Apple Executives Cash in Over 1 Million Shares of Apple Stock

[Sour Apple]

Um...great.

The pay gap gets wider and wider. Their lower level employees are lucky to get a $1k bonus, and that's before taxes! Oh yeah, that's after working as a temp for 3 to 4 years.

 

[AidenShaw]

Long-term capital gains tax (which these stocks fall under) in the US right now is only 15%. Not sure why so much was set aside for taxes.

The stocks were gifts (grants). When they vest, they become yours.

Nothing "long term" about this - if someone gives you $69M in stocks, you owe income tax on "income" of $69M.

 

[aine]

Half for taxes. Damn capital gains

Actually, Minor point, but I believe the taxes are for what's considered "ordinary income", not "capital gains".

That's because this is basically pure income: there was no investment of capital on their part, nor was there any risk to holding their options; they were essentially handed a check for sticking around for 4 years while Apple stock rose. The gain is "short term".

 

[litmag01]

Holy Crap!

Wow. That is some serious never have to work again in your LIFE cash.

 

[vm8a72]

selling 300,000 shares of stock for a total of $68.8 million. $32 million of that amount was set aside for taxes. ][/QUOTE]

They must have received their bill to help pay the entitlement known as health care. Im sure that money would have been put to better use being donated to a worthy charity than a bloated beurocracy

 

[diabolic]

Long-term capital gains tax (which these stocks fall under) in the US right now is only 15%. Not sure why so much was set aside for taxes.

It depends on the type of options and when they vested. Some require you to pay the normal income tax rate.

 

[daxomni]

Half for taxes. Damn capital gains

So sad...so sad.

thank god for uncle sam inventing half of that iphone ...

Don't like taxes? Move to somewhere you won't have to pay them. Like Antarctica. Want a completely free market? Move to Nigeria.

Now you know why Apple hardware is so overpriced!

Apple hardware is taxed at the same rate that everything else is taxed in the area of sale.

 

[*LTD*]

These shares were sold off the day after they were fully vested. These were granted back in December 2005.

This is normal activity and some of the proceeds from these sales are usually used to pay taxes.

 

[Takuta-Nui]

Hoping not to set off a right-left debate here... I'm a post-modern thinker so I'm highly suspicious of traditional ideologies. But all I'd like to say is that if you look at what they're keeping in the end... there really isn't that much to complain about. After all, the taxed money is going toward mostly worthwhile projects that better the disadvantaged so they have more chances of achieving similar success. =)

 

[jpyc7]

Those taxes are positively disgusting.

California state taxes capital gains as regular income (long-term or short-term doesn't matter). So that's probably 10%. There's the 15% for federal long-term capital gains, and probably 1/4th of the exercise is short-term.

I see that someone else says that none of it might be considered capital gains anyway. So maybe all of the money is taxed as regular income.

 

[phillipduran]

Half for taxes. Damn capital gains

68 Million and 32 of that the government gets. That is insane. Nearly a 50% tax. Rich or not, that degree of taxes on anyone is wrong.

And to the naysayers, if 50% is ok (because jeeze, he still gets 36 million dollars) why not make it 95%? Why wouldn't that be ok as well? Taxes should always be a small fraction of any transaction. Anything over a 10% tax IMO should require some splainin' of dire need and be short term (is there such a thing in the tax world . It should be looked upon as a gvt abuse of power.

 

[tasset]

So sad.

... so sad.

What's sad? Paying taxes?
Once you get past $10 million you can buy anything and go anywhere you please, and at that point you are just keeping score with the other affluent.
You don't exactly see millionaires building roads or serving themselves at fine establishments, so high tax rates is just the lube for the machine that keeps the high life running (which is to say servitude of the masses).

 

[phillipduran]

Hoping not to set off a right-left debate here... I'm a post-modern thinker so I'm highly suspicious of traditional ideologies. But all I'd like to say is that if you look at what they're keeping in the end... there really isn't that much to complain about. After all, the taxed money is going toward mostly worthwhile projects that better the disadvantaged so they have more chances of achieving similar success. =)

Not much to complain about? 50% tax is something to seriously complain about!

So you "post-modern thinkers" think thats ok? Doesn't seem like your crowd actually does much thinking.

If the projects are worthwhile, why not go with a 95% tax? Why would you hold money from those who are so disadvantaged?

 

[GeekLawyer]

68 Million and 32 of that the government gets. That is insane. Nearly a 50% tax. Rich or not, that degree of taxes on anyone is wrong...

This seems to have turned into a thread about taxes. What you should know is that current tax rates in the US are no-where near their all-time highs. For example: "as recently as the late 1970s, the top tax rate in the U.S. was 70%."

 

[RaZaK]

not sure if i like this...

Investors don't normally take a liking to executives cashing in stock options...

 

[GeekLawyer]

Investors don't normally take a liking to executives cashing in stock options...

Apple is up over $4 today at this moment. Investors seem fine with it.

 

[puckhead193]

Um...great.

The pay gap gets wider and wider. Their lower level employees are lucky to get a $1k bonus, and that's before taxes! Oh yeah, that's after working as a temp for 3 to 4 years.

you definitly are sour
I'm happy that he's successful and hope that some of his earnings go to various charities. (if not a really cool car or house )

 

[daxomni]

And to the naysayers, if 50% is ok why not make it 95%?

On the other hand, if 50% is too much, why not make it 0%? That's about as much thought as you appear to have put into your argument.

Taxes should always be a small fraction of any transaction.

Taxes should always be a small fraction of the buying power of each entity. Thus, tax on food can be zero percent while tax on millions of dollars in bonuses can be half or more of the windfall. In the end none of these executives' lives was impacted much by these taxes. They're still more than rich enough to buy whatever they need and most of what they could ever want.

 

[diabolic]

This seems to have turned into a thread about taxes. What you should know is that current tax rates in the US are no-where near their all-time highs. For example: "as recently as the late 1970s, the top tax rate in the U.S. was 70%."

Yes, but it's still generally too high. Just because it was worse before doesn't make it OK now. When you combine Federal, State, and Local income and sales taxes, the percentages become really frightening.

It's easy to say we should tax those rich people more, but regardless of how much you make, the government really shouldn't get half of it. And once we factor in the inefficiency of government spending, it gets even worse.

 

[Vulpinemac]

if there's a senior vice president in charge of Xserves and Server software with any luck they've taken all his shares off him and shot him.

I don't know why you should say that. I happen to know that one of the worlds' biggest banks has them and apparently isn't having any trouble with them.

 

[Vulpinemac]

Long-term capital gains tax (which these stocks fall under) in the US right now is only 15%. Not sure why so much was set aside for taxes.

What? You think the Capital Gains tax supercedes income tax? At that high a number, income tax alone is probably nearly 45%.

 

[GeekLawyer]

Yes, but it's still generally too high. Just because it was worse before doesn't make it OK now. When you combine Federal, State, and Local income and sales taxes, the percentages become really frightening.

It's easy to say we should tax those rich people more, but regardless of how much you make, the government really shouldn't get half of it. And once we factor in the inefficiency of government spending, it gets even worse.

I fundamentally disagree with you. I won't say you're wrong; you're entitled to your opinion. But the only way our society will work is through a progressive tax system of the kind we've had for decades. It's well-known, factored in, and very much understood as a cost of doing business in the land of the free and home of the brave. Apple and its executives have done very well under our system, as evidenced by the article above.

 

[DoNoHarm]

in all seriousness, since they all did not do a staggered type of sale, this points to a consensus that the stock price will drop.

 

[diabolic]

I fundamentally disagree with you. I won't say you're wrong; you're entitled to your opinion.

You are entitled to yours as well. I personally don't think forced wealth redistribution is a role the government should be filling. I know plenty of people that disagree with me, so you aren't the first.

in all seriousness, since they all did not do a staggered type of sale, this points to a consensus that the stock price will drop.

Isn't that a pretty safe bet when it's been at an all time high for a while?

 

[daxomni]

It's easy to say we should tax those rich people more, but regardless of how much you make, the government really shouldn't get half of it.

Rich people can pick whatever country they want to live and work in, and thus can choose whatever tax system they agree with. If they chose the US then I would assume they're fine with the current rates. Not to mention that the US does NOT need Apple to survive, but I'm not so sure Apple would survive without the US. Who made who?