4 ms·

I don't see how setting your compensation to $0 freaks everyone out. Steve Jobs set his pay to $0. A top level executive who has pay is communicating that they

I don't see how setting your compensation to $0 freaks everyone out. Steve Jobs set his pay to $0. A top level executive who has pay is communicating that they would like to argue that they're technically an employee and thus should be paid for services rendered regardless of company performance. Setting your pay to $0 says that you wish to yolk your fortunes to the company. That is an act of confidence. More importantly, this is a public corporation and finances are disclosed to some extent that outside parties may consider the profile of the company.

JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> Steve Jobs set his pay to $0 Jobs was independently wealthy. That’s fine. (And tax efficient.) If the CEO isn’t, paying themselves zero puts them in a financially precarious position. That isn’t great for decision making. If done so with the aim of reducing layoffs, it could suggest operations close to a red line. (One person shouldn’t have a material effect on the cash cushion unless the CEO was making off like a bandit, in which case they’re not the type to do this anyway.) What the CEO could do is cut their pay to the median, to what they need to survive or to the lowest employee’s pay. This could be part of the overcorrection if the mistake made was high pay. But it’s unlikely to save anyone’s job, and shouldn’t be positioned that way. > this is a public corporation The LinkedIn consultancy the crying CEO leads isn’t public.
maxwell 4y ago
> Steve Jobs set his pay to $0. No, he earned $1 a year. Guess how much he paid in income taxes.
- egberts1 4y ago
  A lot, mostly in form of capital gain taxes incurred through stock sales from exercised options. But hey, he technically paid zero taxes on his wage of $1.00.
  - maxwell 4y ago
    I said income tax.
  - salawat 4y ago
    Not exercised options. Exercised options and resale, likely with a 2 year hold period. Otherwise, you are essentially paying income tax via short-term capital gains.
    - nunez 4y ago
      20% on LTCG above $500,000 is still a hell of a lot cheaper than 39%+ (tiered) on income above $500,000 or whatever.

JumpCrisscross 4y ago

> Steve Jobs set his pay to $0 Jobs was independently wealthy. That’s fine. (And tax efficient.) If the CEO isn’t, paying themselves zero puts them in a financially precarious position. That isn’t great for decision making. If done so with the aim of reducing layoffs, it could suggest operations close to a red line. (One person shouldn’t have a material effect on the cash cushion unless the CEO was making off like a bandit, in which case they’re not the type to do this anyway.) What the CEO could do is cut their pay to the median, to what they need to survive or to the lowest employee’s pay. This could be part of the overcorrection if the mistake made was high pay. But it’s unlikely to save anyone’s job, and shouldn’t be positioned that way. > this is a public corporation The LinkedIn consultancy the crying CEO leads isn’t public.

maxwell 4y ago

> Steve Jobs set his pay to $0. No, he earned $1 a year. Guess how much he paid in income taxes.

egberts1 4y ago
A lot, mostly in form of capital gain taxes incurred through stock sales from exercised options. But hey, he technically paid zero taxes on his wage of $1.00.
- maxwell 4y ago
  I said income tax.
- salawat 4y ago
  Not exercised options. Exercised options and resale, likely with a 2 year hold period. Otherwise, you are essentially paying income tax via short-term capital gains.
  - nunez 4y ago
    20% on LTCG above $500,000 is still a hell of a lot cheaper than 39%+ (tiered) on income above $500,000 or whatever.