|
COPE 27 posted:Yeah I understand it's a bet on rates going down quickly, my point is it's a dumb bet. I don't think you understand, because according to you the spread is only 0.8%. That means there is only a small premium for going fixed, which means the bank doesn't think that rates are going down quickly. They think they rates going down, but slowly.
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2024 19:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 1, 2024 09:14 |
|
|
Subjunctive posted:man, a lot of temporarily-embarrassed “entrepreneurs” wailing about Freeland killing innovation in Canada (along with a lot of people whose were already massively financially successful and whose lives will not be altered by a small increase in overall cap gains taxation) I think if there's one issue strangling our political discourse, it's that people have no loving idea how taxes actually work. I see people getting angry on social media that they're only getting a $1 refund this year or something. Newsflash, poo poo for brains: that means you didn't give the government an interest-free loan throughout the course of the year. I'm sure they'd be willing to withhold more of your pay next year if you ask them pretty-please, and then you can get a giant refund! I've also seen people who think that capital gains are now being taxed, above the $250,000 threshold, at an actual rate of 66.7%. Just a complete lack of understanding.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2024 20:01
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:man, a lot of temporarily-embarrassed “entrepreneurs” wailing about Freeland killing innovation in Canada (along with a lot of people whose were already massively financially successful and whose lives will not be altered by a small increase in overall cap gains taxation) Lack of innovation and how that's contributing to our productivity growth crisis is a huge problem. I'd say it's the second-biggest challenge our country faces (housing is #1 of course). And in general, I think there's good reason to believe that taxing corporate/capital income more heavily can materially hurt innovation (this is one of my main research areas right now). There are also concerns about offshore profit shifting by multinationals and the use of offshore bank accounts to evade taxes by rich individuals (I have published several papers on the macroeconomic implications of tax evasion recently). That said, it sounds to me like the capital gains inclusion change is pretty good. It makes the tax rate on cap gains roughly equal to the rate at which dividends and labor income are taxed. I think having an asymmetry between dividends and cap gains tax rates creates some big distortions and mostly serves to benefit accountants. Trevor Tombe of U. Calgary has some good posts on this. https://twitter.com/trevortombe/status/1780451791026401339 https://twitter.com/trevortombe/status/1780445890215645276
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2024 20:33
|
|
|
Oakland Martini posted:Lack of innovation and how that's contributing to our productivity growth crisis is a huge problem. I'd say it's the second-biggest challenge our country faces (housing is #1 of course). And in general, I think there's good reason to believe that taxing corporate/capital income more heavily can materially hurt innovation (this is one of my main research areas right now). There are also concerns about offshore profit shifting by multinationals and the use of offshore bank accounts to evade taxes by rich individuals (I have published several papers on the macroeconomic implications of tax evasion recently). Even this propagates misunderstanding. For Alberta (since he's at U. Calgary) it should be presented as: $355,845 in wages. Top marginal tax rate = 48%. Keep $0.52 of your $355,846th dollar. If reporting around this was presented neutrally like this, no one would care about increasing taxes at the income levels that are actually affected.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2024 20:52
|
|
|
Dividends is hairy because it comes after corporation tax, and the tax system is set up so that as a business stakeholder whether you decide to take a salary income or a dividend income, it doesn't really make any difference in terms of your net worth. These tax changes definitely make it more preferable to go after dividend paying stocks however rather than cap-gains (which is also affected by stock buy backs). IDK I like that capital gains is finally getting the attention it deserves but it's beginning to feel like a ham-fisted tax if you aren't also going to gently caress around with personal and dividend taxes. Like why would I buy a tech stock that is actively innovating but pays no dividend where I'll be taxed heavily if I sell, over a bank stock which innovates on exactly nothing at all but has a large dividend payout where I'll be significantly advantaged on tax? I don't really have the knowledge or experience to know how this end up skewing things, my gut says it favors investments flowing into business with strong reliable cash-flow that pays out monthly/quarterly, i.e rent seeking parasites.
qhat fucked around with this message at 21:34 on Apr 17, 2024 |
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2024 21:24
|
|
|
Even with the inclusion rate going to 67% on gains over $250k, my understanding is that is still going to be less tax paid than on dividends. My understanding is that dividends are taxed at 100% inclusion as income, but you do get a 15% tax credit for non-eligible dividends or 38% for eligible dividends. Is this more tax paid than your marginal rate on capital gains, even with 67% inclusion? Finally, this only matters if you realize $250k in gains in a single tax year, so this is really only affecting people that can afford it in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2024 21:46
|
|
|
Mantle posted:Even with the inclusion rate going to 67% on gains over $250k, my understanding is that is still going to be less tax paid than on dividends. My understanding is that dividends are taxed at 100% inclusion as income, but you do get a 15% tax credit for non-eligible dividends or 38% for eligible dividends. Is this more tax paid than your marginal rate on capital gains, even with 67% inclusion? Hm, you're right, it's still less, for some reason I thought eligible dividends were taxed around 25% tops. Oh well, I guess then I give even less of a poo poo than I did before about the lunatic CEO/Founders on linkedin whining about how it's apparently stifling innovation.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2024 21:56
|
|
|
Mantle posted:Finally, this only matters if you realize $250k in gains in a single tax year, so this is really only affecting people that can afford it in the first place. I suspect it will come up most often in deemed sales for estate handling, in terms of where it might affect non-millionaires.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2024 22:41
|
|
|
But we don’t have an estate tax or a wealth tax, so it’s still pretty great to be rich in Canada.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2024 22:54
|
|
|
Bill Morneau is still salty about what happened to him and he's slamming the budget saying that it'll hurt economic growth since people won't want to invest anymore because of the higher capital gains tax.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2024 23:27
|
|
|
buying stocks that don’t pay dividends trying for capital appreciation is just speculation anyway there is no actual reason to want to own a share in a public company that doesn’t pay a dividend other than because you think someone else will want it more later. a non-dividend-bearing share in a flatlining company has the same intrinsic value as one in a rocketship (zero). don’t lie to me and yourself that you’re holding it for when in the future they might pay a dividend most capital gains are either housing-market manipulation or gambling winnings. tax ‘em, Cynthia
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2024 23:30
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:buying stocks that don’t pay dividends trying for capital appreciation is just speculation anyway This is flat out wrong. There are more ways to return earnings to investors in public companies than straight up giving them cash. Using excess profits to execute a stock buy back increases the price of the stock in the same way that handing out a dividend decreases it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2024 23:34
|
|
|
Mr. Apollo posted:Bill Morneau is still salty about what happened to him and he's slamming the budget saying that it'll hurt economic growth since people won't want to invest anymore because of the higher capital gains tax. I hadn't kept up with the budget news, but my LinkedIn feed is nothing but Presidents and CEOs writing long diatribes against Trudeau and how all innovation in Canada is now dead, so he must have done something right.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2024 23:49
|
|
|
qhat posted:This is flat out wrong. There are more ways to return earnings to investors in public companies than straight up giving them cash. Using excess profits to execute a stock buy back increases the price of the stock in the same way that handing out a dividend decreases it. Buybacks are more common than I had thought, huh, but anyway they don’t always increase stock price quote:On February 22, 2000, Merck unveiled a $10 billion buyback plan—the biggest ever announced. But far from rising, Merck’s share price fell by some 15% in the following month. In the eyes of investors, the buyback only underscored the company’s weaknesses. A number of important patents were approaching expiration; Merck’s drug pipeline was running dry; its own chief scientist admitted that the company could no longer maintain its target 20% earnings growth rate. As one analyst put it: “$10 billion would have funded a lot of research and development. ”Merck’s experience appears to be an increasingly common one: over the course of 1999, companies listed on the NYSE that implemented buyback programs actually underperformed the index by 20 percentage points. Dividends and buybacks are “priced in” to the extent that the market is perfectly efficient in operation and distribution of information, which is to say entirely theoretically. Splits don’t increase the value of a company, but they more often lead to share price increases than decreases, similarly. The value of publicly traded shares is influenced more by prediction of others’ behaviour than by anything that flows from a pretty economic principle. Public stocks swing wildly during periods where there is no materially new information about the company…except for recent changes in its stock price. loving momentum, man, who believes this poo poo? If you’re buying a stock in order to benefit from a future stock buy back, you’re lying to yourself just as much as if you bought in hopes that a dividend would be offered in the future. (Or you’re insider trading.)
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2024 00:37
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:Buybacks are more common than I had thought, huh, but anyway they don’t always increase stock price I mean, not that some companies don't run themselves like a lottery ticket, but if a Google (as an example) had decided to pay off most of their cash flow as a dividend instead of re-investing in themselves to grow the business when they became a public entity, I think its safe to say that would have been the more devastating choice for shareholders compared to the reality of what happened. Albeit maybe the better outcome for society depending on how you feel about Google I guess.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2024 00:41
|
|
|
Oakland Martini posted:Lack of innovation and how that's contributing to our productivity growth crisis is a huge problem. I'd say it's the second-biggest challenge our country faces (housing is #1 of course). And in general, I think there's good reason to believe that taxing corporate/capital income more heavily can materially hurt innovation (this is one of my main research areas right now). There are also concerns about offshore profit shifting by multinationals and the use of offshore bank accounts to evade taxes by rich individuals (I have published several papers on the macroeconomic implications of tax evasion recently). What do you mean by taxing capital income? If you mean capital gains, we've had 24 years of 50% inclusion that spurred, as far as I can tell, virtually no innovation or entrepreneurship. Bewides, from what I understand there are other kinds of programs and benefits to incentive seed/angel investors in new companies (which is not where the vast majority of capital gains are from anyway, I would think). Tax evasion is not solveable by lowering tax rates anyway.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2024 00:48
|
|
|
tragic_ethos posted:I mean, not that some companies don't run themselves like a lottery ticket, but if a Google (as an example) had decided to pay off most of their cash flow as a dividend instead of re-investing in themselves to grow the business when they became a public entity, I think its safe to say that would have been the more devastating choice for shareholders compared to the reality of what happened. Albeit maybe the better outcome for society depending on how you feel about Google I guess. Maybe; it’s a hard counter-factual to analyze because for a public company the dividend amount is generally a function of share price, which means that if it depresses the share price then the actual cost of the dividend is lower, in which case it’s not as much of a drag on the business anyway, so the business can invest pretty much the same amount in growth… I think Google could have done basically anything after it captured web advertising and been a galactic success; virtually every dollar spent on anything else has failed to produce a meaningful return, IMO. There’s a reason they don’t give detailed financial breakdowns for YouTube in their reporting, and it’s not because it would make other companies jealous. Certainly it spent more than “dividend amounts” on things that realistically had very little chance of increasing their revenue. How would that have affected the stock price? Up to the speculators, so probably not as much as the fawning puff pieces about their culture and cafeterias.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2024 00:52
|
|
|
Precambrian Video Games posted:there are other kinds of programs and benefits to incentive seed/angel investors in new companies (which is not where the vast majority of capital gains are from anyway, I would think) Speaking as a former seed stage Canadian VC, the programs are really not worth much, just a bit more in a fund so the GPs’ management fees are a little higher (and then you have BDC or some other crazy org as an LP). Nothing meaningful related to capital gains AFAIK—Newfoundland’s is one of the more generous that I recall, and it’s a $75,000 lifetime non-refundable provincial tax credit cap. There is a tricky way that GPs can claim their salary-via-management-fees as dividend income rather than regular income. CRA has ruled it fine, but if you have a government agency as LP they generally won’t let you do that, so I guess there’s one economic benefit that such agencies provide… There are certainly no government incentives for being an investor in early stage Canadian companies that come near the size of the historically-reduced returns versus making those investments in the US (even excluding the Bay Area). If you’re doing early-stage VC here instead of south of the border, you’re in it for the love of the game and/or you’re an idiot.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2024 01:03
|
|
|
Like there’s a reason that the Canadian VC Association always brags about money raised by GPs, or investment deal size, and not actual returns.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2024 01:04
|
|
|
Sure, I’ll claim the quad: as an example of how anemic VC returns are in Canada, I led the seed investment (probably roughly $5M for 15%, I forget) in a company that is now valued at more than $1B, and I would not be surprised if the fund in question doesn’t cross the carry threshold.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2024 01:09
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:man, a lot of temporarily-embarrassed “entrepreneurs” wailing about Freeland killing innovation in Canada (along with a lot of people whose were already massively financially successful and whose lives will not be altered by a small increase in overall cap gains taxation) Amongst the realtor wailing I also saw Shopify CEO Tobi Lutke moaning about the impact the cap gains increase. Had a look at his twitter feed and boy he really has become a Canadian Elon Musk.... Lot of Doctors that are Mad about the change as well. I guess the capital gains change will impose the full 66% inclusion rate with no limits on all gains in a corporation so welp too bad so sad for all the professionals (realtors/lawyers/dentists/doctors etc) that were using their personal corporation as a way to dodge income taxes, keeping their money in their corporation to invest in. I've thought for a long time that the capital gains tax should be separate for gains on secondary real estate than that from investing in equities. This 250k limit before the inclusion rate kicks up from 50% to 66% effectively does just that. I never thought of this approach before but it works. Very few retail stock pickers are likely to get a 250k gain in one year, but absolutely it's quite possible that housing investors would realize a 250k gain. I really like this move from the Liberals here. Femtosecond fucked around with this message at 05:12 on Apr 18, 2024 |
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2024 03:19
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:Buybacks are more common than I had thought, huh, but anyway they don’t always increase stock price You are misunderstanding what a buy back is. It is literally the company giving money back to existing shareholders, as the company executes the trade it bids the price of the stock up while also consolidating a greater portion of future profits in the hands of a smaller amount of people. This is where the increased price comes from, and just because a price went down 30 days later has literally no bearing on what happens during a buy back. The price can even fall on the very same day, but it will land higher than it would have, it has to, it is literally impossible in an efficient market for a more consolidated equity to not command a higher price. As for your conundrum on who I am expecting to buy back my stock; the company, I expect the company to buy it back using the profits the company itself generated. The only difference between that and a dividend is that the buy back doesn’t trigger a taxable event for me that year. That is the difference between holding a stock that pays a dividend and a stock that returns earnings other ways. You won’t find any reputable research that suggests that somehow dividend paying companies outperform companies that don’t that isn’t explained by already well understood risk factors, that’s just a Canadian investing brain fail. Also no dividends are not at all a function of price. They are a function of whatever the management feels like paying in order to attract new investment, and the price gets reflected in that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2024 08:26
|
|
|
Like imagine everyone is enlightened to this rule that companies that don’t pay dividends are just ponzis basically and that I run such a company. I and everyone else see my company is making millions of dollars in profit a year, but I never pay a dividend so noone buys my stock, so let’s say the stock is worth 1c. Well that’s a very low stock price for a company that’s earning millions, why would I risk a shareholder revolt, I guess I’ll just take those millions in profits and buy the whole company back, then I don’t have to worry about it. Woops, I just returned millions in profits back to the shareholders, and the whole time I was bidding the price up higher and higher, I guess I just owned myself. Except no because now I own more of my own company and I get to keep more of the profits to myself with a significantly reduced risk of the rug being pulled from under need. Now imagine I’m not the only one who sees how preposterously low the price is relative to profits and wants to take a controlling interest in the company and kicking me out as CEO and keep the future profits to themselves, and you begin to see the share price being manifested in real time, all without paying a single dividend. qhat fucked around with this message at 09:04 on Apr 18, 2024 |
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2024 08:48
|
|
|
Mulclair is criticising the capital gains tax saying that it's going to hurt hard working middle class Canadians the most. "This is going to clobber artisans, tradespeople, and small business owners such as those whose retirement assets are non-principal residence properties bought decades ago."
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2024 14:13
|
|
|
Mr. Apollo posted:Mulclair is criticising the capital gains tax saying that it's going to hurt hard working middle class Canadians the most. "This is going to clobber artisans, tradespeople, and small business owners such as those whose retirement assets are non-principal residence properties bought decades ago." quote:small business owners such as those whose retirement assets are non-principal residence properties bought decades ago I believe this is called a 'landlord'. Former NDP leader simping for landlords. loving wild. As for the rest of this, I have no idea how increased inclusion on capital gains is supposed to have outsized impacts on artisans and tradespeople. I don't recall them being known for making large asset transactions. Fidelitious fucked around with this message at 14:28 on Apr 18, 2024 |
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2024 14:26
|
|
|
Fidelitious posted:Former NDP leader simping for landlords. loving wild.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2024 14:42
|
|
|
Tech CEOs moaning about the capital gains increase, including Vancouver biomed darling Abcellera, which got $300M in government funding recently... https://x.com/CADInnovators/status/1780716202450379181
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2024 17:21
|
|
|
Wow I'm shocked that Tom "Taxes Above 50% Are Theft" Mulcair is a stupid piece of poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2024 17:45
|
|
|
Seriously the middle of that interview that I couldn't stomach finishing is him whining about how he knows people who owns cottages and triplexes and quadruplexes and they're all rushing to sell before June 24 when the new cap gains rate kicks in. Nooooo!
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2024 17:55
|
|
|
i'm hearing grumbling from it contractors, doctors, self-employed types, etc who have been sheltering all their income in corporations and taking the bare minimum in living expenses as dividends are grumbling because this is supposedly going to hit them hard in retirement idk if that's true or not? but given the cra already said "stop incorporating to shelter that poo poo or we'll tax you as a personal services business" maybe they should just take a full salary and pay their goddamn taxes like the rest of us
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2024 18:05
|
|
|
Water cooler chat has been insufferable this week. Seems like there isn’t a single person in the country who understands how marginal tax rates work. We’re talking “if I work more hours, my pay will be less overall”.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2024 18:06
|
|
|
Femtosecond posted:Tech CEOs moaning about the capital gains increase, including Vancouver biomed darling Abcellera, which got $300M in government funding recently...
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2024 18:08
|
|
|
anyone impacted by this that's chatting around a water cooler instead of calling their financial planner to discuss new ways to shelter their assets is probably an amateur landlord leveraged to the hilt so they can  harder i guess
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2024 18:09
|
|
|
Cold on a Cob posted:i'm hearing grumbling from it contractors, doctors, self-employed types, etc who have been sheltering all their income in corporations and taking the bare minimum in living expenses as dividends are grumbling because this is supposedly going to hit them hard in retirement Yes basically they're whining that their previous tax dodge is going away (or at least being eroded). Up until this point from my understanding the scheme was to keep money in a personal corporation, never get income taxed on it, only pay much lower 9%? corporate taxes on it, and invest within that corporate vehicle. Then on retirement you slowly pull money out of that corporate vehicle via dividends. The downside to this scheme is by paying yourself little is that you accumulate little RRSP room, as the RRSP contribution room is 18% of your income. So if you're "under paying" yourself, then you're also under accumulating RRSP room. (if someone is a lawyer/dentist/etc that was doing this please jump in to explain better than me as I'm a wage slave that knows nothing) It's pretty clear that the Liberal government wants things to be uniform between all Canadians with pretty much everyone taxed the same. This is probably one of the bigger policy gaps between the Conservatives and Liberals that I could imagine swift policy change on should the Conservatives win. As the Conservatives are significantly supported by small business tyrants/realtors/lawyers etc the sort of people with small corporations, its likely that the Conservatives will bring back these small corporation friendly measures, repealing capital gains increases, bringing back income splitting and such. I'm sure some tax professionals are busy crunching the numbers to see whether it's still better to continue to keep money in a personal corporation and invest there, or if it's better to take a salary, gain RRSP room, and invest that way like regular Canadians without the access to special corporate vehicles.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2024 18:13
|
|
|
a primate posted:Water cooler chat has been insufferable this week. Seems like there isn’t a single person in the country who understands how marginal tax rates work. I work remotely these days so fortunately this is never a thing for me anymore. When I worked in finance in London years ago though it was sickening how many well off people complained about taxes, I was even on a date once where the woman fully gave herself away by complaining that she had to pay a few thousand a year for National Insurance (tax for the NHS), and that 45% was too high for a top tax bracket. I don't even remember how we got onto that topic but that was the last night I spoke to that person for sure.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2024 18:49
|
|
|
Femtosecond posted:Yes basically they're whining that their previous tax dodge is going away (or at least being eroded). Up until this point from my understanding the scheme was to keep money in a personal corporation, never get income taxed on it, only pay much lower 9%? corporate taxes on it, and invest within that corporate vehicle. Then on retirement you slowly pull money out of that corporate vehicle via dividends. The downside to this scheme is by paying yourself little is that you accumulate little RRSP room, as the RRSP contribution room is 18% of your income. So if you're "under paying" yourself, then you're also under accumulating RRSP room. (if someone is a lawyer/dentist/etc that was doing this please jump in to explain better than me as I'm a wage slave that knows nothing)
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2024 18:58
|
|
|
I can understand why doctor/lawyer/dentists would be mad in this moment as their retirement may be negatively impacted by this change, but hey, maybe there was some risk in pursuing an arguably exotic tax scheme instead of doing something boring that aligns with everyone else in the country. Maybe your tax professional should have discussed regulatory risk with you! Sorry! Basically the situation aligns with what we've seen where it's Not Allowed for people to lose money in any way at all.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2024 20:02
|
|
|
Sadly the media doesn't put an ounce of effort into having these tech execs explain the mechanisms by which these tax changes will harm their businesses so we just have a vague story of "tech execs mad". quote:Capital gains tax change draws ire from some Canadian entrepreneurs worried it will worsen brain drain I've never been in the C suite, but man I really just can't put it together here how the capital gains tax would limit a tech company's ability to grow or get investment. Subjunctive maybe with your background if you could weigh in and explain any possible issues you see that would be super interesting. The brain drain stuff, sure like that will come up I guess with any sort of discussion around tax differences between the USA and Canada. Personally I've been a part of several startups and small companies and stock options never really factored in. I thought the concensus at this point was that the things should be considered as lotto tickets and not factored into negotiations at all really. Anyone joining a startup with stock options banking on that being their retirement or anything and not just a super random windfall is begging to be exploited and have a bad time. Tedds here has the right thoughts on this.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2024 20:28
|
|
|
Femtosecond posted:I've never been in the C suite, but man I really just can't put it together here how the capital gains tax would limit a tech company's ability to grow or get investment. Subjunctive maybe with your background if you could weigh in and explain any possible issues you see that would be super interesting. VC funds are built on capital gains. That’s how they return their profits to the LPs. Founders also generally have their equity profit, on acquisition, end up at least partially as capital gains. So I guess Canada could become less attractive as a place to put money into VC funds, or for VC funds to operate, and that would in turn reduce available funding for Canadian companies. (I don’t know how the taxes work if a US fund invests in a Canadian company because I’ve never been close to a case like that where the investors made money!) I have never met a founder who gave a poo poo about capital gains on their future exit when they were starting a company. Having something more than $250K to get taxed on is a victory. You get to put “(acq)” after every mention of your company in your Twitter or conference bios, and will always get introduced as having had a “profitable exit”. It’s all good. There is very very little chance that the VC fund I’m still part of (as required by previous employment; GPs always have to put skin in the game) will return a $250K (or any) profit to me, and even less chance that it’ll happen in a single year, so I haven’t even asked how this affects the return structure. That money is just gone, as far as I’m concerned…
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2024 20:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 1, 2024 09:14 |
|
|
That article is straight up just complaining that their stock option heavy compensation packages aren't unfairly tax advantaged to the degree they previously were. There are two ways this works. One is straight up just a tax dodge for upper level people by moving salary into stock. The other is underpaying skilled labour with the promise that this startup is totally the one that's going to be worth billions. Getting rid of the first thing is part of the point of this. The second thing is immaterial because it's a handwavey promise of future money. It doesn't matter what the tax rate is. There's no specific number when the employee is deciding to work there.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2024 21:03
|
|
