Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

×
Google The Almighty Buck Technology

Eric Schmidt To Sell Up To 42% of Stake In Google 183

Posted by timothy
from the that's-a-lot-of-google dept.
derGoldstein writes "AllThingsD reports that Eric Schmidt 'plans to sell up to 3.2 million shares of his class A common stock in the company,' according to an SEC filing. 'The amount is equal to approximately 42.1 percent of his overall stake in Google.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Eric Schmidt To Sell Up To 42% of Stake In Google

Comments Filter:
  • by G3ckoG33k (647276) on Sunday February 10, 2013 @09:35AM (#42849577)

    I doubt this has anything to do with any bad news
    for Google. It is my guess Schmidt just wants the
    money here and now. Totally understandable.

  • by lucm (889690) on Sunday February 10, 2013 @09:50AM (#42849633)

    > Increasing wealth at one pole, increasing misery at the other.

    This has nothing to do with capitalism. This has to do with the government raising taxes aimed at the middle class since the rich can move and the poor can't pay. Decade after decade the middle class shrinks while prices go up, taxes go up and the government becomes like a pimp managing tired older whores.

    When both political parties give the government's ATM card to lobbies and spend trillions on what they think will get them elected again it appears that there is no hope.

    There is only one solution: become rich or become poor.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 10, 2013 @10:13AM (#42849775)

    Did you do the math? If it sold at the current share price, that's over $2,500,000,000.00. I don't think I'd worry about interest with that kind of scratch. Even at 0% that's enough money for 500 people to live well for a lifetime. Stock can't normally be used to buy stuff.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 10, 2013 @10:17AM (#42849789)

    Um, almost $800 per share. Anyone who thinks it hasn't peaked can just look at Apple, who is now a litle more than half that - when they were equal just a matter of months ago. Hell yes now is the time to sell. The bump will happen to Google, too, and its stock will drop and that much of a shit is huge money when talking about millions of shares. Not scary news, just smart money keeping smart money.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 10, 2013 @10:26AM (#42849833)

    So you want a system where everyone is pulled down to the same level? Where hard work isn't rewarded? Schmidt gets too much for what he's contributed? Perhaps - OK, then how much is too much? Who decides?

    I personally know some dirt poor people. Some of them are hard working but unlucky or got a bad start in life (would be my guess), some are hard working but dirt poor because they made a mess of things when they were younger (drinking, not doing their school work, losing jobs through their own doing, etc), and some of them are just plain lazy. And in most of these cases, if you give them a million dollars today, they won't have anything left by next year this time.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 10, 2013 @10:37AM (#42849901)

    Except that US taxes have been trending down for 30 years, and wages have not kept up with inflation.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 10, 2013 @10:45AM (#42849933)

    Actually, there's a third solution. You may not have thought of it.

    If wealth condensation were an unstoppable force, it would have run to completion thousands of years ago and there would never have been a middle class in all of recorded history. Clearly there is some counteracting force. Something which we haven't since... let's say 1945.

  • by morcego (260031) on Sunday February 10, 2013 @10:52AM (#42849961)

    Yes, because there's no poverty or starvation in Marxist countries at all right?

    Nah. It is just that in Marxism, everyone is equally poor.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 10, 2013 @05:18PM (#42852835)

    One big problem with our tax system is that it taxes work far more than wealth. Tax rates on earned income are high, taxes on dividends and capital gains are low. So a very high-paid individual (think good actors, sports figures, etc.) who may bring in $10 million of annual earned income gets taxed at ~50%, while someone who collects $10 million in dividends annually gets taxes at 15%. And the larger tax on work extends way down into middle class incomes, where it constrains people much more than it does my hypothetical high earned-income worker.

    I would like to try it the other way around for a bit, or at least bring the two rates nearer one another. Haven't the time to push the numbers, but I wonder what the revenue implications would be if we taxes earned income, dividends, and cap gains all at 25%. There's probably a more balanced mix of rates that would bring in plenty of revenue and ease the disproportionate tax burden on work.

Opportunities are usually disguised as hard work, so most people don't recognize them.

Working...