They've already made more money than they or their descendants (probably for generations) will ever need and are very likely also getting capital gains on that wealth through one way or another.

The $1 salary is just posturing.

I wasn't saying whether it was moral or immoral or good or bad. I was just giving an example.

I'm curious, would you say it is better for them to have a $1 salary, a $100k salary, or a $100M salary?

It would be nice first of all for them not to be tax dodging assholes, who like in the case of ActiBlizz not only didn't pay tax to the US but also manipulated the tax system to get tax credits to the tune of hundreds of millions of Dollars in just a single year¹ while also kicking out hundreds of their employees for short term gain.

And if their companies already use the tax system as nothing other than toilet paper, why would one assume they as private persons would do anything different?

¹: https://www.fanbyte.com/news/americans-paid-activision-blizz...

I agree there should be less tax loophole exploitation. I think the best way to prevent it though is through law changes to remove the loopholes.

To compare against Blizzard's 2018 numbers, I checked out Google's 2018 numbers (full disclosure I work at Google, but my words are my own). I could be misinterpreting the document, but it looks like Google paid $14.5B in corporate income taxes in 2017 and $4.2B in 2018.

https://abc.xyz/investor/static/pdf/2018Q4_alphabet_earnings...

This is just arguing in bad faith.

I don't think I'm intending to deceive anyone. It's an interesting salary setup that popped into my mind when I read CamelCaseName's, ryandrake's, and supernovae's comments.

I'm sorry if it came off as deceitful or misled anyone.

In addition to being edge cases, the people you listed are not managers.

I think they are/were, or at least some of them have been at some points in time during which they had a $1 salary. Although maybe there are different definitions of the word manager and I'm not really familiar with them all.

>Typically, responsibilities include being a decision maker on business strategy and other key policy issues, leader, manager, and executor.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_executive_officer

>"We've never been ones to hold on to management roles when we think there's a better way to run the company. And Alphabet and Google no longer need two CEOs and a President," their letter said.

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-50653345

That was said when Larry Page and Sergey Brin were stepping back. So it seems to imply their old roles were management roles and their new roles aren't.