5 ms·
But they don't "give it" to Wall Street, people actually pay for it, which is the big difference. All the use of the non-GAAP numbers is an attempt to skirt aro
by jcdavis 10y ago
But they don't "give it" to Wall Street, people actually pay for it, which is the big difference. All the use of the non-GAAP numbers is an attempt to skirt around this fact
- walshemj 10y agoAnd compared to the UK tax treatment of stock options for employees is brutal
- toomuchtodo 10y agoWhat if the way the UK treats stock options for tax purposes is the right way and the US is extremely lenient?
- thaumasiotes 10y agoI have no knowledge of what the differences might be. But I read the sentence you're responding to as the opposite of how you seem to. > compared to the UK[,] tax treatment of stock options for employees is brutal To me that sounds like the US is strict and England is lenient. Your way would need wording like "compared to the UK tax treatment of stock options for employees[, which] is brutal".
- walshemj 10y agoWell for one you cant get a massive tax bill for options that are worth nothing. The first $15k of capital gains is tax free and approved share schemas have even better allowances. I know some one working in a 100 year old ftse 100 company that grossed nearly $200k from a share option scheme - and that is effectively tax free. From next year you can put away $28k in a tax free account that is immune from income tax - this years allowance is $20k. Thats before you get into EIS and VCT Shares