great thought, but likely wouldn't happen, luke heads up floatplane for linus as a favor and seemed extremely uncomfortable moving up into the limelight to that degree/extent, originally they were talking in videos about luke being ceo of floatplane so linus didnt have to be ceo of both, but recently in a video it was stated linus was ceo of both anyway, and i think luke is cto or cfo or something of floatplane, some kind of compromise happened i suspect. so i doubt luke would be willing to step in as ceo of ltt or lmg
@@drunkdriver but he won't. "The devil you know is better than the devil you don't know." There's no need to undermine Linus now, but Dennis may go nuts and try DennisTTs, if he wasn't there anymore. otoh, he might go: "Welcome to our Google Overlords, we embrace you and all your RUclips crap!" Or something as horrifying...
I feel bad that my first thought was “Linus Death Tips, I guess?” In all seriousness, LTT and Linus personally do great work and I hope they’ll continue to do so for a long long long time. 💙
Richer Sounds, in UK (sells HiFi and TV stuff) is set up in a way that, when the founder dies, it becomes a sort of employee's cooperative. The soul will still be there.
I love hearing Linus talk about how important Yvonne is, for both him and the company. I also really respect planning for the inevitable future like this, because a LOT of people don't even want to think about this kind of stuff.
i love and understand your comment but i must say. Yvonne is not the face of the channel. Linus is. Linus is wrong when he says if Yvonne and I must disapear. In fact. In reality. That's just him who matter's for the face of this channel. And i understand why Linus says Yvonne and i. But Yvonne is not the geek star we all love.
@@bilboah1 considering that your answers got zero likes, compared to the 301 of the original comment, I am confident in saying that you do NOT speak for "us all".
As an HR professional: find Yvonne an apprentice. Just because she might be able to handle the pressure of her job fine, isn't really a reason to have her do it all alone. You just described a huge liability if she (god forbid) ever had a long term absence, which is not unthinkable.
@@qwertpoiuy430 i mean probably, but she apparently has no one who can pick up her job if she were to fall ill. At this point Riley and James are just as recognisable as Linus, Yvonne needs a Riley.
@UCxYL9LaogXOVq3xF3OH9KMg and apparently none of thema can pick up Yvonnes job if she were to be absent for any real amount of time. Whataboutism all you want, that's what's being said in this video. They are NOT fine if Yvonne were to leave right now, based on that information, they should make sure that they are.
@Tyler Linus literally said in the last minute or so of the video that LMG might sink without Yvonne before a replacement could be found. Assuming what Linus himself said is true, that is a big point of failure because that means even the people working under Yvonne right now wouldn't be able to replace her.
@Tyler lol, I don't. Which I'd why I'm going entirely if what Linus and Luke are saying here. YOU also don't know anything and yet you assume they, who do know, are wrong. THEY say they won't be fine if Yvonne were to have a long term absence. Who are you to doubt that?
The trick with these kinds of estates, is to ensure you split voting-rights from the shares and put those voting-stock into a trust/foundation that is managed by you and has a list of "next-in-line" to manage the votingrights.
This is a bit late, but I completely understand how stressful this is. I’ve had to look into leaving my company to my daughter if something happened to me and it is wild the hoops you have to jump through.
TLDR: look into specialized life insurance. My dad used to be in business with family before family stuff happened but all siblings had insurance that if one of them died it would pay out their portion of ownership well into 7 figures
Yeah, this is a good case for life insurance. I was thinking about standard whole life insurance, but a specialised version is worth looking into. I wish, I had a thousand upvotes for this post to appear at the top but can only hope someone with access gets the info to him.
As a trained economist, life insurance is THE most complex financial instrument I've ever seen. Talk to a financial advisor with a strict fiduciary before taking on any complex insurance products, of which life insurance is the most complicated. Even with an economics degree, I STILL have a financial advisor who takes care of my insurance needs (even though I am fully qualified to manage my investments) because the law changes constantly,.
@@MatthewStidham I assume, you are not Canadian either. Complex is an understatement! This being said, the rare use case for whole life insurance seems to fit this particular circumstance, within the United States anyway.
@@GeorgeVCohea-dw7ou Yeah, I have no idea if htat would actually solve Linus' inheritance question or not. It definitely won't solve the question of LMG, but it might provide some value to his children after he dies (assuming the insurance company doesn't go belly up in which case the policy could become completely worthless... this regularly happens with defined benefit schemes)... It reminds me of the old adage, never put all your eggs in one basket. This would take me personally over a week to study the expected value, run models compared to alternative investment plans, and even still we don't know what will happen to Canadian taxes 60 years from now... as I said in my original comment, this is extremely complicated and definitely not a one size fits all solution. I'm not Canadian, but the tax implications are very similar to those in the US for such financial schemes.
@@MatthewStidham If LMG is projected to grow at a reasonable and steady rate, a special whole life insurance policy could be calculated to factor in the tax liability plus padding. Term life is not as suitable for something like this. I do assume that Canada also doesn't count life insurance payouts as income for tax purposes, a quick Google search vaguely says that this money is not taxed. If they want to keep the company together for the children, a life insurance policy to cover the death taxes is most probably the way to go. The value of the company will very much likely drop no matter what they decide, unless there is a lot of pivoting accomplished with Linus stepping way back as the face of the company in the meantime. Nothing lasts forever. Linus is basing this revelation on worst case, where both he and his wife die, and whilst possible, that only scratches the surface of reality and probabilities. The actual plan is almost certainly more complicated than he can reasonably or legally get into during a 10 minute discussion. It's personal business and should truly stay this way.
The employee sellout option can be simplified. All employees join an LLC (separate from LMG). Upon your death (or whatever scenario) the employee LLC gets a purchase option. With employees able to contribute cash to the purchase price (getting a corresponding percentage) and the LLC itself can pursue a business loan for the remainder. A living business plan (for the loan application) can be kept going so that the LLC can immediately apply for the loan.
@@dizzy_derps I don't know Canadian law, but I know that we have them in Czechia as "s.r.o." Germany has them, US has them. Given the fact that Canadian legal system is derived from the UK and US, I would guess they have them too
@@dizzy_derps which really is a problem here because that is likely the only scenario where employees would be able to scrounge up enough capital to purchase a business like this. I would be incredibly interested to see if there are other solutions to this though
Hearing Linus talk about a “legacy” sounds great. He has made a great impact with his own two hands and those around him. I love getting old LMG clips from 6 years ago when these guys looked like children. Great growth
So one of the ways that I have had my tax guy explain to get around the inheritance tax, especially of the business that is privately held, is to list the children as co-owners. The younger the better. The longer they are listed as co-owners, and have a mildly and slightly active role in the company, even if minimally impactful, it is enough to Canadian government and are the owners, should a co-owner die. This would still leave the company on the hook the payout the co-owner shares portion to the estate of the person who died, but the company itself would not fall into a soul less state.
@@toxicturkeyy no, you dont evade the taxes, you still pay them, but it prevents a company situation where the founder dies and laws force a sale to pay the taxes first before transfer of ownership can occur. It also prevents a company from being stuck in probate until its death.
this seems like a crazy tax situation, I was under the impression british businesses could be passed down without inheritance tax liability, maybe I'm wrong but if not it seems crazy other countries don't follow the same model?
This. People always get confused as to why people like Steve Jobs got paid more than the janitor that worked the same hours. People are dumb and dont understand anything abstract. Most people cant even understand what an average means, let alone the value that a leader/boss/CEO etc provides. There would be no LTT without L. You cant just replace him with any person. It would have to be someone else that brings his value, which is a rare skill. You cant go to school and major in "IQ" or "competitive drive".
@@ilearncode7365 he stated the majority of his value is his face, LTT is a media company he is the company, and Steve Jobs was an exceptionally inventive CEO. But the majority of company’s ceos and upper management are literally useless.
~ Paragraph 70(5)(a) of the 'Income Tax Act of Canada' ~ *The taxpayer shall be deemed to have, immediately before the taxpayer’s death, disposed of each capital property of the taxpayer and received proceeds of disposition therefor equal to the fair market value of the property immediately before the death;* So LMG would be valued before Linus's passing, which would be before the 60-80% could be cut. So sorry to say, this won't reduce the tax burden :(
Dang. If Linus dies I would actually cry. This man is one of the reasons I got into computers in high school and will be graduating with a CS degree soon.
This is amazing, thank you so much for this explanation. LMG's biggest attraction is integrity. Everyone feels it and knows it. Everything is relatable and honest.
If you want to make sure your company survives and keep its focus as its main priority, maybe filing as a B Corp would be your best shot. The social purpose is pretty straight forward, being a reputable unbiased company which focuses on reviews and testing of products, which is why I enjoy your channel so much. You also can continue to be a for-profit corporation and enjoy the vast benefits that status provides. Definitely talk to a lawyer about it.
I think this is what might have crossed the minds of the founders of Rooster Teeth when they sold to FullScreen. They could have faced the same problems and decided to sell and stay involved to have a smooth transition to new ownership.
I remember the first time Burnie discussed selling the company and they made it clear who they sold it to was a company whose business practices and vision matched up to theirs. I don't necessarily know if they foresaw being packaged up as part of that company's assets and resold again and again in such short order.
The idea that business that are publicly traded and have shareholders have to be souless is something I talked about recently with a friend who works in corporate law and it's not just about any actual vision a founder might have. For an example, if the CEO of McDonald's decided to suddenly start offering 25$/hr as the minimum wage, they would most likely be sued into oblivion by the shareholders for dereliction of duty.
@@phantomlordmxvi You do realise that Mcdonalds makes more than enough money as it already stands to pump up wages without taking a financial hit, right? The only people "losing" are the shareholders and people at the top who don't even lose a digit from their paycheque. There would be no price hike and there wouldn't need to be one - though if there was, the only people to blame would be the people at the top.
@@miss_bec Damn right! The only reason for a price hike, would be the shareholders refusing to lose even a cent of income and thus requiring the prices to be inflated. This is why I love being born into a Scandinavian country, where we directly force these large businesses to pay up, cause if they don't, they can't operate their business in the country, meaning they're forced to either lose out on billions in revenue or conform to the rules, taking only a minor loss.
I love that Linus is thinking "backup" if disaster strikes at all facets of life not only data :) I do wish you all a long healthy and happy life. I've been watching for years and apart from everything I enjoy (tech, passion, humour, cringe, friendships, valuing your employees, experimenting, entertainment, deep technical dives etc), I value the honesty, consistency and open discussions very much. Hello form Greece ^_^
Idk how it works in Canada (nor the specifics of the UK system) but in the UK you can give shares/part ownership of the company as part of pay packets, which could be a gradual way of rolling out employee ownership
@@mango-strawberry It's call tax evasion as LTT conduct all of their business in Canada and have not ties whatsoever outside of the country. Please refrain from speaking about thing you have no knowledge of.
If Linus and Yvonne both died (knock on wood) and Colton somehow ended up with ownership of LMG after all the times he's been "fired", I would probably laugh so hard and so long that I would die as well
[Risk mitigation with companies legacy] I am an actuary (Canada, Québec) and I have experienced this exact situation as an heir of my grandfather's legacy. You can buy temporary life insurance that covers the burden of inheritance tax. From a fiscal point of view, this is particularly cheap since the money given from life insurance is not taxable for the company. The downside is that the premium will increase over time as you age, like any life insurance. As you know, the upside is that company money pays the premium, so the premium cost is way lower after-tax compared with normal personal life insurance. In another way, the heir can take a low-interest loan from the bank to pay the taxes. This option may be less appropriate with your business since your business can be less saleable (in the bank point of view) in the event of a non-payment from your heir of the loan. Still, I am sure banks can still make you an estimate from which your risk will be more manageable knowing the cost of both possibilities. In all, this situation sucks, particularly to the heirs. To have been in this situation, dealing with tax authorities is the last thing you want when losing someone.
There is no inheritance tax in Canada, you maybe talking about deemed diposition, i.e. selling of assets or transferring of capital goods to people on the will, but those are regular taxes and not inheritance specific.
This was super interesting, I’m not sure how it works in Canada but one way many business get passed the not “enough cash” scenario here in Australia is by the company taking out a life insurance policy on the key people / shareholders. This provides a lump sum that can be used to pay out deceased shareholders or as you guys mentioned inheritance tax. It saves a business from needing to borrow millions etc. It’s one of the things our business specialises in but like you mentioned can be super complicated. Most people think about death but the same scenario can occur if Linus was to become totally disabled say. The other thing to note in terms of multiples is in this instance you can actually pre determine and agree on a business value as opposed to relying on a formal valuation.
My opinion and from what I've learned. Having a clear mission statement and core values is the backbone of a company, not just about you having the vision but everyone with you. If one piece falls the values and mission statement keep the company alive. (In-n-out) is a great example in some ways, I worked there.
thats a myth, companies put fronts out for their consumers who are either too stupid, or to apathetic to care theyre being lied to. they need no backbone nor do they need a mission statement because the mission is to make money, or you get canned by retarded laws, and the backbone is to get your shit out to as many people who are stupid enough, or apathetic enough to buy it, hopefully multiple times.
Simple. LTT's bottom line is almost entirely comprised of ad revenue, and it's simply not in their best interest to promote the use of adblockers. I mean even if they _actually_ use adblockers behind the scenes, Linus' "official" position _has_ to be "we don't allow them". Especially when Luke is talking about using them on the air. His response to Luke here was thinly-veiled code for "dude, what are you doing? You know our sponsors hate adblockers, don't even bring them up because it's just going to cause trouble"
LukeTechTips would be hella rad imo. I just wonder about if he'd even be willing to shoulder that kind of responsibility in the first place. I wouldn't want him to have to be in charge if he isn't ready to or, above all else, just doesn't want to
I wanted them to ask the question and Luke look up maniacally and say " well the acronym would stay the same" Luke's tech tips has a decent ring to it 😂
That must have been so awkward for Luke. Knowing he should be in the lineup and just being blown over. Even when Luke corrected Linus he had been there for 12 years, not 10 Linus just ignored it.
It's pretty common, especially in startups for employees to be compensated in part in equity. For example, bonuses might be paid in equity instead of cash. Or if selling shares at a discount, look into ESPP (employee stock purchase plan) which is essentially a payroll deduction that allows employees to purchase shares at a discount. One thing to keep in mind is that these methods don't bypass fair market value as the difference between what the employee pays, if anything, and the fair market value is considered taxable income for the employee. Of course this sort of thing can be complicated, so it's probably best to consult legal and accounting experts but the point is there already tried and true methods for accomplish equity transfer to employees.
I would love to hear updates about this subject when you start figuring things out. This is my favorite channel to watch on the internet. I'm in my 30s and don't have children yet but I would love for my children to be able to watch this channel as they grow up.
@@TheZonecaptain I suppose being in one of the more poor states, in don't see options like that. You're really really fortunate to find a company that won't replace you with a cheaper worker who knows less
@@TheZonecaptain Not really, most stock options are non-voting shares. Yeah sure if the company gain in value you'll profit from capital gain, but you still have no say in the business. Some of those company can have upwards of 98% of theirs value tied to non-voting shares and keep the 2% who have actual power in the hand of the family.
One solution would be to make provisions for turning LMG into a worker-owned cooperative. This would mean that LMG would remain an independent company, owned by the people who make it work, and not beholden to outside shareholders or another media company. The Democracy at Work Institute has a lot of information on this topic, it's an especially neat solution when the original owner is not able to run the company anymore.
@@CarbonFanatic I believe generally these cooperatives are structured so that the employees essentially buy the company with a loan, that is then paid back by the companies future profits. However, after some googling it seems like this may not be legally possible in Canada at the moment, even though it is a fairly established practice in the US.
So, if I'm understanding it right: Their kids would not inherit the 'car', they would instead inherit the pile of money the 'car' became when it was sold for parts (this kills the LMG). So those inheritance laws already seem broken because if you or your family is rich, they can afford the tax and keep the (very expensive) 'car'. If they are not rich, they cannot afford to keep the 'car' and whatever they were trying to build dies and is replaced with a pile of money which can instead be used many (often irresponsible or unethical) ways. That does not sound like a terribly useful tax as understood here. All it does is occasionally siphon money off the rich-enough who can afford to keep the thing they're inheriting while (likely) destroying smaller ventures unless they played greedy and pocketed more of the profits rather than reinvesting them in the business to grow/improve it. Am I understanding this correctly? Are there (probably) loopholes/escape clauses?
technically this is not an inheritance tax... the tax is paid from the estate, not his kids... the tax paid here would be the "income tax" because they started LMG from scratch and have never sold it, so any value LMG has would be capital gain. A "sale" would be conducted at the time of their death and the value of LMG at the time of death would be contributed to their personal tax of that year as capital gain. that tax must be paid before the estate can be split among heirs. the issue is the EBITDA value of LMG (which would be considered the price of the "sale" at the time of death) would be so high that even at 50% of taxable capital gain, it would be a massive amount of tax due. im not a lawyer, this is just my understanding of whats happening here. They would have to figure out a way to ultimately have close to no taxable capital gains at the time of death (ie. start triggering capital gain somehow and start paying capital gain tax so the cost basis is closer to the value of the asset rather than $0) or somehow figure out a way to avoid the "sale" of LMG upon death (which is beyond my understanding of the tax system so maybe some genius accountant out there would be able to find a loophole)
@@UnexpectedTokens Legal way to do so would be to slowly grant share to their kids while freezing their own share values. So if Linus legal ownership of the company would increase, it's value would not go toward his shares but his kids (with him as legal guardian until a certain age has been met). He could also add into the bylaws of LMG that while his kids have the value shares, they are non-deciding shares, only his and Yvonne would be. He really need to speak with an attorney and and trust specialist on this. there's thousands of privately owned small business (1 to 200 employees) and they don't go out of business or sold to a massive corp everytime the founder dies. That's just outright false.
@@UnexpectedTokens yeah its just way for the greedy government to take as much money from company of a dead owner then they where able to get while it was privately owned lol. the government taxes from the day you are born and even after death. this is the problem with government these taxes help no one and are just their to line the pockets of government entities lol.
@@UnexpectedTokens Also inheritance pieces are often sold at some obscure auctions where they don't even get close to the real value Imagine the government auctioning off LMG They're gonna have some random investors bid on a company they can't do much with
Honestly, I think one of the reasons I can watch Linus just talk about random things like this is because of his reasoning and logic. He doesn't ever really bring politics into the discussion and if he does he clearly states why he believes something should work a specific way. Even if I personally don't agree with what he says sometimes, you can clearly understand his thought process. And the ability to communicate like that is something I feel a lot of people lack.
Ideally what you would do is while you’re still alive is transfer all of your shares into a family trust so that you as an individual person don’t own any shares but the family trust owns all the shares. You would set up that family trust to be discretionary so that the trustee which could be another LLC that you are a director of kin then disperse the benefits that the trust receives from owning shares
Linus, perhaps when you and your missus have a spare moment or week you could write down a bullet point summary or even a flow chart type operating system for how to run the company at a level that some of your staff could pick up and use to keep the company from going tits up ? I bet in your wifes case that might be a real lifesaver, or company saver !
I feel like if this were to ever happen you would need to have it in your will for LMG to create an official donation platform specifically to allow the ability to purchase LMG by your employees, that way they could purchase the company without as many issues. As you have said in the past, LMG is not you, it is the people who work there and the community as they are what brought us to what we are today as a media creator and company over the years.
I think how Bosch did it is interesting. They have a Stiftung that holds most of the company but has no votes, more detail is on the Bosch wikipage under corporate affairs.
I also think this could be a valid option in your case. A "Stiftung" / Foundation which is obliged to do whatever you set it up to be, and your kids could be part of it.
14:32 the face he makes when hes told "Yvonne randomly dissapear" you can see his soul crushing a little bit just by thinking about it and the way he talk about her wife, omg thats real love
I think the answer is obvious: You need an external partner whom you would trust with your life just to divide this same plane risk between 2 groups of people.
@@conde3915 if he is a shareholder, and owns part of the company what need is there for this? But I suppose Linus does not want to give him part of the company
@@corndog9482 Dennis is the only one that truly believes in LMG. Luke would run it differently, as would many others. But Dennis would dedicate himself to keeping LMG what it is.
Yes but it has to be talked about and dealt with. If not, as he said; the short term turbulence will sink "the boat" long before it got a chance collect itself.
Realistically the title shouldn't be, "What would happen to LTT if Linus died?" it should be "What will happen to LTT when Linus dies?" We're all gonna die. The only way Linus' death isn't relevant to LTT is if the place is already sold or closed.
There IS ownership structure changes to be made in Canada, like the US, you can build a large portion of the company into a trust that the two of you control. You then set a trigger about what happens to the trust if the two of you die. The trust can be a shareholder too, if you were public. I just want you to understand the biggest thing about investments, and I fear nobody told you. NOTHING should be in your name. Not a single thing. On paper you should be poor. Of course I am not telling you not to pay your taxes, but you should really understand estate tax should have no bearing on the interests of the business. If there is tax liabilities in this scenario, you MUST go to an attorney to get this stuff off your name.
What you talk is called incorporating and LMG already is. As for nothing in your name that is called tax evasion and is a crime in Both Canada and USA.
@@blackopsrocks that's how rich families stay rich, nothing is under their names and even if a spouse files for alimony then on paper you're so poor that there's no way a judge would even do anything. In plan terms you should be the employee of your money and in paper have minimum wage salary. Then proceed to assign you some corporate financial privileges such as a company credit card and even have it to lease your car and house. Keeping your name as far away from your money as possible.
@@TheMajorStranger tax evasion and tax avoidance through loopholes are complete different things. The later is completely legal and that's why Bezos and Musk pay less taxes than a elementary school teacher in the Midwest.
Dude I've been struggling with the same thing recently. It's much harder to start a business without early investments but you point out the unfortunate part about it. It's a big dilemma for me. The fact that ownership structure is so difficult without investors just goes to show how rigged the system is
6:17 And here is clear and current example why adblockers are essential to anyone who wants to use modern internet at all. Yes not every single page nuke itself like that and make their content unusable without adblockers, but way too many sites do. Either like this annoying moving content around with constantly reloading new ads, or even invisible layers on top of the page that sends you to another page with tens of redirects on the same tab. This means that you most likely will not be able to find your way back to the page you were. So you can keep saying that "adblockers are piracy" all you want, meanwhile i keep browsing internet without these annoying "features" If adblock is piracy, then why not go against Google for their Chrome/Chromium, Mozilla for their Firefox browser and Apple for their Safari browser. All of them contain build in "piracy enablers" in the form of pop-up blockers. Had the online advertising firms kept doing those small text based ads, without getting into the users face. And I'm fairly certain that adblockers as we know them would not be nearly as popular as they are nowadays.
Did none of you people ever notice that Linus and Luke never once advocated for us to stop using adblockers? They never even pass a value judgement on it, so I don't know why you're still so salty about something they never actually said. Also, your argument is a pretty terrible one if you're trying to show that ad-block isn't piracy: your argument asserts that ad-block is necessary, not that it's not piracy-the two are not mutually exclusive.
@@SirVer51 i should have mentioned that i meant this as more of a general reason "why adblockers" rather than direct attack towards neither of them or ltt in general. This whole "let's make sure that our users can't use our site without having to use adblockers" thing was just "shown" here so perfectly, so that's why I made my comment.
It is so unfamiliar to see Linus talk serious stuff. I remember one video of him where he talks about emotional and serious stuff too, mentioning what would happen if he one day passed suddenly. 🙏
Have you thought about setting up an ESOP? I believe those are an option in Canada and they would get rid of the tax issue by effectively turning the company into the employees' retirement plan.
I mean this in the best way possible, I feel like Linus could walk away if he wanted to and LMG would probably keep on a remarkably similar path as it is now, all the inheritance issues he just talked about aside. With the staff Linus has surrounded himself with, there's no shortage of talent and knowledge. Especially over the last year or so, so many other people have become great hosts and have really shined in one way or another. It would be rocky for a minute but they'd sort it all out.
isn't the problem that if someone else owns the company or purchased the company for a large sum of money, they could potentially change the company in such a way to get a ROI?
@@jamvng A bit late, but yes it is. If another larger company buys LMG and by extension then also LTT, then it doesn't matter if the entirety of LMG and LTT is full of very talented and knowledgeable people, as they will just be forced to either adopt the new, soulless policies that completely crush out all their creativity, suffocates their talents and dismisses their knowledge. And if they can't do that, then they'd be forced to leave. This is the procedure that takes place every single time a large media conglomerate overtakes a smaller business. It's also the same that happens whenever a startup or small indie developer is bought by a large, multinational firm. It's the reason why EA and Ubisoft have been able to kill off so many games. It's the reason why Bethesda games lack more and more depth. They're forced into procedures that satisfies Wall Streets economic goals and the short term earnings of the top dog shareholders. Put in other words, they're forced to make themselves poorer and the rich, richer
@@rgl168 well idk if it's the perfect exemple, if Elon just wanted ROI he would never buy twitter, He probably wants to shape ideals and political views with twitter, Bezos has the Washington Post, Musk has twitter
As a company heavily supported by ads (it's a not insignificant portion of income, even if it's not the primary income) - it would be hypocritical, which is something that I think bother's him on an ethical level (and I can wholeheartedly understand), and that ethical level is part of the reason the thought of going 'soulless' as a company is a major concern as well.
You guys have probably already looked into it, but if you haven't you may want to check out Restricted stock units (RSU). RSU's are granted to employees as a form of compensation distributed via a vesting plan. This gives employees interest in company stock, but the stock itself has no tangible value until vesting is complete. Once vested, RSU's are assigned a FMV, and a portion of the shares are withheld to pay income taxes. The remaining shares can be sold at the employees' discretion. This doesn't fully solve your problem, but does help elevate the tax burden that comes with stock grants.
Who are they then selling those shares to? This just brings them back to being publicly traded right? Beholden to shareholders that demand immediate profits over everything else.
@@squirlmy Employee is given stock that must vest first. Vesting period done. Employee wishes to convert said stock into currency. Employee can only sell to a fellow employee??
@@bbacker0758 I think the idea is to at least gate the selling of shares to slow it down while also assuming that a majority of their employees wouldn't sell said stock.
Until ads get regulated to the point of being actually safe, i will always run adblock. My boss doesn't get to tell me if i use an adblock. I'll just not use his computers. Solved. I support creators without being abused by ads.
@Sam Wallace no, Dingus. I pay them directly via Patreon, have RUclips premium, Nebula, etc. Ads are worse for everyone, and just out of control. They have ruined the internet.
the thing is if you work in a company on company hardware going through the companys server they can tell you certain programs like addblock is not allowed. if you dont like it you should make your own company where you make your own rules
LOL dude.Canada has no estate tax. That’s because the CRA treats asset transfers after death as a sale, except in cases where such assets as passed to a surviving spouse in which case there are exceptions. There is capital gains tax charged to the increase in the value of your worldwide assets at death, which must be reported on the deceased’s final tax return or “terminal return”. While a primary residence is generally exempt, other assets could trigger capital gains taxes at half the nominal rate. Canada is so attractive for real estate investments for the future of your family because these countries levy zero inheritance tax...everything you said in this video was wrong. You already own a lot of properties, if you die your children don't pay anything...
It's funny how Linus first says he likes inheritance tax and then immediately explains why inheritance tax shouldn't exist. Because literally threatens actively to destroy your life's work.
That blew me away. I make it a REQUIRMENT to have Adblockers on our company computers and firewall. I feel for the LMG staff too, I feel like he would be one of those snooping bosses.
I have heard of a method here in the US, transfer onership from yourself to a trust where you are the executer of the trust. With this method, the trust would include a clause that acts like a will assigning a new executor, but the owner of the company is the trust and not you so inheritance tax would not apply to the company itself. Additionaly, a trust would insulate the company from you so that a lawsuit against the company would not be a lawsuit against you, and a lawsuit against you could not touch the compay for a massive payout. I am not an expert on trusts so you should talk to one, but this may be a route to explore.
@lmg Clips , you can do employee equity as part of their ongoing compensation. Those shares are taxed, but if you do it smaller chunks over time it makes it much easier for your employees in AGGREGATE to achieve a majority stake in the company.
1:37 Linus, the whole aristocracy thing only works as long as the children are taught how to keep the wealth in question. Otherwise it eventually diminishes.
And I forgot to add, if they know how to properly manage wealth, chances are very favorable that wealth will be put to use in ways that will benefit people who are connected to it.
@@jchoneandonly, this exactly. There is a reason why the vast majority of family businesses in the West are either bankrupt or sell by the third generation. Bequeathing money is one thing. Bequeathing competence is far more difficult (and even if you do, market conditions and new competitors may still wipe you out).
Was about to post this, for the amount of personal relationships that Linus himself has and the situation that their children are still to young to deal with this endeavor, imo the most moral and simplest solution would be to sell the company to the employees and turn it into a co-op.
In Australia you can own a company through a trust, within the trust you can have your entire family meaning any assets owned (like the company) continue to operate normally and don’t require tax to be paid The trust would need to be setup with specific details outlining ownership rights and a trustee to be appointed while anyone in the trust is a minor You can also operate out of a trading trust and the business can be passed down without stamp duty taxes as well
In the US you can have a trust own the company (this is watered down a lot) and have a trust management company run the company via written instructions. Since a trust isn’t a person, the tax wouldn’t apply. But like I said, it is more complicated then what I put down, best to look up the entire structure of this. Also allows you to still own the company if a board forces you out if done right.
The previous company I worked at got around that with voting/nonvoting shares. The owner held over 50% of voting shares, and enough non-voting shares to cover costs. The company was private, shares were weird but available to employees.
You can add members to an LLC for free (not necessary to sell shares) then convert to a worker owned cooperative without the issues you described. If you have the workers vote (anonymously) about whether or not they'd prefer to convert to a coop I am sure they would be willing to deal with the tax situation to take ownership of their own labor.
What if the kids inherited 51% and the remaining 49% was inherited by others but spread out between all ltt employees? That way the kids have half the tax and the smallish percentages the employees get could be manageable
Linus, why don’t you make EVERYONE in the company an owner ? Look how JLP (John Lewis and Partners, a supermarket in the UK) do it, yes, the share holders own the majority of the company, but EVERY SINGLE EMPLOYEE owns a part of the company, that’s why They’re “partners” not “employees” If you’re worried about your company going to the dogs and everything your Conakry stands for going away, why not protect your business by allowing your employees to be part owners of the business ?
If you are an "owner" you are also liable for the company. There is a reason that not everyone that wants to work independent starts their own business. Liability is always a stone on your shoulder. Especially when there is lots of people and money involved.
I hate to tell you this, but Canadian law and English law are not the same thing: what worked decades ago here would not necessarily work in a completely different country today.
You can't really be pushed out of the company if you remain a majority shareholder after IPO. The way CEO's get removed is by shareholders voting to remove them and if you own a majority share you can just vote no and win with certainty. Shareholders can still sue if they believe that you're not behaving in the best interest of the company though.
I just can't get into my mind that shareholders have a right as in actual laws, that their stocks have to increase. I always thought it's like "buy it, sell it, or leave it - your choice". But that they have an actual demand on profit - I don't like that. I think that companies should be able to do whatever they want. The only people to sue should be the employees, not the shareholders. As long as they don't have majority voting power, they are not to decide on the company's decisions. However as I learn now, it isn't like that and they have a right for profit and can sue if they don't get that profit? I don't like that. At all.
@@IroAppe The shareholders don't necessarily have a "right to profit" the company's CEO and board just have a legal obligation to maximize shareholder value, which can mean to maximize the amount stock goes up or minimize the amount it decreases in the event of a downturn. The law is there for shareholders to have recourse if a company acts in bad faith. Source: I have a master's degree in finance
@@RobbyBobbyBoy I just don't get why there is no investment of trust. If I would invest a small manageable sum into LMG, I would of course be happy if it goes up, but it would not be my main goal. I don't want to put up any pressure for the management to make more profits.
4:46 have heard stories of this happening and companies being crippled, shutting down, or experiencing hostile takeovers just because the inheritance tax was so high it was effectively more then the company was worth, could make/earn, or in some cases like 2-3 times what the company was currently valued at, just in taxes.
I dont know Canadian Law but: Join the Stockmarket with your company (without selling shares to somebody else) and buy your own shares as asset of the company. That way the company Owner becomes the Company itself.
From what I have seen as a viewer, Linus is doing amazing setting up this company to thrive. However, a HUGE aspect is Linus' ego, management, goals, and project management. Best case, the next ceo first copies what Linus does then morphes it into their own thing.
Linus at 10 seconds: "If Yvonne and I get hit by a bus at the same time, do you know what happens to LMG?" Me: "Please say it goes to Dennis, please say it goes to Dennis..."
6:42 the two people who always mentioned on wan everyone should have an ad blocker and that they didnt understand why some didnt use it and why it wasnt a standard feature of all browsers and other similar such comments in favor of ad blockers just stated live on air ad blockers are banned on company computers... hilarious. i'd think companies would pay money to never have ads so they could actually get work done efficently
Wonder if in the case something like that happens, if they could change the structure and ownership of the company into a worker co-operative to make sure the heart and soul of LMG remains with the people who work there
7:41 actually most businesses do die when their owner/founder/creator dies, if not then, then when the kids or grand kids die, either the business fails by that point or the family members still existing no longer have interest in running it and kill it or sell it off. life expectancy of most businesses is 25-50 years max no matter how successful they are, very few businesses last to 75 or 100 years in operation, only if they are a family business and passion of the family with good succession plans in place, or sometimes corporations, as that's why corporations came to be in the first place and why they are considered a legal entity/"person" in the courts, its a why to legally pass on a business/keep it going in event of owner/controller dying or dying without succession plan in place. businesses that are unsuccessful or only moderately successful or don't have a good owner like Linus re-investing continually or periodically in the business, are lucky in most cases to last 10-15 years, very rarely 20 and pretty much never make 25, and sometimes die after 5 years. over 90% of all businesses fail b4 they reach their 5th year anniversary in the united states anyway is the statistic we are taught in college in business courses. sometimes its stated as 90% of all new businesses instead but still gets the point across either way. basically a miniscule amount of business are still around past the 5 year mark. the reason so many businesses don't have succession/inheritance/estate plans in place, is they usually don't need them because they fail before getting to that point, to such a high extent that even financial planners sometimes tell business owners its unnecessary/additional expense that they can choose to forego because it likely won't be needed anyway.
we came to learn tech... we stayed to learn inheritance strategy
You came to a video about Linus dying expecting tech...?
@@reuben3588 It’s Linus. And he’d probably be dropped at his funeral, by all the tech he dropped for years
@@halomika4973 Lmfao
@@isaac10231 It will drop him into his grave, I’m sure.
or lack of more like....
Was 100% expecting Luke to say he'd expect to take over and for Linus to agree
@Michael Skinner omg it's been too long since I watch wan show and forgot the intro... That one hit hard.
great thought, but likely wouldn't happen, luke heads up floatplane for linus as a favor and seemed extremely uncomfortable moving up into the limelight to that degree/extent, originally they were talking in videos about luke being ceo of floatplane so linus didnt have to be ceo of both, but recently in a video it was stated linus was ceo of both anyway, and i think luke is cto or cfo or something of floatplane, some kind of compromise happened i suspect. so i doubt luke would be willing to step in as ceo of ltt or lmg
he needs to practice dropping stuff
@@schnauzer93 Luke would have to change his last name to Linus, like how Tim Cook became Tim Apple after Steve Jobs died.
@@schnauzer93 or dennis. liao tech tips
Then Dennis's dream of Dennis Tech Tips will finally be realized
Dennis can organize a hostile takeover anytime he wants to.
@@drunkdriver but he won't. "The devil you know is better than the devil you don't know." There's no need to undermine Linus now, but Dennis may go nuts and try DennisTTs, if he wasn't there anymore. otoh, he might go: "Welcome to our Google Overlords, we embrace you and all your RUclips crap!" Or something as horrifying...
Watch, Dennis is secretly a millionaire.
Or Austin Evans Tech Tips.
@@mobiletransportvideo god i hope not
I feel bad that my first thought was “Linus Death Tips, I guess?”
In all seriousness, LTT and Linus personally do great work and I hope they’ll continue to do so for a long long long time. 💙
🤣
Your comment is funny & sad at the same time
How to Automate your burial?
Richer Sounds, in UK (sells HiFi and TV stuff) is set up in a way that, when the founder dies, it becomes a sort of employee's cooperative. The soul will still be there.
If Linus suddenly died, that would make me and alot of viewers quite sad. *Knock on Wood* Hope you guys live long and fullfilled lives.
LTT would be scrawled over most of my electronics or like LTT stickers n stuff
@@tonypeperoni5818 weirdo
@@TL8311-j6x putting LTT on your videos
Agreed
True, I would drop an electronic device on the ground in his honor.
I love hearing Linus talk about how important Yvonne is, for both him and the company. I also really respect planning for the inevitable future like this, because a LOT of people don't even want to think about this kind of stuff.
i love and understand your comment but i must say. Yvonne is not the face of the channel. Linus is. Linus is wrong when he says if Yvonne and I must disapear. In fact. In reality. That's just him who matter's for the face of this channel. And i understand why Linus says Yvonne and i. But Yvonne is not the geek star we all love.
In fact if linus disapear, the reality is that we will all disapaer too.
i can say that luke is a face of the channel too but not Yvonne.
@@bilboah1 considering that your answers got zero likes, compared to the 301 of the original comment, I am confident in saying that you do NOT speak for "us all".
@@fireskorpion396 You are wrong and you're totally missing Amin's point. Linus is the face of this channel.
As an HR professional: find Yvonne an apprentice. Just because she might be able to handle the pressure of her job fine, isn't really a reason to have her do it all alone. You just described a huge liability if she (god forbid) ever had a long term absence, which is not unthinkable.
Pretty sure she has people working under her that do just that.
They however are never labeled apprentices
@@qwertpoiuy430 i mean probably, but she apparently has no one who can pick up her job if she were to fall ill. At this point Riley and James are just as recognisable as Linus, Yvonne needs a Riley.
@UCxYL9LaogXOVq3xF3OH9KMg and apparently none of thema can pick up Yvonnes job if she were to be absent for any real amount of time. Whataboutism all you want, that's what's being said in this video. They are NOT fine if Yvonne were to leave right now, based on that information, they should make sure that they are.
@Tyler Linus literally said in the last minute or so of the video that LMG might sink without Yvonne before a replacement could be found. Assuming what Linus himself said is true, that is a big point of failure because that means even the people working under Yvonne right now wouldn't be able to replace her.
@Tyler lol, I don't. Which I'd why I'm going entirely if what Linus and Luke are saying here. YOU also don't know anything and yet you assume they, who do know, are wrong. THEY say they won't be fine if Yvonne were to have a long term absence. Who are you to doubt that?
The trick with these kinds of estates, is to ensure you split voting-rights from the shares and put those voting-stock into a trust/foundation that is managed by you and has a list of "next-in-line" to manage the votingrights.
This is a bit late, but I completely understand how stressful this is. I’ve had to look into leaving my company to my daughter if something happened to me and it is wild the hoops you have to jump through.
TLDR: look into specialized life insurance.
My dad used to be in business with family before family stuff happened but all siblings had insurance that if one of them died it would pay out their portion of ownership well into 7 figures
Yeah, this is a good case for life insurance. I was thinking about standard whole life insurance, but a specialised version is worth looking into. I wish, I had a thousand upvotes for this post to appear at the top but can only hope someone with access gets the info to him.
As a trained economist, life insurance is THE most complex financial instrument I've ever seen. Talk to a financial advisor with a strict fiduciary before taking on any complex insurance products, of which life insurance is the most complicated. Even with an economics degree, I STILL have a financial advisor who takes care of my insurance needs (even though I am fully qualified to manage my investments) because the law changes constantly,.
@@MatthewStidham
I assume, you are not Canadian either. Complex is an understatement! This being said, the rare use case for whole life insurance seems to fit this particular circumstance, within the United States anyway.
@@GeorgeVCohea-dw7ou Yeah, I have no idea if htat would actually solve Linus' inheritance question or not. It definitely won't solve the question of LMG, but it might provide some value to his children after he dies (assuming the insurance company doesn't go belly up in which case the policy could become completely worthless... this regularly happens with defined benefit schemes)... It reminds me of the old adage, never put all your eggs in one basket. This would take me personally over a week to study the expected value, run models compared to alternative investment plans, and even still we don't know what will happen to Canadian taxes 60 years from now... as I said in my original comment, this is extremely complicated and definitely not a one size fits all solution. I'm not Canadian, but the tax implications are very similar to those in the US for such financial schemes.
@@MatthewStidham
If LMG is projected to grow at a reasonable and steady rate, a special whole life insurance policy could be calculated to factor in the tax liability plus padding. Term life is not as suitable for something like this. I do assume that Canada also doesn't count life insurance payouts as income for tax purposes, a quick Google search vaguely says that this money is not taxed. If they want to keep the company together for the children, a life insurance policy to cover the death taxes is most probably the way to go. The value of the company will very much likely drop no matter what they decide, unless there is a lot of pivoting accomplished with Linus stepping way back as the face of the company in the meantime. Nothing lasts forever.
Linus is basing this revelation on worst case, where both he and his wife die, and whilst possible, that only scratches the surface of reality and probabilities. The actual plan is almost certainly more complicated than he can reasonably or legally get into during a 10 minute discussion. It's personal business and should truly stay this way.
The employee sellout option can be simplified. All employees join an LLC (separate from LMG). Upon your death (or whatever scenario) the employee LLC gets a purchase option. With employees able to contribute cash to the purchase price (getting a corresponding percentage) and the LLC itself can pursue a business loan for the remainder. A living business plan (for the loan application) can be kept going so that the LLC can immediately apply for the loan.
I'm assuming his business is based in Canada and I don't think they have LLC's in Canada.
@@dizzy_derps I don't know Canadian law, but I know that we have them in Czechia as "s.r.o." Germany has them, US has them. Given the fact that Canadian legal system is derived from the UK and US, I would guess they have them too
@@marekholub8668 Your guess is incorrect. Google 'llc in canada' and you'll see that don't actually have LLC's.
@@dizzy_derps which really is a problem here because that is likely the only scenario where employees would be able to scrounge up enough capital to purchase a business like this. I would be incredibly interested to see if there are other solutions to this though
@@thesaintnoodle But they don't.
Hearing Linus talk about a “legacy” sounds great. He has made a great impact with his own two hands and those around him. I love getting old LMG clips from 6 years ago when these guys looked like children. Great growth
Why are ad blockers not allowed on company computers? Like I assume there is a reasonable purpose for that rule, but I have no clue what it would be.
6:36 is the adblocker not allowed on the company computer or is it something else?
So one of the ways that I have had my tax guy explain to get around the inheritance tax, especially of the business that is privately held, is to list the children as co-owners. The younger the better. The longer they are listed as co-owners, and have a mildly and slightly active role in the company, even if minimally impactful, it is enough to Canadian government and are the owners, should a co-owner die. This would still leave the company on the hook the payout the co-owner shares portion to the estate of the person who died, but the company itself would not fall into a soul less state.
Nice
Using life hacks to legally tax evade!!! I love it!!!
@@toxicturkeyy no, you dont evade the taxes, you still pay them, but it prevents a company situation where the founder dies and laws force a sale to pay the taxes first before transfer of ownership can occur. It also prevents a company from being stuck in probate until its death.
@@toxicturkeyy As though this tax isn't a way the government robs graving family members of their loved one's legacy.
this seems like a crazy tax situation, I was under the impression british businesses could be passed down without inheritance tax liability, maybe I'm wrong but if not it seems crazy other countries don't follow the same model?
The argument could be made the Linus with his name on the business was 60-80% of the value, devaluing the company if something happened
That might actually work. (Then the company would have to "rebuild".)
I mean he is in the name lol
This. People always get confused as to why people like Steve Jobs got paid more than the janitor that worked the same hours. People are dumb and dont understand anything abstract. Most people cant even understand what an average means, let alone the value that a leader/boss/CEO etc provides. There would be no LTT without L. You cant just replace him with any person. It would have to be someone else that brings his value, which is a rare skill. You cant go to school and major in "IQ" or "competitive drive".
@@ilearncode7365 he stated the majority of his value is his face, LTT is a media company he is the company, and Steve Jobs was an exceptionally inventive CEO. But the majority of company’s ceos and upper management are literally useless.
~ Paragraph 70(5)(a) of the 'Income Tax Act of Canada' ~
*The taxpayer shall be deemed to have, immediately before the taxpayer’s death, disposed of each capital property of the taxpayer and received proceeds of disposition therefor equal to the fair market value of the property immediately before the death;*
So LMG would be valued before Linus's passing, which would be before the 60-80% could be cut. So sorry to say, this won't reduce the tax burden :(
Dang. If Linus dies I would actually cry. This man is one of the reasons I got into computers in high school and will be graduating with a CS degree soon.
He's human like the rest of us. At one point he will die. We all die. Get over it.
@@theenzoferrari458 why be so rude? could've also just left the comment and go on with ur day
@@livtown really your going to be naive. Gtfo and take your own advice.
@@theenzoferrari458 i was asking a question.
@@livtown and I was telling. I can do this all day.
Linus, it's very heartwarming to hear that is how you feel about the relationship that you an Yvonne have. I am glad you two have each other.
This is amazing, thank you so much for this explanation. LMG's biggest attraction is integrity. Everyone feels it and knows it.
Everything is relatable and honest.
even when there was bad things they evenully fix the issues
If you want to make sure your company survives and keep its focus as its main priority, maybe filing as a B Corp would be your best shot. The social purpose is pretty straight forward, being a reputable unbiased company which focuses on reviews and testing of products, which is why I enjoy your channel so much. You also can continue to be a for-profit corporation and enjoy the vast benefits that status provides. Definitely talk to a lawyer about it.
That could work. Other tech and related companies have done it; fairfone and ecosia, to name 2.
I think this is what might have crossed the minds of the founders of Rooster Teeth when they sold to FullScreen. They could have faced the same problems and decided to sell and stay involved to have a smooth transition to new ownership.
You could argue that they lost some "soul" in the transition too. The "vibe" of their videos and company is vastly different now than it was before.
@@schmintendont Yeah RT peaked just before they were sold.
I remember the first time Burnie discussed selling the company and they made it clear who they sold it to was a company whose business practices and vision matched up to theirs.
I don't necessarily know if they foresaw being packaged up as part of that company's assets and resold again and again in such short order.
The idea that business that are publicly traded and have shareholders have to be souless is something I talked about recently with a friend who works in corporate law and it's not just about any actual vision a founder might have.
For an example, if the CEO of McDonald's decided to suddenly start offering 25$/hr as the minimum wage, they would most likely be sued into oblivion by the shareholders for dereliction of duty.
Yeah, because nobody would continue to buy at McDonald's anymore with the needed price hike.
@@phantomlordmxvi You do realise that Mcdonalds makes more than enough money as it already stands to pump up wages without taking a financial hit, right? The only people "losing" are the shareholders and people at the top who don't even lose a digit from their paycheque. There would be no price hike and there wouldn't need to be one - though if there was, the only people to blame would be the people at the top.
@@miss_bec Damn right! The only reason for a price hike, would be the shareholders refusing to lose even a cent of income and thus requiring the prices to be inflated. This is why I love being born into a Scandinavian country, where we directly force these large businesses to pay up, cause if they don't, they can't operate their business in the country, meaning they're forced to either lose out on billions in revenue or conform to the rules, taking only a minor loss.
@@phantomlordmxvi "needed" my arse. they make more than enough to keep the prices the same, just requires greedy shareholders to fuck off
@@miss_bec You do know that McDonalds is a Franchise and isnt operating most of the McDonald's?
The franchisees are the ones that operate at margin.
I love that Linus is thinking "backup" if disaster strikes at all facets of life not only data :) I do wish you all a long healthy and happy life. I've been watching for years and apart from everything I enjoy (tech, passion, humour, cringe, friendships, valuing your employees, experimenting, entertainment, deep technical dives etc), I value the honesty, consistency and open discussions very much. Hello form Greece ^_^
Idk how it works in Canada (nor the specifics of the UK system) but in the UK you can give shares/part ownership of the company as part of pay packets, which could be a gradual way of rolling out employee ownership
They should incorporate somewhere else instead of Canada or US because of these ridiculous taxes. A whole lot of companies do that. No biggie.
@@mango-strawberry It's call tax evasion as LTT conduct all of their business in Canada and have not ties whatsoever outside of the country. Please refrain from speaking about thing you have no knowledge of.
@@TheMajorStranger no, it's completely legal and valid.
@@TheMajorStranger you don't need to have ties outside Canada to do that.
If Linus and Yvonne both died (knock on wood) and Colton somehow ended up with ownership of LMG after all the times he's been "fired", I would probably laugh so hard and so long that I would die as well
ROFL
[Risk mitigation with companies legacy]
I am an actuary (Canada, Québec) and I have experienced this exact situation as an heir of my grandfather's legacy. You can buy temporary life insurance that covers the burden of inheritance tax. From a fiscal point of view, this is particularly cheap since the money given from life insurance is not taxable for the company. The downside is that the premium will increase over time as you age, like any life insurance. As you know, the upside is that company money pays the premium, so the premium cost is way lower after-tax compared with normal personal life insurance.
In another way, the heir can take a low-interest loan from the bank to pay the taxes. This option may be less appropriate with your business since your business can be less saleable (in the bank point of view) in the event of a non-payment from your heir of the loan. Still, I am sure banks can still make you an estimate from which your risk will be more manageable knowing the cost of both possibilities.
In all, this situation sucks, particularly to the heirs. To have been in this situation, dealing with tax authorities is the last thing you want when losing someone.
There is no inheritance tax in Canada, you maybe talking about deemed diposition, i.e. selling of assets or transferring of capital goods to people on the will, but those are regular taxes and not inheritance specific.
This was super interesting, I’m not sure how it works in Canada but one way many business get passed the not “enough cash” scenario here in Australia is by the company taking out a life insurance policy on the key people / shareholders. This provides a lump sum that can be used to pay out deceased shareholders or as you guys mentioned inheritance tax. It saves a business from needing to borrow millions etc. It’s one of the things our business specialises in but like you mentioned can be super complicated. Most people think about death but the same scenario can occur if Linus was to become totally disabled say. The other thing to note in terms of multiples is in this instance you can actually pre determine and agree on a business value as opposed to relying on a formal valuation.
This was known as 'Key Man' insurance. Probably called 'Key Person' insurance these days. In case Harvey Spector falls down a person hole.
My opinion and from what I've learned. Having a clear mission statement and core values is the backbone of a company, not just about you having the vision but everyone with you. If one piece falls the values and mission statement keep the company alive. (In-n-out) is a great example in some ways, I worked there.
thats a myth, companies put fronts out for their consumers who are either too stupid, or to apathetic to care theyre being lied to. they need no backbone nor do they need a mission statement because the mission is to make money, or you get canned by retarded laws, and the backbone is to get your shit out to as many people who are stupid enough, or apathetic enough to buy it, hopefully multiple times.
I'm curious so I have to ask away - why aren't adblockers allowed on company computers at LTT?
Simple. LTT's bottom line is almost entirely comprised of ad revenue, and it's simply not in their best interest to promote the use of adblockers. I mean even if they _actually_ use adblockers behind the scenes, Linus' "official" position _has_ to be "we don't allow them". Especially when Luke is talking about using them on the air. His response to Luke here was thinly-veiled code for "dude, what are you doing? You know our sponsors hate adblockers, don't even bring them up because it's just going to cause trouble"
The way Linus described how well Yvonne and Him fit and match together was the most professional and handsome way to say that he loves her. xD
Right?
I hope everyone can find someone who loves them as much as Linus loves Yvonne. That was honestly really sweet.
@@bcPhoenix_One literally couple goals
Be real Luke just say you that is what we all would expect.
Luke Tech Tips.
ide hope he does lol
The OG
LukeTechTips would be hella rad imo. I just wonder about if he'd even be willing to shoulder that kind of responsibility in the first place. I wouldn't want him to have to be in charge if he isn't ready to or, above all else, just doesn't want to
Luke is sitting there....waiting to take over the world. His time will come.
I wanted them to ask the question and Luke look up maniacally and say " well the acronym would stay the same" Luke's tech tips has a decent ring to it 😂
That must have been so awkward for Luke. Knowing he should be in the lineup and just being blown over. Even when Luke corrected Linus he had been there for 12 years, not 10 Linus just ignored it.
It's pretty common, especially in startups for employees to be compensated in part in equity. For example, bonuses might be paid in equity instead of cash. Or if selling shares at a discount, look into ESPP (employee stock purchase plan) which is essentially a payroll deduction that allows employees to purchase shares at a discount. One thing to keep in mind is that these methods don't bypass fair market value as the difference between what the employee pays, if anything, and the fair market value is considered taxable income for the employee. Of course this sort of thing can be complicated, so it's probably best to consult legal and accounting experts but the point is there already tried and true methods for accomplish equity transfer to employees.
Exactly. Very surprised he didn't talk about an ESOP/ESPP scheme.
@@just-nala watch the video again, they did talk a lot about employees receiving shares if they could figure out the right mechanism.
I would love to hear updates about this subject when you start figuring things out. This is my favorite channel to watch on the internet. I'm in my 30s and don't have children yet but I would love for my children to be able to watch this channel as they grow up.
I only wish more ppl would even consider giving the company to their employees. That shows how much he cares for what he's created
I have often thought about something similar, such as allowing Employees to "earn" a portion of the company.
That is what stock options are for…
@@TheZonecaptain I suppose being in one of the more poor states, in don't see options like that. You're really really fortunate to find a company that won't replace you with a cheaper worker who knows less
@@TheZonecaptain Not really, most stock options are non-voting shares. Yeah sure if the company gain in value you'll profit from capital gain, but you still have no say in the business. Some of those company can have upwards of 98% of theirs value tied to non-voting shares and keep the 2% who have actual power in the hand of the family.
One solution would be to make provisions for turning LMG into a worker-owned cooperative. This would mean that LMG would remain an independent company, owned by the people who make it work, and not beholden to outside shareholders or another media company. The Democracy at Work Institute has a lot of information on this topic, it's an especially neat solution when the original owner is not able to run the company anymore.
They mentioned that in the video and how that wouldn't work.
@@jjpark98 cooperatives are different than what was described in the video
@@the9red9one The workers would still have to buy into the cooperative.
@@CarbonFanatic I believe generally these cooperatives are structured so that the employees essentially buy the company with a loan, that is then paid back by the companies future profits. However, after some googling it seems like this may not be legally possible in Canada at the moment, even though it is a fairly established practice in the US.
The horror if the sold it to Bell or even worse to Rogers...
So, if I'm understanding it right: Their kids would not inherit the 'car', they would instead inherit the pile of money the 'car' became when it was sold for parts (this kills the LMG). So those inheritance laws already seem broken because if you or your family is rich, they can afford the tax and keep the (very expensive) 'car'. If they are not rich, they cannot afford to keep the 'car' and whatever they were trying to build dies and is replaced with a pile of money which can instead be used many (often irresponsible or unethical) ways. That does not sound like a terribly useful tax as understood here. All it does is occasionally siphon money off the rich-enough who can afford to keep the thing they're inheriting while (likely) destroying smaller ventures unless they played greedy and pocketed more of the profits rather than reinvesting them in the business to grow/improve it.
Am I understanding this correctly? Are there (probably) loopholes/escape clauses?
technically this is not an inheritance tax... the tax is paid from the estate, not his kids... the tax paid here would be the "income tax" because they started LMG from scratch and have never sold it, so any value LMG has would be capital gain. A "sale" would be conducted at the time of their death and the value of LMG at the time of death would be contributed to their personal tax of that year as capital gain. that tax must be paid before the estate can be split among heirs. the issue is the EBITDA value of LMG (which would be considered the price of the "sale" at the time of death) would be so high that even at 50% of taxable capital gain, it would be a massive amount of tax due.
im not a lawyer, this is just my understanding of whats happening here. They would have to figure out a way to ultimately have close to no taxable capital gains at the time of death (ie. start triggering capital gain somehow and start paying capital gain tax so the cost basis is closer to the value of the asset rather than $0) or somehow figure out a way to avoid the "sale" of LMG upon death (which is beyond my understanding of the tax system so maybe some genius accountant out there would be able to find a loophole)
@@UnexpectedTokens Legal way to do so would be to slowly grant share to their kids while freezing their own share values. So if Linus legal ownership of the company would increase, it's value would not go toward his shares but his kids (with him as legal guardian until a certain age has been met). He could also add into the bylaws of LMG that while his kids have the value shares, they are non-deciding shares, only his and Yvonne would be. He really need to speak with an attorney and and trust specialist on this. there's thousands of privately owned small business (1 to 200 employees) and they don't go out of business or sold to a massive corp everytime the founder dies. That's just outright false.
@@UnexpectedTokens yeah its just way for the greedy government to take as much money from company of a dead owner then they where able to get while it was privately owned lol. the government taxes from the day you are born and even after death. this is the problem with government these taxes help no one and are just their to line the pockets of government entities lol.
@@UnexpectedTokens Also inheritance pieces are often sold at some obscure auctions where they don't even get close to the real value
Imagine the government auctioning off LMG
They're gonna have some random investors bid on a company they can't do much with
Well, guess who certainly pushed for it to be like that
Such a sad thing to imagine. We love you Linus. Don't die on us 😭
Who’s here after he died 😭
@@andrew6239 me 😭😭😭
9:24 "It's happened to a lot of companies" Yeah, like when Norman Osborne got forced out of Oscorp!
don't die Linus, we need you for eye opening tech tips.
Honestly, I think one of the reasons I can watch Linus just talk about random things like this is because of his reasoning and logic. He doesn't ever really bring politics into the discussion and if he does he clearly states why he believes something should work a specific way. Even if I personally don't agree with what he says sometimes, you can clearly understand his thought process. And the ability to communicate like that is something I feel a lot of people lack.
You've just summed up the whole situation with AdBlock = piracy
Linus is the most rational person in the world
Ideally what you would do is while you’re still alive is transfer all of your shares into a family trust so that you as an individual person don’t own any shares but the family trust owns all the shares. You would set up that family trust to be discretionary so that the trustee which could be another LLC that you are a director of kin then disperse the benefits that the trust receives from owning shares
Why are adblockers not allowed on company computers?? Seems like something you'd want to mandate
Linus, perhaps when you and your missus have a spare moment or week you could write down a bullet point summary or even a flow chart type operating system for how to run the company at a level that some of your staff could pick up and use to keep the company from going tits up ? I bet in your wifes case that might be a real lifesaver, or company saver !
I feel like if this were to ever happen you would need to have it in your will for LMG to create an official donation platform specifically to allow the ability to purchase LMG by your employees, that way they could purchase the company without as many issues.
As you have said in the past, LMG is not you, it is the people who work there and the community as they are what brought us to what we are today as a media creator and company over the years.
I think how Bosch did it is interesting. They have a Stiftung that holds most of the company but has no votes, more detail is on the Bosch wikipage under corporate affairs.
This would be a foundation then in Canada, I think🤔
I also think this could be a valid option in your case. A "Stiftung" / Foundation which is obliged to do whatever you set it up to be, and your kids could be part of it.
14:32 the face he makes when hes told "Yvonne randomly dissapear" you can see his soul crushing a little bit just by thinking about it and the way he talk about her wife, omg thats real love
Add blockers arent allowed on LMG company computers?
13:05 just curious, why the bleeps? did he say “true love”?
I think the answer is obvious: You need an external partner whom you would trust with your life just to divide this same plane risk between 2 groups of people.
Luke is this
But luke wouldn't have the money to pay inheritance tax.
@@conde3915 if he is a shareholder, and owns part of the company what need is there for this?
But I suppose Linus does not want to give him part of the company
It should be Dennis.
@@corndog9482 Dennis is the only one that truly believes in LMG. Luke would run it differently, as would many others. But Dennis would dedicate himself to keeping LMG what it is.
This is depressing on so many levels. Linus passing away and LMG's future being uncertain.
He's not dead yet
Yes but it has to be talked about and dealt with. If not, as he said; the short term turbulence will sink "the boat" long before it got a chance collect itself.
Realistically the title shouldn't be, "What would happen to LTT if Linus died?" it should be "What will happen to LTT when Linus dies?"
We're all gonna die.
The only way Linus' death isn't relevant to LTT is if the place is already sold or closed.
@@korumann He's getting better.
@@AbsitInvidea was he sick?
There IS ownership structure changes to be made in Canada, like the US, you can build a large portion of the company into a trust that the two of you control. You then set a trigger about what happens to the trust if the two of you die. The trust can be a shareholder too, if you were public. I just want you to understand the biggest thing about investments, and I fear nobody told you. NOTHING should be in your name. Not a single thing. On paper you should be poor. Of course I am not telling you not to pay your taxes, but you should really understand estate tax should have no bearing on the interests of the business. If there is tax liabilities in this scenario, you MUST go to an attorney to get this stuff off your name.
That's really interesting. Makes sense
What you talk is called incorporating and LMG already is. As for nothing in your name that is called tax evasion and is a crime in Both Canada and USA.
@@TheMajorStranger yea your grossly wrong about everything you said.
@@blackopsrocks that's how rich families stay rich, nothing is under their names and even if a spouse files for alimony then on paper you're so poor that there's no way a judge would even do anything. In plan terms you should be the employee of your money and in paper have minimum wage salary. Then proceed to assign you some corporate financial privileges such as a company credit card and even have it to lease your car and house. Keeping your name as far away from your money as possible.
@@TheMajorStranger tax evasion and tax avoidance through loopholes are complete different things. The later is completely legal and that's why Bezos and Musk pay less taxes than a elementary school teacher in the Midwest.
Dude I've been struggling with the same thing recently. It's much harder to start a business without early investments but you point out the unfortunate part about it. It's a big dilemma for me. The fact that ownership structure is so difficult without investors just goes to show how rigged the system is
I know this is way late, but why are adblockers not allowed on company computers? Is it just a security issue?
6:17
And here is clear and current example why adblockers are essential to anyone who wants to use modern internet at all.
Yes not every single page nuke itself like that and make their content unusable without adblockers, but way too many sites do.
Either like this annoying moving content around with constantly reloading new ads, or even invisible layers on top of the page that sends you to another page with tens of redirects on the same tab.
This means that you most likely will not be able to find your way back to the page you were.
So you can keep saying that "adblockers are piracy" all you want, meanwhile i keep browsing internet without these annoying "features"
If adblock is piracy, then why not go against Google for their Chrome/Chromium, Mozilla for their Firefox browser and Apple for their Safari browser.
All of them contain build in "piracy enablers" in the form of pop-up blockers.
Had the online advertising firms kept doing those small text based ads, without getting into the users face.
And I'm fairly certain that adblockers as we know them would not be nearly as popular as they are nowadays.
Adblockers are also security in depth.
Did none of you people ever notice that Linus and Luke never once advocated for us to stop using adblockers? They never even pass a value judgement on it, so I don't know why you're still so salty about something they never actually said.
Also, your argument is a pretty terrible one if you're trying to show that ad-block isn't piracy: your argument asserts that ad-block is necessary, not that it's not piracy-the two are not mutually exclusive.
@@SirVer51 they got really triggered and just can't seem to get past it...
@@SirVer51 i should have mentioned that i meant this as more of a general reason "why adblockers" rather than direct attack towards neither of them or ltt in general.
This whole "let's make sure that our users can't use our site without having to use adblockers" thing was just "shown" here so perfectly, so that's why I made my comment.
Your heir must adopt the name 'Linus', and pick up exactly where you left off, immediately. Like any monarchy.
They need to deep fake linus's face and continue making videos.
estate tax is a way for private equity to get cheap business from people looking to get quick cash to pay taxes.
It is so unfamiliar to see Linus talk serious stuff. I remember one video of him where he talks about emotional and serious stuff too, mentioning what would happen if he one day passed suddenly. 🙏
Have you thought about setting up an ESOP? I believe those are an option in Canada and they would get rid of the tax issue by effectively turning the company into the employees' retirement plan.
This! Although I think becoming a worker co-op could also work. Just don't know how that works in Canada.
Luke gets everything
Honestly, that's the best outcome
I mean this in the best way possible, I feel like Linus could walk away if he wanted to and LMG would probably keep on a remarkably similar path as it is now, all the inheritance issues he just talked about aside. With the staff Linus has surrounded himself with, there's no shortage of talent and knowledge. Especially over the last year or so, so many other people have become great hosts and have really shined in one way or another. It would be rocky for a minute but they'd sort it all out.
isn't the problem that if someone else owns the company or purchased the company for a large sum of money, they could potentially change the company in such a way to get a ROI?
@@jamvng A bit late, but yes it is. If another larger company buys LMG and by extension then also LTT, then it doesn't matter if the entirety of LMG and LTT is full of very talented and knowledgeable people, as they will just be forced to either adopt the new, soulless policies that completely crush out all their creativity, suffocates their talents and dismisses their knowledge. And if they can't do that, then they'd be forced to leave. This is the procedure that takes place every single time a large media conglomerate overtakes a smaller business. It's also the same that happens whenever a startup or small indie developer is bought by a large, multinational firm. It's the reason why EA and Ubisoft have been able to kill off so many games. It's the reason why Bethesda games lack more and more depth. They're forced into procedures that satisfies Wall Streets economic goals and the short term earnings of the top dog shareholders. Put in other words, they're forced to make themselves poorer and the rich, richer
@@jamvng perfect example: Twitter and Elon Musk :)
@@rgl168 well idk if it's the perfect exemple, if Elon just wanted ROI he would never buy twitter, He probably wants to shape ideals and political views with twitter, Bezos has the Washington Post, Musk has twitter
Linus, why don't you allow adblockers on company computers?
he's paid off by advertising groups
As a company heavily supported by ads (it's a not insignificant portion of income, even if it's not the primary income) - it would be hypocritical, which is something that I think bother's him on an ethical level (and I can wholeheartedly understand), and that ethical level is part of the reason the thought of going 'soulless' as a company is a major concern as well.
@@Alzorath Thx, I understand now. That I didn't think of that... It's so obvious, haha
This was a joke btw, wish there was a way to relay tone over written language lmao
@@WalnutSpice emoticons or just typing /S for sarcasm?
I have a question about you mentioning that ad blockers are not allowed in your company computers, can you explain why that rule is in place?
What would happen is that us fans would be devastated
You guys have probably already looked into it, but if you haven't you may want to check out Restricted stock units (RSU). RSU's are granted to employees as a form of compensation distributed via a vesting plan. This gives employees interest in company stock, but the stock itself has no tangible value until vesting is complete. Once vested, RSU's are assigned a FMV, and a portion of the shares are withheld to pay income taxes. The remaining shares can be sold at the employees' discretion. This doesn't fully solve your problem, but does help elevate the tax burden that comes with stock grants.
Who are they then selling those shares to? This just brings them back to being publicly traded right? Beholden to shareholders that demand immediate profits over everything else.
@@bbacker0758 employees, so no.
What happens when employees decide to leave though?
@@squirlmy Employee is given stock that must vest first. Vesting period done. Employee wishes to convert said stock into currency. Employee can only sell to a fellow employee??
@@bbacker0758 I think the idea is to at least gate the selling of shares to slow it down while also assuming that a majority of their employees wouldn't sell said stock.
Until ads get regulated to the point of being actually safe, i will always run adblock. My boss doesn't get to tell me if i use an adblock. I'll just not use his computers. Solved.
I support creators without being abused by ads.
@Sam Wallace no, Dingus. I pay them directly via Patreon, have RUclips premium, Nebula, etc. Ads are worse for everyone, and just out of control. They have ruined the internet.
the thing is if you work in a company on company hardware going through the companys server they can tell you certain programs like addblock is not allowed. if you dont like it you should make your own company where you make your own rules
@@starlesssu or don't work for people like that.
LOL dude.Canada has no estate tax. That’s because the CRA treats asset transfers after death as a sale, except in cases where such assets as passed to a surviving spouse in which case there are exceptions. There is capital gains tax charged to the increase in the value of your worldwide assets at death, which must be reported on the deceased’s final tax return or “terminal return”. While a primary residence is generally exempt, other assets could trigger capital gains taxes at half the nominal rate.
Canada is so attractive for real estate investments for the future of your family because these countries levy zero inheritance tax...everything you said in this video was wrong. You already own a lot of properties, if you die your children don't pay anything...
It's funny how Linus first says he likes inheritance tax and then immediately explains why inheritance tax shouldn't exist.
Because literally threatens actively to destroy your life's work.
Lmao adblockers not allowed on company computers? My heart goes out to the poor LMG staff lol
I cringed when he said that
They have RUclips premium at least
Probably done on the firewall level
That blew me away. I make it a REQUIRMENT to have Adblockers on our company computers and firewall. I feel for the LMG staff too, I feel like he would be one of those snooping bosses.
Since LMG is largely ad funded, Linus feels like he'd be a hypocrite using ad blockers. He said that on WAN show at some point in the last few weeks.
I have heard of a method here in the US, transfer onership from yourself to a trust where you are the executer of the trust. With this method, the trust would include a clause that acts like a will assigning a new executor, but the owner of the company is the trust and not you so inheritance tax would not apply to the company itself. Additionaly, a trust would insulate the company from you so that a lawsuit against the company would not be a lawsuit against you, and a lawsuit against you could not touch the compay for a massive payout. I am not an expert on trusts so you should talk to one, but this may be a route to explore.
@lmg Clips , you can do employee equity as part of their ongoing compensation. Those shares are taxed, but if you do it smaller chunks over time it makes it much easier for your employees in AGGREGATE to achieve a majority stake in the company.
I think I understand why they hired a new CEO now, it’s like a 2.5 in one.
@8:45 As opposed to a C-Corporation, a B-Corporation is allowed to pursue public benefits or social goals even to the detriment of company profits.
1:37
Linus, the whole aristocracy thing only works as long as the children are taught how to keep the wealth in question. Otherwise it eventually diminishes.
And I forgot to add, if they know how to properly manage wealth, chances are very favorable that wealth will be put to use in ways that will benefit people who are connected to it.
@@jchoneandonly, this exactly. There is a reason why the vast majority of family businesses in the West are either bankrupt or sell by the third generation. Bequeathing money is one thing. Bequeathing competence is far more difficult (and even if you do, market conditions and new competitors may still wipe you out).
@@flyingphoenix113 not to mention the absolute guarantee that the government will waste any wealth it gets its hands into and then demand more
Does Canada have a version of ESOP (Employee Stock Ownership Plan) or Worker Co-Op. Maybe that could work
Was about to post this, for the amount of personal relationships that Linus himself has and the situation that their children are still to young to deal with this endeavor, imo the most moral and simplest solution would be to sell the company to the employees and turn it into a co-op.
I specifically looked for ESOP to see if anyone suggested it.
Long Live Linus! It's nice you're thinking of your workers, a lot of bosses really could give a shit.
In Australia you can own a company through a trust, within the trust you can have your entire family meaning any assets owned (like the company) continue to operate normally and don’t require tax to be paid
The trust would need to be setup with specific details outlining ownership rights and a trustee to be appointed while anyone in the trust is a minor
You can also operate out of a trading trust and the business can be passed down without stamp duty taxes as well
In the US you can have a trust own the company (this is watered down a lot) and have a trust management company run the company via written instructions. Since a trust isn’t a person, the tax wouldn’t apply. But like I said, it is more complicated then what I put down, best to look up the entire structure of this. Also allows you to still own the company if a board forces you out if done right.
In Canada there is "family trust" too, I believe Rogers uses that structure. Linus could probably setup something like that for LTT.
When you’re watching your favorite tech RUclipsr and realize oh shit I forgot it’s become an entire corporation and Linus is the boss man @6:32
0:07 those two knocks were the most "meant" knocks on wood I've ever heard
The previous company I worked at got around that with voting/nonvoting shares. The owner held over 50% of voting shares, and enough non-voting shares to cover costs. The company was private, shares were weird but available to employees.
Exactly what I was thinking could be possible. Having core employees as share holders.
You can add members to an LLC for free (not necessary to sell shares) then convert to a worker owned cooperative without the issues you described. If you have the workers vote (anonymously) about whether or not they'd prefer to convert to a coop I am sure they would be willing to deal with the tax situation to take ownership of their own labor.
Ad blocking is not allowed on your company computers? Interested to hear the reasons why.
What if the kids inherited 51% and the remaining 49% was inherited by others but spread out between all ltt employees? That way the kids have half the tax and the smallish percentages the employees get could be manageable
Linus, why don’t you make EVERYONE in the company an owner ?
Look how JLP (John Lewis and Partners, a supermarket in the UK) do it, yes, the share holders own the majority of the company, but EVERY SINGLE EMPLOYEE owns a part of the company, that’s why They’re “partners” not “employees”
If you’re worried about your company going to the dogs and everything your Conakry stands for going away, why not protect your business by allowing your employees to be part owners of the business ?
You obviously didn't watch the video. 10:37 He *DIRECTLY* addresses what you are trying to suggest.
If you are an "owner" you are also liable for the company. There is a reason that not everyone that wants to work independent starts their own business. Liability is always a stone on your shoulder. Especially when there is lots of people and money involved.
I hate to tell you this, but Canadian law and English law are not the same thing: what worked decades ago here would not necessarily work in a completely different country today.
@@N1lav yeah, JUST as I pressed “post” he mentioned it 🤦🏼♂️
Imagine a Linus isekai series.
"I am a tech youtuber reincarnated to another world" would be an interesting anime series
So you're telling me , the proper answer is to invest in technological, biological and supernatural means to keep Linus and or Yvonne alive forever
Know this will probably never get read by Linus.
The answer he's looking for is a co-operative.
9:50 That's exactly what happened to Steve Jobs, yes.
You can't really be pushed out of the company if you remain a majority shareholder after IPO. The way CEO's get removed is by shareholders voting to remove them and if you own a majority share you can just vote no and win with certainty. Shareholders can still sue if they believe that you're not behaving in the best interest of the company though.
See Zukerberg
I just can't get into my mind that shareholders have a right as in actual laws, that their stocks have to increase. I always thought it's like "buy it, sell it, or leave it - your choice". But that they have an actual demand on profit - I don't like that. I think that companies should be able to do whatever they want. The only people to sue should be the employees, not the shareholders. As long as they don't have majority voting power, they are not to decide on the company's decisions.
However as I learn now, it isn't like that and they have a right for profit and can sue if they don't get that profit? I don't like that. At all.
@@IroAppe The shareholders don't necessarily have a "right to profit" the company's CEO and board just have a legal obligation to maximize shareholder value, which can mean to maximize the amount stock goes up or minimize the amount it decreases in the event of a downturn. The law is there for shareholders to have recourse if a company acts in bad faith.
Source: I have a master's degree in finance
@@RobbyBobbyBoy I just don't get why there is no investment of trust. If I would invest a small manageable sum into LMG, I would of course be happy if it goes up, but it would not be my main goal. I don't want to put up any pressure for the management to make more profits.
4:46
have heard stories of this happening and companies being crippled, shutting down, or experiencing hostile takeovers just because the inheritance tax was so high it was effectively more then the company was worth, could make/earn, or in some cases like 2-3 times what the company was currently valued at, just in taxes.
Why would ad blockers not be allowed on company computers??
You dont want some random dude's code on your machine if it has important stuff
I dont know Canadian Law but: Join the Stockmarket with your company (without selling shares to somebody else) and buy your own shares as asset of the company. That way the company Owner becomes the Company itself.
From what I have seen as a viewer, Linus is doing amazing setting up this company to thrive. However, a HUGE aspect is Linus' ego, management, goals, and project management. Best case, the next ceo first copies what Linus does then morphes it into their own thing.
Linus at 10 seconds: "If Yvonne and I get hit by a bus at the same time, do you know what happens to LMG?"
Me: "Please say it goes to Dennis, please say it goes to Dennis..."
You only Liao once. 😂
Why wouldn’t ad-blockers be allowed on Linus’s company computers? Isn’t that a good thing to have?
Bit hypocritical of them to support them when they make a good portion of revenue from ads....
6:42 the two people who always mentioned on wan everyone should have an ad blocker and that they didnt understand why some didnt use it and why it wasnt a standard feature of all browsers and other similar such comments in favor of ad blockers just stated live on air ad blockers are banned on company computers...
hilarious.
i'd think companies would pay money to never have ads so they could actually get work done efficently
Wonder if in the case something like that happens, if they could change the structure and ownership of the company into a worker co-operative to make sure the heart and soul of LMG remains with the people who work there
7:41 actually most businesses do die when their owner/founder/creator dies, if not then, then when the kids or grand kids die, either the business fails by that point or the family members still existing no longer have interest in running it and kill it or sell it off.
life expectancy of most businesses is 25-50 years max no matter how successful they are, very few businesses last to 75 or 100 years in operation, only if they are a family business and passion of the family with good succession plans in place, or sometimes corporations, as that's why corporations came to be in the first place and why they are considered a legal entity/"person" in the courts, its a why to legally pass on a business/keep it going in event of owner/controller dying or dying without succession plan in place.
businesses that are unsuccessful or only moderately successful or don't have a good owner like Linus re-investing continually or periodically in the business, are lucky in most cases to last 10-15 years, very rarely 20 and pretty much never make 25, and sometimes die after 5 years.
over 90% of all businesses fail b4 they reach their 5th year anniversary in the united states anyway is the statistic we are taught in college in business courses. sometimes its stated as 90% of all new businesses instead but still gets the point across either way. basically a miniscule amount of business are still around past the 5 year mark.
the reason so many businesses don't have succession/inheritance/estate plans in place, is they usually don't need them because they fail before getting to that point, to such a high extent that even financial planners sometimes tell business owners its unnecessary/additional expense that they can choose to forego because it likely won't be needed anyway.