Top Google execs: $1 salary, no bonus, no options
Wall Street executives feeling harassed by taxpayers outraged at their pay might take note of how Google's ruling triumvirate fared in 2008: $1 in salary each, no bonus, no stock grants, and no stock options.
Google has offered co-founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin and Chief Executive Eric Schmidt "market-competitive" salaries every year since 2005, but once again in 2008, the three turned it down, according to a company regulatory filing Tuesday. "Due to their own preferences not to receive salary compensation, Eric, Larry, and Sergey each rejected these offers and continue to receive base salaries of $1," the company said.
Also in 2008, the company decided that the stock-based compensation it had awarded to top executives in 2007 was "sufficient to help us meet our retention and business objectives through 2008," so no new stock compensation was awarded to them except in the case of new Chief Financial Officer Patrick Pichette, who was set to receive compensation worth more than $2 million along with thousands of shares and stock options in his first year.
Schmidt received perks totaling $508,764 in 2008, up from $480,561 the year before. That covered $402,562 in personal security costs and $106,201 Google paid to fly his family members and friends on paid chartered flights.
Of course, Page, Brin, and Schmidt are certainly not paupers. The 29,148,614 shares of Google's Class B common stock Page held at the end of 2008 are worth $10.1 billion at Tuesday's closing price of $347.17; Brin's 28,611,862 shares are worth $9.9 billion, and Schmidt's 9,372,740 shares are worth $3.3 billion.
Stephen Shankland writes about a wide range of technology and products, but has a particular focus on browsers and digital photography. He joined CNET News in 1998 and since then also has covered Google, Yahoo, servers, supercomputing, Linux and open-source software, and science. E-mail Stephen, or follow him on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/stshank. 
I would imagine that if you make $1, the IRS would not try to take taxes from that.
It depends where the stocks are. If they're in a tax-friendly retirement account, then they most likely don't pay taxes for capital gains until they withdraw/deposit (depending on the type of account).
Otherwise yes, they have to pay taxes for capital gains.
"Wall Street executives feeling harassed by taxpayers outraged at their pay..." - Execs are not being harrassed by the taxpayers, they are primarily being harrassed by our Goverment (mostly Democrats, Obama, Barney, Dodd & Pelosi - the 3+1 stooges if you will).
The fact that less than half the taxpayers are Liberals, excludes the majority of taxpayers. Those conservatives that believe and support Capitalism.
Capitalism didn't get us into this mess that we're in, treehuggers chained to trees did!
[CNET editors' note: Prohibited content deleted.]
'Nuff said about the politi
Liberals will of course neglect to acknowledge George Soros as one of their own. The man has his tentacles in so many underhanded things it's not funny. Can't keep his hands out of political advocacy.
to Emeshuris1 :
GOVERNMENT that is spending money like it grows on tree's (or at least exists immune from de-valuation) didn't get us into this mess, meanwhile taking away people's individuality and micro-regulating people's lives, no that had NOTHING to do with this mess, right ?
Please note Barney Frank & Chris Dodd stood on subcommitee's pleading for years that Fannie & Freddie was SOUND AND STABLE. Dodd even admitted to putting in the laungage allowing the Bonuses to happen. And, Both Barack obama and Tim Geitner who either knew about the bonuses weeks before they signed the legislation, but lied about it, or truly are as ignorant about running a country as those who didn't vote for him know him to be.
Please also note that Tim Geitner also sat on an AIG advisory board while decisions that caused this was being made.
to monkeyman:
Please note liberals treat Goverment as religion, not as a governing theory. They take the vision set forth by the founding fathers and take a sledgehammer to it.
Apple posted in their most recent annual report that Apple CEO Steve Jobs has received just $1 salary - the same amount as the past 2 years. He also got 10 million shares which if he sold at todays stock price would be worth around $848,400,000.00.
It's an old and proven method. It makes those $1 / yr salaries a bit pointless except as PR stunts.
*figure based on $10,000,000 split 20,000 ways. 20,000 is the approximate number of google employees according to Google
Nice spreading of FUD though...
*"The chief executive of a Standard & Poor's 500 company made, on average, $14.2 million in total compensation in 2007, according to preliminary data from The Corporate Library" (<url="http://www.aflcio.org/corporatewatch/paywatch/">)
In what world does a company spending a half million dollars in perks on an executive sound less reasonable than paying that same executive something between that half million and the 14.2 million (which is the average salary)? Salaries at any company are written off as an expense anyway, so if anything, Google is increasing their exposure to taxation because they aren't paying these guys any salary that can be written off.
These guys could have asked for the world, and the Board would be out of their minds not to pay them whatever they asked. Instead, they're working for a buck, and the only thing the company has to pay for is travel for them and their families. I don't get how this could be a bad business decision...
I'm no Google fanboy, but I think it's ridiculous to try to make these guys out to be villains when they haven't technically made any money this year and are basically working for free.
The moral of the story is that 14.2 million sounds like a lot, but given a large enough company that isn't all that much money for how much difference one's decisions can make in the profit of the company. I think that a CEO's pay shouldn't be some absolute dollar figure, but rather a certain percentage of the total profits.
They each own at least 9 million shares of stock. If they're able to raise the stock price (I think the story says it's Class B) by even a single point, they've each just increased their own worth by at least $9 million dollars each. could you see them taking that same $9million as a salary instead? Now, imagine shareholder reaction if you paid each of them a $9million salary every year. The people complaining about them being tax dodgers would rather see them take a large salary and pay the taxes on that, even if it means possibly lowering the value of the company, which to me seems asinine and reeks of "cutting off the nose to spite the face".
They're doing what every stockholder wants out of their management team, and that's to make each share worth as much as possible.
They pay taxes on any stock they sell - and now, thanks California, 9.25 % sales tax on anything purchased starting April 1.
When you are worth north of a billion dollars, you don't require a salary, and it's good PR for Google too.
Did you even read what he said? People like you should pause a moment and reflect on what you are reading before you spout off.
I hate to disappoint those who think tax refunds are free money, but you don't get a tax refund when not paying tax. That refund was you money you let the government keep without paying interest. This is akin to the mentality that you need a mortgage deduction to save on taxes rather than be debt free. Giving someone a dollar to get 25-30 cents back is not a savings strategy.
Lastly, this company is no longer the property of the founders to do with as they please. It's now publicly owned and the property of the shareholders. They are now employees.
The good thing here is that they have their hearts and souls in this company enough to STILL do the $1 salary. They know how to live off what they have earned, as opposed to what they can get out of it in the short term and then bail. They're smart enough to know that if the bottom falls out, they will still have losses to face. That would be a lot of motivation for me anyway, to "maximize the company's value". Any negative tax obligation will be offset by other taxes on any interest. "The Earned Income Tax Credit or the EITC is a refundable federal income tax credit for low to moderate income working individuals and families." These guys don't qualify for that on any level, regardless of perks or stock options or liquidity. Assets are assets.
These 3 have earned their stock options. The company is still successful (albeit I think in process of an evolution of sorts-branching out so to speak). If we were in their shoes, (hell, if I even had their shoes!), would we be able to say we were able to attain the same level of respectability in business or would we have been one of those people who succumbed to the higher salaries and continue to take what we felt we deserved thus having the company attempt to pay out millions in bonuses they didn't have, by getting it from the government.
If Google were my company and I had poured my life's blood into it to make it successful, I would expect successful returns as well.
- by galeso March 29, 2009 3:28 AM PDT
- Is Google exempt from minimum wage laws?
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (50 Comments)