Dawkins sues Josh Timonen

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The Ratskep thread has been culled down to 81 pages. Reminds me why I don't go there. They deleted the video too.

Reminds me why I don't go there. They deleted the video too.

They deleted the video too.

They deleted the video too.

They deleted the video too.

What video?

[Trolldor]

Ah - Meeky made a humourous video about Josh.

Why does that sound rather patronising.

"Yes the vide0 was rather... humorous, wasn't it.

We are amused by your humorous video."

[Bella Fortuna]

Ah - Meeky made a humourous video about Josh.

Why does that sound rather patronising.

"Yes the vide0 was rather... humorous, wasn't it.

We are amused by your humorous video."

Didn't mean it so. Projecting?

[Trolldor]

[Agi Hammerthief]

I think Timonen was probably to some extent honestly believing that he was to run the store and that since he owned it, he could set it up the way he wanted, and that because of the large amount of work involved he could legitimately pay himself a salary out of it.

well if you look at the shitload of money he was aparently receiving per year for the work he did (not counting The Shop)
if the running of The Shop doubled his workload, it's quite natural to double your salary from the proceeds of The Shop (or proportional to the %%% of the workload increase)

[Bella Fortuna]

I find your response humourous.

[klr]

I think Timonen was probably to some extent honestly believing that he was to run the store and that since he owned it, he could set it up the way he wanted, and that because of the large amount of work involved he could legitimately pay himself a salary out of it.

well if you look at the shitload of money he was aparently receiving per year for the work he did (not counting The Shop)
if the running of The Shop doubled his workload, it's quite natural to double your salary from the proceeds of The Shop (or proportional to the %%% of the workload increase)

Natural ... maybe. But without permission?

[Trolldor]

Well.. if he owned the company and the shop was in the company's name then... he owned the shop, didn't he?

[Bella Fortuna]

I think Timonen was probably to some extent honestly believing that he was to run the store and that since he owned it, he could set it up the way he wanted, and that because of the large amount of work involved he could legitimately pay himself a salary out of it.

well if you look at the shitload of money he was aparently receiving per year for the work he did (not counting The Shop)
if the running of The Shop doubled his workload, it's quite natural to double your salary from the proceeds of The Shop (or proportional to the %%% of the workload increase)

I think it's up for debate whether the legitimate salary he was paid was a shitload as far as what's standard/what the cost of living is for where he was (LA) - notwithstanding the fact that combined with his other paid endeavors it probably did total up to a more than adequate income. The sum for RDF, in itself, probably wouldn't be enough to scrape by on in LA, though. Nonetheless - not really up to him to determine what his employer would pay him - especially seemingly without that employer's knowledge!

[klr]

I think Timonen was probably to some extent honestly believing that he was to run the store and that since he owned it, he could set it up the way he wanted, and that because of the large amount of work involved he could legitimately pay himself a salary out of it.

well if you look at the shitload of money he was aparently receiving per year for the work he did (not counting The Shop)
if the running of The Shop doubled his workload, it's quite natural to double your salary from the proceeds of The Shop (or proportional to the %%% of the workload increase)

I think it's up for debate whether the legitimate salary he was paid was a shitload as far as what's standard/what the cost of living is for where he was (LA) - notwithstanding the fact that combined with his other paid endeavors it probably did total up to a more than adequate income. The sum for RDF, in itself, probably wouldn't be enough to scrape by on in LA, though. Nonetheless - not really up to him to determine what his employer would pay him - especially seemingly without that employer's knowledge!

That's the point. The law doesn't allow you to set your own remuneration, not unless you're self-employed. Whether you might "deserve" it or "need" it are also completely besides the point.

[Svartalf]

Well.. if he owned the company and the shop was in the company's name then... he owned the shop, didn't he?

but he didn't own the fucking wares, and had no permission to take a percentage of profits in addition to his already quite generous salary.

[Thinking Aloud]

Oh - we all need to chill out, by the way:

Trigger Warning!!!1! :

I do not share the Dawkins hate that some here seem to have, although it's nothing compared to Ratz... Jesus, I was just there and I'm remembering where all the "OMG they killed 'Off Topic' " people went. Now that was a hysterical overreaction if ever I saw one. Some of those people need to chill the fuck out and get a sense of proportion.

Might as well have a little dig while we're talking about the same thing...

[Bella Fortuna]

I saw that too and

[NamelessFaceless]

I'm sure Dawkins feels some moral responsibility, his mistake was not making a distinction between personal trust and business trust.

Dawkins actually did make that distinction quite clearly. He was able to differentiate among (a) hiring Timonen to work for Dawkins personally, and (b) hiring Timonen to work for RDF the foundation, and (c) having Timonen run the store as a separate entity independent and distinct from RDF to avoid any "regulatory problems" with RDF.

Was running The Store the only line of business for UBP? If so (actually, either way), this was a really inefficient way to get the profits back to RDFRS. For one, as you already stated, corporations are required to pay reasonable salaries so that immediately reduces the profits. Also, unless I'm reading this wrong, the agreement was that the profits would go back to RDFRS as donations. Corporations can't efficiently deduct charitable donations. If UBP is a standard C-Corporation, then it's donations are limited to only 10% of the net income each year and the remainder is subject to both federal and California income tax. If UBP was an S-Corporation, then it's donations flow through to JT personally where he can deduct them on his personal return, limited to 50% of his Adjusted Gross Income (I looked it up and RDFRS was a "50% charity"). It just seems bizarre that he should get a personal deduction for the items sold, but that's what it would amount to. I would argue that deduction should be counted as part of the economic compensation he received.

If UBP had other business, then JT really should have kept a separate set of books for it, or at least kept a separate accounting for it. The software he used (QuickBooks) is capable of separating the lines of business. If this was the case then that makes his salary even more necessary and reasonable, but then I wonder why he would turn over his complete accounting file.

I'm also not clear on how The Store's inventory was funded. Did the Foundation provide UBP the funds to purchase the items that were sold? Any insight on this?

[NamelessFaceless]

That's the point. The law doesn't allow you to set your own remuneration, not unless you're self-employed. Whether you might "deserve" it or "need" it are also completely besides the point.

JT was technically self-employed. He owned the company. Here in the US, if you own the company, the law does indeed allow you to set your own remuneration as long as it's "reasonable."