3 ms·
Most CEOs do own a majority share in their company, because they are very small businesses. But even talking about publicly traded companies and their private
by bpt3 1y ago
Most CEOs do own a majority share in their company, because they are very small businesses.
But even talking about publicly traded companies and their private equivalents in scale, plenty of them move their HQ when it makes financial sense to do so and have non-US entities that could employ their CEO so he or she could do the same.
I have no idea why you think Starbucks, with thousands and thousands of locations outside the US, wouldn't consider employing their CEO out of a non-US location to let them avoid a confiscatory personal income tax rate.
- wat10000 1y agoI have no idea why a large company would consider such massive disruption just to save a single employee some money. The CEO works for the company, the board, and the shareholders, not the other way around.
- bpt3 1y agoBecause it's not a massive disruption? The CEO of Starbucks currently commutes to the office for his 3 days a week of in person work from southern CA to Seattle via private jet. Would it be a massive disruption if he commuted from Canada or Mexico (which do not have a 90% effective marginal tax rate and I'm sure would be happy to have high income earners from the US show up and pay taxes in their country) instead?
- wat10000 1y agoWeren’t you talking about moving the entire HQ? Commuting from Canada or Mexico wouldn’t help at all. The US is going to want its taxes if you’re working in the US. It even wants its taxes if you’re not working in the US, if you’re a citizen. If our hypothetical CEO was a citizen, they’d have to renounce it, and move company HQ out of the country, and move themselves out of the country. If they’re not a US citizen then they just need the last two.