It sucks that Zuck doesn't pay the taxes himself, and that Meta did it for him. But this is way less worse than the likely alternative of him not paying any taxes given it current political situation.
He is in fact going to pay the taxes himself, in the sense that they will come out of his net worth, not Meta's market cap. The significance of this deal is that it allows him to retain voting control of Meta after doing so, which might not otherwise have been possible. The current HN submission title is wildly misleading and I'm asking the moderators to change it (it's not from the original source).
> Under the deal, Zuckerberg will get non-voting shares he can sell to potentially foot a multi-billion-dollar tax bill in the event the proposal is approved, in exchange for a commitment to remain a resident of California, or wherever Meta maintains its headquarters, for eight years.
It allows him to liquidate part of META to pay off the state and retain his current 60%+ of voting shares.
but its a stock split, he’s getting one new share for every old share with the expectation that the share price halves, at least according to their CFO on the earnings call.
> said shareholders holding a majority of the company’s voting power have approved amendments
…doesn’t this mean Zuckerberg himself?
He still has fiduciary duty, so presumably he was not alone.
Insert the "Obama awards Obama medal meme" here, of course.
God forbid his "high score" go down even marginally
It sucks that Zuck doesn't pay the taxes himself, and that Meta did it for him. But this is way less worse than the likely alternative of him not paying any taxes given it current political situation.
He is in fact going to pay the taxes himself, in the sense that they will come out of his net worth, not Meta's market cap. The significance of this deal is that it allows him to retain voting control of Meta after doing so, which might not otherwise have been possible. The current HN submission title is wildly misleading and I'm asking the moderators to change it (it's not from the original source).
Previous discussion:
Meta strikes deal with Zuckerberg to protect him from California wealth tax
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50193581
This counts as paying the tax, so that’s a win no matter how they shuffled the bill around amongst themselves.
Yeah ultimately that money goes into the state to fund roads, education, important stuff instead of marks 15th yacht or some more land in Kauai.
How much of a tax would it take to make him move to Texas with the others??
I’m willing to pitch in.
As part of this deal he agreed to stay in California for 8 years.
So let's keep taxing that wealth year after year.
How poorly is the law written that it allows for this?
can someone please explain how meta is paying the tax for him?
TFA states:
> Under the deal, Zuckerberg will get non-voting shares he can sell to potentially foot a multi-billion-dollar tax bill in the event the proposal is approved, in exchange for a commitment to remain a resident of California, or wherever Meta maintains its headquarters, for eight years.
It allows him to liquidate part of META to pay off the state and retain his current 60%+ of voting shares.
looks like he is getting extra shares and not liquidate his existing shares
but its a stock split, he’s getting one new share for every old share with the expectation that the share price halves, at least according to their CFO on the earnings call.
Benevolent dictator for life
[dead]