[incrudible]

Fact check: True, but misleading. I'll cite:

"The biggest reason for Zoom's de minimis tax bill is outsized executive compensation. Zoom paid $580 million in stock compensation alone in 2020, much of it likely to a handful of top executives, according to a calculation by CBS MoneyWatch based on the company's latest financial filings."

At some point, somebody will have to pay taxes on selling that stock. Or if they never sell it, at least they will prop up the stock market, so the Fed has to do less of that with everyone else's money.

[refurb]

Did they really write “likely to a handful of top executives”. Stock compensation is pretty typical for tech companies.

But as long as they put “likely” in front of that statement they felt it was appropriate?

I mean, they could look at 10-Ks. To see how the executive are compensated.

[datavirtue]

Fact checking and editing has fallen out of favor in the age of facebook headline sharing.

[TheChaplain]

Correct me if I am wrong, wouldn't that mean if the stock value goes down and is sold at a much lower price, the collected tax would be much less?

And isn't it possible to reduce tax even more from capital losses from stocks?

[sokoloff]

Yes to the second, which is inherently self-consistent policy in a taxation system that taxes income/profits.

The first depends on the type of compensation and whether a prior 83(b) election was made (and taxes paid at that time).

But in general, the money’s going to get taxed and if the taxpayer is a US citizen, the US will get its cut.

[hahahahe]

Why would Xi Jinping pay taxes to the US?