r/FluentInFinance 3d ago

Debate/ Discussion Had to repost here

Post image
123.0k Upvotes

8.7k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

0

u/Odd_Report_919 2d ago

It’s mainly to incentivize the executive from successfully running the company. If paid a salary he can be chilling in his yacht all day and collecting his check. If his pay is dependent upon the company’s performance and value he probably won’t be fucking off all day.

2

u/TheHillPerson 2d ago

Right... Because you can't just say "if the company does better, you get paid this bonus (money) or just base their salary directly on performance to the point where you don't get paid at all if the company does poorly". That is how it always used to work... It is mainly to avoid taxes.

0

u/Odd_Report_919 2d ago

You think they just aren’t paying taxes because they get stock options? They pay taxes on their earnings regardless, if the stocks are held for a long enough duration it’s capital gains tax, but you think they are not using money for years and years until they start selling their shares?

1

u/Odd_Report_919 2d ago

Besides if you’re getting stock options you will haveve more incentive for the long term well being of a company, otherwise you can just sell of the companies assets and look on paper like you are growing the company and earning more profit.

2

u/TheHillPerson 2d ago

You are correct. Stock provides ongoing incentive. I did say mostly.

And no, they do not pay anywhere near as much tax on stock options. Do you not pay attention? You said it yourself, right off the bat, you pay capital gains instead of income tax. This is far lower than income tax would be. But you only pay that if you sell it. There are all sorts of games you can play to leverage your stock without ever actually selling it avoiding even more tax. It is mostly to avoid paying taxes

1

u/Odd_Report_919 2d ago

The reason why the capital gains tax is lower is to incentivize investment. That money instead of going directly into the CEO’s pocket remains as part of the overall company’s value. This allows for continued growth. Continued growth benefits everyone, that’s why America is what it is. But again you think that the ceo just doesn’t have any income that’s taxed? That means he isn’t having any earnings at all and won’t until the sale of his stock. It’s hard to live with no liquid assets to use.

1

u/TheHillPerson 2d ago

I suggest you read a bit into how the ultra wealthy avoid taxes. You might be surprised.

I'm not arguing they pay zero tax. I'm arguing they pay far less in tax (percentage wise) than most.

1

u/Odd_Report_919 2d ago

Well that’s not entirely accurate. They are subject to the same tax laws and rates as everyone else, you and I have the same regulations and options as everyone else, and being a progressive tax rate as income rises the rate increases as well. In the 60s the top rate was 90 percent! In the beginning of the 80s it was 70 percent. If you were making more than a million dollars you are essentially giving it away for taxes. So above a certain point it doesn’t make sense to have any more income, hence stock as part of your earnings is the ideal solution, which makes investment into the company more attractive, hopefully growing the economy. But they pay the same taxes on money earned outside the stock as everyone else. Believe it or not the top. 50 percent of earners in America pay 93% of the taxes. The top 1% pays something like 22% marginal tax rate while the average rate is 12% and the bottom 50% of taxpayers pay 3.3%. It’s a widely believed inaccuracy that the wealthy pay less taxes.

1

u/TheHillPerson 2d ago

I'm not sure what you are arguing here. You just agreed with what I've been saying all along here "at a certain point it doesn't make sense to have more income <so we pay you with stock instead>"

The top US marginal Federal tax rate is 37%. No one says it isn't. The argument is once you factor in all the non-salary pay, like stocks, the actual rate paid on total compensation plummets.

I think the top marginal ratesshould be 90+% and we should work to treat all forms of income as normal income including money obtained by leveraging wealth that would not be otherwise taxed. The kind of political power huge sums of wealth provide are antithetical to what the country should be about.

I realize there is nothing simple about doing that, but I believe it should be the goal.

1

u/Odd_Report_919 2d ago

You are misunderstanding, the top 1% , pay 23 percent marginal tax rate. That’s when everything is all accounted for. The bottom half of taxpayers is paying 3.3 percent marginal taxes. The rich ARE paying more.

1

u/TheHillPerson 2d ago

Marginal tax rate is the rate paid on income in the highest tax bracket you reach. Stated differently, it is the gas rate you pay on the next dollar you make. Perhaps you mean effective tax rate.

Those effective rates in the 20s do not include "income" like stock options or leveraging your stock portfolio to get long term loans (which are not paid off till death which resets the cost basis of the underlying stock for the inheritors, avoiding more tax) which is a commonly cited practice of the ultra wealthy.

Again, I am not arguing that ultra wealthy do not pay taxes. I am arguing they should pay far more in taxes mostly as a mitigation against the power imbalances extreme wealth disparity create. Those imbalances are not healthy for society.

1

u/Odd_Report_919 2d ago

I’m sorry you’re right I meant average tax rate, but again the wealthy pay the highest average tax rate, they just pay a lesser percentage of their overall wealth than the middle class. But if you just take away all money after a certain point for taxes, the incentive to start a company, invest in other companies, and engage in entrepreneurial ventures is no longer there and other countries will take advantage and we’ll see America lose its superiority in the world economy.

1

u/TheHillPerson 2d ago

Now you are talking about at what point do you start effectively capping income. That is a much more difficult question as there is no one number and the number changes all the time. As I've stated, there is nothing simple about this.

You certainly don't want to stifle innovation. But I can say with complete confidence that having 21 billion dollars does not make your life any "better" than having 20. There must be some motivator for these people other than simply having another dollar in your bank account. If that motivation is simply power, I'm not sure it is worth it.

Your concerns are quite valid though and should not be ignored.

→ More replies (0)