let's face it anderson is a jerk trying to take jobs down with him. own up to your ill-gotten gains.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Anderson Blames Jobs In Backdating
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Gates was not "generous". He used a tax dodge known as a foundation into which he transferred that portion of his estate which would immediately become subject to double taxation on his death. By putting it into the foundation, tax is entirely avoided on those sums forever, and the deduction reduces tax on other portions of his income which is substantial to the degree he diversifies out of appreciated Microsoft stock, his primary asset holding.
The foundation then hires his entire family and friends and pays them salaries and generous benefits, which is taxable income to them. The proceeds from the gain on the foundation are themselves tax-free even if it involves an otherwise taxable investment such as stock or real estate.
The only obligation of the foundation to "serve its stated purpose" is to spend "a portion of the annual proceeds from investments", presumably net of salaries, oerhead, and benefits.
It is a great tool for the ultra rich (>$20m) to preserve the asset they grew and keeping it out of the hands of the IRS. Killing the foundation provision would be pointless as some other tax dodge would be employed otherwise and it would NOT have a "good public purpose". It also might not throw off massive taxable income and benefits paid to employees.
Rocketman
No. Even before I was worth more than the $100K figure you speak of, I wouldn't steal another $350. You say "Wealth makes greedy" (sic) -- I don't think that's true of all people. That's a very big blanket statement you've made that's not always the case. You go on to say "I don't about SJ..." -- well, then -- why not give him the benefit of the doubt? INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY, right? He's a known Budhist and I believe he's shown remarkable tenacity with the startup of Apple; getting ousted; forming, growing and selling Next; buying, growing and selling Pixar; forming, growing and beating Cancer; coming back to Apple and developing some amazing stuff in the last 10 years -- again -- worth $5.7B, what would the extra money mean to him.
I read once (I wish I had the link) that Steve is very conscience of buying all of the digital music/movie/tv files that he downloads from iTunes, keeping everything above board. He could have his chioice of 5M songs for free but he pays for everything he listens to because he's not a thief.
it's not the money, it's hubris.
Maybe he just slipped up and it's coming back to bite him in the apple.
Martha didn't need the cash either.
frankly, this looks not so good. Didn't Martha's broker say the same thing: "If i'm a goin down you is cumin along wid me bitch" -(well, maybe not exactly that way)
time to short Apple stock?
Anyway, maybe Steve can show some of the inmates how to use computers, maybe have little classes. I think Martha taught crafts didn't she?
Maybe he just slipped up and it's coming back to bite him in the apple.
Martha didn't need the cash either.
frankly, this looks not so good. Didn't Martha's broker say the same thing: "If i'm a goin down you is cumin along wid me bitch" -(well, maybe not exactly that way)
time to short Apple stock?
Anyway, maybe Steve can show some of the inmates how to use computers, maybe have little classes. I think Martha taught crafts didn't she?
Yeah... let's prosecute Jobs on his so-called arrogance? That makes sense.
Martha is Martha. You are you. I am me. Steve is Steve. Let's be clear here: all Billionaires are not created equal. Player-haters, apparently, are... don't hate.
"He said/He said". Who cares?
Time to grow up.
Uhmmmmm... not funny.
-----
Just did a search for other posts by this guy. One negative newbie ... crawl back under your bridge, troll.
I'm sure they (=everyone involved in options backdating tricks at various companies that came under scrutiny recently) didn't see it as stealing. They may even have truly believed that approach was fine. If you had the chance to make those $350, say, saving taxes by exploiting a legal gray area, would you?
Just curious, something wrong with the spelling (because of the sic)?
Yes, it's a general statement, which I believe generally is true. Of course not every single rich person is greedy, but many, perhaps most are. Statements like that are not meant to be taken in absolute terms. It's like saying "TV is so boring". Well, guess what, it's not ALWAYS boring, but often enough. If it makes you feel better, insert "often" in my sentence.
As you noticed, my argument was a general statement showing why I believe it's naive to think "There's no way he would want to fudge for a few more million" simply because he's already rich. I'm not saying Jobs IS or IS NOT guilty, but that he could be. "There's no way" (btw, just as much a blanket statement) ... well, yes, there is. There are many examples of highly acclaimed people, who fell into the greed trap.
And about the "innocent until proven guilty" part, ... You know, I'm sure there are tons of executives who use various questionable means of enriching themselves by skimming shareholders or shirking taxes and never get caught. Innocent? Maybe in a legal sense, but they're still guilty in my book.
Those are all commendable achievements, but unrelated to whether or not he accepted a compensation package that included questionalble options.
I was speaking to Mac Jones, not to SillyKary -- you've got two screen names? Well -- ok. The old good-cop-bad-cop approach to Board Posting.
My problem with your whole initial post was your quick support of Anderson in that Jobs is possibly guilty simply because Anderson pointed fingers. The fact actually was that there were both an internal and a governmental investigation with Jobs coming up clean.
Bottomline, as you may know by now, Apple's board supports Jobs and they actually KNOW the guy.
The gut-reaction for a lot of people these days, it seems to me, is the desire to see the powerful fall. The sheer glee and joy it brings for those who have-not to see those who have-a-lot take a tumble just sickens me.
And I was speaking to and quoted only from post #78 where JGowan replied to SillyKary.
My post had nothing to do with Anderson, I would've said the same thing without Anderson's press release. It just strikes me as odd that SJ is on the receiving end of a multi-million dollar reward, is the top-boss in his company and known as a control freak - yet claims not to know how these millions really came about.
The board also has a very vested interest in keeping SJ out of trouble. As you said, Jobs was "developing some amazing stuff in the last 10 years" and is in many minds the reason for Apple's success. Do you think the board would just happily reveal anything that could possibly get Jobs prosecuted? And the government? Well the government only knows what insiders like the board tell them or what they can glean from documents the insiders provide. And if the insiders all sit thight, well ...
Don't get me wrong, I've been an Apple fan for a LONG time, am happy about the firm's recent success and am not really keen to see an Apple without SJ at the helm again. I'd definitely not be full of "sheer glee and joy" to see him fall. At the same time, I'm also not naive enough to insist that SJ is a saint and staunchly deny that he could possibly have been involved in any wrongdoing.
BTW, with your repeated "Jobs is a $5.7 billionaire" argument, keep in mind that Forbes list is from 2007. The incident happend in January 2001. The iPod, the cornerstone of Apple's meteoric rise, didn't even exist yet. SJ was worth $1.4b in Jan 2001, his Apple stock was worth $38 (yes, that's thirtyeight dollars for two shares) and his older options were worthless. Another $3.5 in comp may have been even the more tempting.
All will be revealed when Nancy Heinen goes to court because she claims to have email saying Job's told her to do it.
Okay here are some quotes about him:
Do you hear that, Mr. Anderson? That is the sound of inevitability.
Tell me, Mr. Anderson, what good is a phone call when you are unable to speak?
Mr. Anderson! Surprised to see me?
We are here because of you Mr. Anderson. To take from you what you have tried to take from us.
Mr. Anderson! Welcome back, we missed you.
Therefore Mr. Anderson is very very famous and wanted. Boooo...
Do you hear that, Mr. Anderson? That is the sound of inevitability.
Tell me, Mr. Anderson, what good is a phone call when you are unable to speak?
Mr. Anderson! Surprised to see me?
We are here because of you Mr. Anderson. To take from you what you have tried to take from us.
Mr. Anderson! Welcome back, we missed you.
Therefore Mr. Anderson is very very famous and wanted. Boooo...
ok, I don't think anyone here wants to see Steve get busted unless they are a troll. I for one, have a Macbook Pro with Apple Care , 4 ipods, and so much more apple crap I don' thave all day to list it all.
'Normally' I wouldn't care much one way or the other but Steve hitting the rock pile would be awful.
But this thing looks bad, and the fact that the Board has affirmed support isn't going to stop them from firing him if it comes to that.
Usually, where there's smoke there's fire.
As a note, I was a bit suprised by this iPhone product and how Steve was so gung-ho about something that looks like a odd niche item. I couldn't help but wonder that he may be distracted and losing his touch. Something like this can reverberate on and on.
'Normally' I wouldn't care much one way or the other but Steve hitting the rock pile would be awful.
But this thing looks bad, and the fact that the Board has affirmed support isn't going to stop them from firing him if it comes to that.
Usually, where there's smoke there's fire.
As a note, I was a bit suprised by this iPhone product and how Steve was so gung-ho about something that looks like a odd niche item. I couldn't help but wonder that he may be distracted and losing his touch. Something like this can reverberate on and on.
