It's the same in Canada as far as I understand - but thing is, options aren't compensation unless the business is sold or goes public.

Unless I'm misunderstanding something, in which case I'll have to change my mind on this.

If I'm issued stock options in a privately held company at $1 per share, and I vest 200, I get $0 (the value hasn't changed since I was issued them). In order for the value to change, the company needs to be purchased or be listed on an exchange. No?

Okay, I misinterpreted "give me actual stock" as preferring stock to options. Your definition of "actual stock" seems to be publicly traded stock.

In a sense yeah. The share option agreements I've seen haven't provided a way to flip the options into proper shares in the company that are under my name.

So the company boasts to me that I have "stock" in the company - I am a "owner" when in reality I'm not at all. I find it disingenuous.

Unless I'm completely misunderstanding this - I can never get a clear answer on any of this stuff.

You seem confused. Private companies don't have any liquid stock to give. Options aren't the issue, just subtract salary minus share price and taxes to get net.

How am I confused? Get net of what?

My point is that local start-ups are misrepresenting share options as "stock" in the company, telling me I have ownership when in fact I do not.

And they use this notion that I am a "owner" to extract far more then the 40 hours per week I'm contracted to do (it's "start-up culture" after all). I like the work and problems that start-up's tend to focus on, but the way it gets represented here is a joke to professionals.

I suspect every country taxes stock, certainly every country I'm aware of. The thing that's different in the US is you only get taxed capital gains (much lower). In the other countries I'm familiar with (Canada isn't one of them) stock is just income and gets taxed via the normal income tax mechanisms.