Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kevin Rose who wrote (384135)	4/2/2003 11:52:02 AM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Respond to of 769670

Re: "The debate of expensing options is a different beast. I happen to think that companies should not have to expense, basically because people should be looking at the dilution to calculate company valuation. Better reporting of options and their future dilutive effects is of course important. But this is a whole nother debate..." >>> Right. My opinion: if the company doesn't declare an option grant to be compensation (an expense, same as a stock grant... with a dilutive effect) then they shouldn't get to take a tax deduction for that 'compensation expense'. >>> Companies like Microsoft have been shifting so much compensation expense to the 'options side', that they pay little to no tax at all... leaving the tax burden to other companies. I'm OK with that, so long as the expense shows as a hit against earnings. Re: "When you talk about inequitable tax treatment, then you have to also consider the AMT." >>> That's on BOTH Party's agenda for change.