LETTER : Looking for better options to encourage employees

Graham Bates
Sunday 23 July 1995 18:02 EDT
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

From Mr Graham Bates

Sir: In view of the Greenbury report's stated objective of encouraging wider share ownership, I am surprised by your description of its recommendation that the exercise of share options be taxed as income rather than as capital gains as "a small, but sensible, change" (leading article, 18 July). Among the press coverage of how top earners may find themselves virtually unaffected by this change, my own circumstances provide a useful illustration of what can happen "lower down the salary scale".

I am employed by a company in which every employee participates in a share option plan. Earlier this year, I exercised some options that my employer granted to me in 1989. On paper, this transaction will earn me an instant gain - the excess of the current value over the cost - of approximately pounds 2,000. While this is a very welcome "windfall", it is not a fortune; and it has arisen after six years of loyalty to my employer.

Had I exercised these options today, I now know I would face a pounds 500 tax bill (25 per cent of the gain), which might have led me to sell some of the shares. But I also know that to make sure I collect the remaining pounds 1,500, I must sell all of the shares straight away. After all, a relatively small drop in the future share price might reduce my unrealised gain to, say, pounds 1,000; but my tax bill would still be pounds 500.

My employer, having spent 10 years encouraging employee share ownership, now finds itself having to consider how best to mitigate the effects of this tax change, not with the purpose of helping its employees to avoid taxation, but so as to persuade them of the continued benefit of retaining shares in "their" company.

Yours faithfully,

Graham Bates

Reading,

Berkshire

20 July

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in