest of the employees that he's on their side and is not simply out to enrich himself. Donating the money to charity would have accomplished some of that, but too many people have this misguided notion that you somehow benefit yourself if you give money to charity.

    In any event, the message is clearly targeted toward his relationship with the other employees - and this goes along with the other story about him having lunch with the employees and with the new policy on charitable donations. He's trying to morph Apple into a nicer, more communal organization and wants to make it clear that the Jobs days of abuse from management are gone for good.
  • Reply 45 of 63
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,363member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post





    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.

  • Reply 46 of 63
    bigdaddypbigdaddyp Posts: 811member


    *Grumble*


    ......Stupid new forum software.

  • Reply 47 of 63
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    gatorguy wrote: »
    ...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.

    You've managed to continue your history of never getting anything right.

    EVEN CONSIDERING TAX CONSEQUENCES, being paid in stock and cash are the same.

    If you receive cash and immediately buy stock, it's identical to receiving stock. The tax consequences are the same.

    If you receive stock and immediately sell it, it's identical to receiving cash. The tax consequences are the same.

    If you receive stock and hold onto it, the tax consequences for that transaction are exactly the same as if you received cash.


    Your statement ("The "old guy" takes his in stock since he pays less tax on it as capital gains.") is absolutely, totally, completely, 100% false. As usual.
  • Reply 48 of 63
    bigdaddypbigdaddyp Posts: 811member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


    ...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?

  • Reply 49 of 63
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,363member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by bigdaddyp View Post


    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 guyimage. 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

  • Reply 50 of 63
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by charlituna View Post



    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. 

  • Reply 51 of 63
    godzillagodzilla Posts: 156member


    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.

  • Reply 52 of 63
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    gatorguy wrote: »
    IMO you should get advice on that from your tax advisor rather than a random internet guy:lol: . 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

    People should certainly not take tax advice from people like Gatorguy who don't know what they're talking about.

    BTW, the link you provided says:
    "The IRS views compensation in stock -- even it cannot be easily sold -- as income and expects to collect taxes on this income event." and "The IRS expects you to report earnings on your taxes as ordinary income whether the compensation is in the form of cash or even company stock. "

    That's exactly what I've been saying all along and the exact opposite of what you said:
    "The "old guy" takes his in stock since he pays less tax on it as capital gains. Nice to have the option."

    So your own link proves that you don't know what you're talking about.
  • Reply 53 of 63
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,363member


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


     


    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.

  • Reply 54 of 63
    enzosenzos Posts: 344member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Godzilla View Post


    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. 

  • Reply 55 of 63
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    gatorguy wrote: »
    Oh geesh, I just feel terrible now, having realized I'd make a poor tax attorney.:lol:

    Yeah, we're still trying to figure out exactly what subject you DO know about (other than shilling for Google, of course).
  • Reply 56 of 63
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,363member


    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.

  • Reply 57 of 63
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    gatorguy wrote: »
    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 have a strange way of saying "I was wrong when I claimed that Cook would save money on taxes by taking stock rather than cash".
  • Reply 58 of 63
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,363member


    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


     



     



     



     


    As I said, courtesy will be answered in kind. You should try it as it makes the forums more pleasant for all of us. Lying to your fellow forum members and casual visitors, liberally sprinkled with personal insults,  doesn't get you respect which is what it appears you're begging for.
  • Reply 59 of 63
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    gatorguy wrote: »
    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.

    Sorry, but none of those show any dishonesty.

    But that's your MO. When you look like an idiot, spread lies about other people.

    The fact is that every post of yours comes across as a Google shill.
  • Reply 60 of 63
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,363member


    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.

Sign In or Register to comment.