No, not at all. You're taxed on equity at fair market value when it vests. It's only after that when you get taxed at a lower rate on the capital gains.
This seems to say the opposite. If your employer grants you a statutory stock option, you generally don't include any amount in your gross income when you receive or exercise the option
The IRS page refers to Incentive Stock Options (ISOs) as "statutory" options. These are the "holy grail" because they allow you to avoid income tax at exercise and only pay capital gains when you sell.
ISOs have a 100k cap per year.
Further, the next line after your exceprt is "However, you may be subject to alternative minimum tax in the year you exercise an ISO", which is an income tax
You're thinking of realized capital gains, not tax on the exercise/grant. I don't think there is a way to dodge the latter, and you can't take out a loan or pass down options you never exercised or stocks you were never granted.
You should probably read the filing. First, these aren’t options, it is straight up stock and it does vest.
Second, even if they were options, they definitely vest, otherwise Pichai would never gain control to be able to use them as collateral for a loan.
What you might be thinking is that they never get exercised, which is when the person uses the option to actually buy the share. But even that isn’t as straightforward as you seem to be making it out to be. The money to actually pay the interest on those loans and that is usually done by selling stock acquired this way. And then that income is almost certainly subject to AMT as well as other special taxes in California.
Those share options need excising, which probably incurs income tax on the allocation Vs strike price. Then the shares are only worth something to inheritors if that company is doing useful work for its customers over an extremely long period of time. That is likely far more valuable than the tax going towards paying off the interest for a year on some vote-buying spending that happened 20 years prior.
Depends on the size of the house and both the flooring and the foundation. Just before that the article mentions that a structural engineer was consulted and said it was fine, and you get a lot of mileage out of having most of the weight connected to the frame.
There were something like six different stated intentions, most of which were entirely mutually-exclusive. Replacing income taxes was always the least credible of them.
Banning advertising would have the opposite effect; entrenched players would have a massive moat. The biggest gains from advertising by far accrue to newer entrants, not the big companies.
I assume you're primarily referring to freedom of expression? I take the view that it doesn't include the freedom to pay people to carry a particular message so long as the restriction on paying is neutral as to the content of the message, but I can certainly respect the view that it does.
My comment about not having a right to business models is in some ways more general. Regardless of whether this business model is protected for some other reason, business models in general aren't, and it's a common flawed argument that they are.
Is there any evidence that the US executive branches and three letter agencies care about the physical location of the data center? Never mind the dependency on AWS, which is a US company
I doubt datacenter location matters for anything beyond latency
The US CLOUD Act explicitly asserts jurisdiction over data controlled by US companies regardless of the physical server location. So relying on AWS Frankfurt doesn't actually protect the data from US warrants if the provider is a US entity.
reply