Lee Duna@lemmy.nz to Technology@lemmy.worldEnglish · 1 year agoThe salaries of Wikimedia executives are sparking an online debate about tech sector wageswww.businessinsider.comexternal-linkmessage-square103fedilinkarrow-up1402arrow-down158cross-posted to: [email protected]
arrow-up1344arrow-down1external-linkThe salaries of Wikimedia executives are sparking an online debate about tech sector wageswww.businessinsider.comLee Duna@lemmy.nz to Technology@lemmy.worldEnglish · 1 year agomessage-square103fedilinkcross-posted to: [email protected]
minus-squareTWeaK@lemm.eelinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up104arrow-down1·1 year agoSo they’re making $150-300k per year, with more for severance. That is indeed relatively low compared to major tech companies. The article’s examples were Docusign (CEO made $85M) and Google (CEO made $225M).
minus-squareLemminary@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up70arrow-down3·1 year ago$150-300k makes sense. $225M does not. It’s obscene and absurd.
minus-squareTonyTonyChopper@mander.xyzlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up32·1 year agothe difference between $225M and 300k is $224.7M
minus-squareprole@sh.itjust.workslinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up23arrow-down1·edit-21 year agoHell, even low 7-figures could make sense. Though even that’s still high. But Jesus Christ with these hundreds of millions, it’s obscene.
minus-squareQuadratureSurfer@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up13arrow-down16·1 year agoIt’s important to note that most of what they “made” is actually just the stock that they already own or the stock options they received. In general the actual cash that they receive is less than $500k. Taxes are calculated differently on stock sales vs wages.
minus-squareQuadratureSurfer@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up17arrow-down5·1 year agoThe lack of people understanding this is what leads to poorly written laws. They think that all we need is an income tax to tax the rich more. So when laws are passed saying that they’ll tax anyone making more than $1mil, people don’t realize that it doesn’t really do a whole lot.
minus-squarecurrycourier@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up13arrow-down1·1 year agoI mean I think capital gains needs to be rolled into income tax too
minus-squareTWeaK@lemm.eelinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2·1 year agoYou’re right that their salaries weren’t $500k plus, those numbers included severance. Actual salaries were in the order of $150-300k (with the highest salaries paid to the owners). Wikimedia doesn’t have stock AFAIK.
So they’re making $150-300k per year, with more for severance. That is indeed relatively low compared to major tech companies.
The article’s examples were Docusign (CEO made $85M) and Google (CEO made $225M).
$150-300k makes sense. $225M does not. It’s obscene and absurd.
the difference between $225M and 300k is $224.7M
Hell, even low 7-figures could make sense. Though even that’s still high.
But Jesus Christ with these hundreds of millions, it’s obscene.
It’s important to note that most of what they “made” is actually just the stock that they already own or the stock options they received.
In general the actual cash that they receive is less than $500k.
Taxes are calculated differently on stock sales vs wages.
So?
The lack of people understanding this is what leads to poorly written laws.
They think that all we need is an income tax to tax the rich more.
So when laws are passed saying that they’ll tax anyone making more than $1mil, people don’t realize that it doesn’t really do a whole lot.
I mean I think capital gains needs to be rolled into income tax too
Removed by mod
You’re right that their salaries weren’t $500k plus, those numbers included severance. Actual salaries were in the order of $150-300k (with the highest salaries paid to the owners).
Wikimedia doesn’t have stock AFAIK.