In Sweden equity compensation is made so prohibitively expensive it ensures that everyone gets paid more or less appropriate market salary.
Of course very rich guys have their workarounds anyway, for example I recall reading that Ingvar Kamprad pays himself avg IKEA worker salary. Still better than those ridiculous $1 salaries of SV execs.
They do actually give away money - although with some strings attached (like your government not using open source!)
IKEA itself - not the owner - is a charity, registered in Holland to be in the Eu but actually in the Dutch antilles so they don't pay Dutch tax and they can keep secret any donations
Do you have a reference to back up the OSS prohibition? It sounds like an urban legend and I couldn't find anything searching, but I've seen weirder things before.
It sounds like you are against equity compensation and in favor of the Swedish laws that make it prohibitively expensive. Why is that? US technology startups are heavily based on equity compensation, so probably many folks here would assume it is a good thing.
no, actually I don't have an opinion whether swedish system is good or bad, as I haven't experienced it personally, only heard and read about it and know few people who had problems with it. in the end they seem to be doing fine.
but I think there needs to be more optimal solution than just equity compensation or just cash-salary compensation.
I'm not an expert, but I don't believe debt reduces your net worth. Irresponsible use of that debt does, but if I borrow $250k to buy a house, the value of that house offsets the debt. It's a wash in the end, is it not?
What are some legal ways for an individual to be compensated that wouldn't appear in the tax documentation of either the individual or the company in question?
"Legal" is used here to mean "would stand up in a court of law in the relevant jurisdiction."
The fact is that if Eric Schmidt were fined 100% of his "net worth" he would be among the rich again within a year or two.
Suppose a professional gambler made exactly the same amount as Eric Schmidt per year. This "system" would fine them equally. But the gambler relies on his bankroll as his asset, whereas Schmidt relies on his reputation and personal network.
1) Whether yearly income is representative of present and/or future net worth is entirely unrelated to whether the magnitude of said income is discoverable.
2) Everyone has a different definition of "fair." Which one are you using?
(1) The original question is ["elsewhere it's like [this], is that better?"]
I merely point out a major caveat.
(2) From the article: "In reality, fairness is not so much about the actual distribution of loot as it is about the psychology of how you feel about it."
