Let's get educated about the American welfare programs

[jonatha]

That's effectively money from nowhere as startups issue shares, they don't buy them on the market like established ones do for stock options.

Established companies do not have to acquire such stock from the market. They generally have plenty of Treasury Stock lying around and/or additional headroom for issuing new stock. (The latter approach is one reason existing shareholders have to approve stock option compensation plans...)

 

[ZiprHead]

As you say, the company hasn't turned a profit. He didn't take that $72.5m from Uber drivers.

Or maybe the reason the company hasn't turned a profit is because the company paid the man the $72.5 million. Salaries come before profit.

You realize Uber wasn't his first startup? He went into the situation loaded. I'm not finding anything showing his salary but I do find that in it's life Uber has provided stock-based compensation worth over $4 billion. That's effectively money from nowhere as startups issue shares, they don't buy them on the market like established ones do for stock options.

That's a long winded way of saying "I don't know too".

 

[Half-Life]

That is very similar to what I said about your neighbor saying to you, "I can't afford my cable and internet bill this month. Since you have a lot of money, can't you just pay my bill? It would be very selfish of you if you chose not to pay my bill. Why do you always have to think of yourself? I need cable and internet, too! Why is yours more important than mine?!?!?"

When one understands that this whole conversation would just be a neighbor whining for a handout trying to manipulate you with guilt, you will realize how socialists sound to conservatives.

What if your church had a meeting that resolved for the members to put up a collection to pay the neighbor's bill? Let's say you were in that meeting, voted against it, but still wish to be a member of the church. Would you pay your share of the agreed upon contributions, which based on the size of your community, was about $0.80 each?

Is that just as unfair as being expected to personally float that person's bill all on your own? Why or why not?

Now, how does either scenario map to reality? i.e. community getting together to help the neighbor = taxes, versus you being personally responsible to pay your neighbor bill = <what, now?>

Yes, charity would be fine. I don't know any conservative against charity. The problem is when you FORCE people to give away their money. If someone FORCED you to give to charity, would you agree with that? Of course not.

Like Ben Shapiro said, if I have $50 and everyone in the room votes to take my money and spread it around to the people in the room, that's still theft. It doesn't matter how many people agree on it. But, if Ben Shapiro voluntarily decided to give his $50 to the people in the room, that would be fine. That is charity. FORCED CHARITY is theft.

 

[DBT]

Call it moral and social obligation to pay taxes that benefit the very system that builds the infrastructure and provides opportunity. Which, unfortunately, gives some the opportunity to exploit others, both workers and consumers, in order to enrich themselves beyond all reason.

 

[Rhea]

Unlike leftist fantasy the ultra-wealthy put their money to work, they don't just have it sitting around.

Says, unironically, the guy looking at the picture of the billionaire’s eighth mansion.

You cannot make this shit up.

 

[Elixir]

In most cases the vast majority of that wealth is corporate stock--the value is purely what people think the company will do in the future, it doesn't represent money taken from anyone.

Then give 'em a couple of shares. Sheesh it's not that complicated.

 

[DBT]

Some folks keep trying to defend the indefensible, a thoroughly outrageous situation where a small percentage of the world's population owns or controls the majority of the world's wealth and resources. Where some have it all, power, wealth, extensive property holdings, mansions, while a vast number of people struggle with the basics.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You realize Uber wasn't his first startup? He went into the situation loaded. I'm not finding anything showing his salary but I do find that in it's life Uber has provided stock-based compensation worth over $4 billion. That's effectively money from nowhere as startups issue shares, they don't buy them on the market like established ones do for stock options.

That's a long winded way of saying "I don't know too".

The point is you have no evidence it came from Uber drivers. You're taking a guilty until proven innocent approach.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

In most cases the vast majority of that wealth is corporate stock--the value is purely what people think the company will do in the future, it doesn't represent money taken from anyone.

Then give 'em a couple of shares. Sheesh it's not that complicated.

Distributing such shares has no cost to the workers but it does have a cost to the other shareholders.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Some folks keep trying to defend the indefensible, a thoroughly outrageous situation where a small percentage of the world's population owns or controls the majority of the world's wealth and resources. Where some have it all, power, wealth, extensive property holdings, mansions, while a vast number of people struggle with the basics.

Some folks keep trying to defend their dogma without regard for whether their arguments are valid or not.

 

[Worldtraveller]

Some folks keep trying to defend the indefensible, a thoroughly outrageous situation where a small percentage of the world's population owns or controls the majority of the world's wealth and resources. Where some have it all, power, wealth, extensive property holdings, mansions, while a vast number of people struggle with the basics.

Some folks keep trying to defend their dogma without regard for whether their arguments are valid or not.

Irony, it's good for your blood.

 

[ZiprHead]

You realize Uber wasn't his first startup? He went into the situation loaded. I'm not finding anything showing his salary but I do find that in it's life Uber has provided stock-based compensation worth over $4 billion. That's effectively money from nowhere as startups issue shares, they don't buy them on the market like established ones do for stock options.

That's a long winded way of saying "I don't know too".

The point is you have no evidence it came from Uber drivers. You're taking a guilty until proven innocent approach.

He's the boss at Uber. What more evidence is needed? Your position is that there is no proof he's ever taken a dime of Uber money so he is innocent. This isn't a court of law and your argument is stupid.

 

[laughing dog]

In most cases the vast majority of that wealth is corporate stock--the value is purely what people think the company will do in the future, it doesn't represent money taken from anyone.

Then give 'em a couple of shares. Sheesh it's not that complicated.

Distributing such shares has no cost to the workers but it does have a cost to the other shareholders.

As does any form of compensation to workers. So, do you have a point?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The point is you have no evidence it came from Uber drivers. You're taking a guilty until proven innocent approach.

He's the boss at Uber. What more evidence is needed? Your position is that there is no proof he's ever taken a dime of Uber money so he is innocent. This isn't a court of law and your argument is stupid.

The point is it would have been easy for him to get the money from stock rather than from the company. CEOs are almost never actually paid at that level, the high numbers you here are from performance-based stock options.

 

[Worldtraveller]

The point is you have no evidence it came from Uber drivers. You're taking a guilty until proven innocent approach.

He's the boss at Uber. What more evidence is needed? Your position is that there is no proof he's ever taken a dime of Uber money so he is innocent. This isn't a court of law and your argument is stupid.

The point is it would have been easy for him to get the money from stock rather than from the company. CEOs are almost never actually paid at that level, the high numbers you here are from performance-based stock options.

"performance based"

 

[KeepTalking]

In most cases the vast majority of that wealth is corporate stock--the value is purely what people think the company will do in the future, it doesn't represent money taken from anyone.

Then give 'em a couple of shares. Sheesh it's not that complicated.

Distributing such shares has no cost to the workers but it does have a cost to the other shareholders.

Not once the workers have shares as well. Then they would get to equally feel the pain that non-worker shareholders are experiencing by having more assets. I'm sure they would hate that.

 

[KeepTalking]

The point is it would have been easy for him to get the money from stock rather than from the company. CEOs are almost never actually paid at that level, the high numbers you here are from performance-based stock options.

"performance based"

Yup. Doesn't matter whether the performance is good, bad, or abysmal. "Performance based" indeed.

 

[Gun Nut]

That is very similar to what I said about your neighbor saying to you, "I can't afford my cable and internet bill this month. Since you have a lot of money, can't you just pay my bill? It would be very selfish of you if you chose not to pay my bill. Why do you always have to think of yourself? I need cable and internet, too! Why is yours more important than mine?!?!?"

When one understands that this whole conversation would just be a neighbor whining for a handout trying to manipulate you with guilt, you will realize how socialists sound to conservatives.

What if your church had a meeting that resolved for the members to put up a collection to pay the neighbor's bill? Let's say you were in that meeting, voted against it, but still wish to be a member of the church. Would you pay your share of the agreed upon contributions, which based on the size of your community, was about $0.80 each?

Is that just as unfair as being expected to personally float that person's bill all on your own? Why or why not?

Now, how does either scenario map to reality? i.e. community getting together to help the neighbor = taxes, versus you being personally responsible to pay your neighbor bill = <what, now?>

Yes, charity would be fine. I don't know any conservative against charity. The problem is when you FORCE people to give away their money. If someone FORCED you to give to charity, would you agree with that? Of course not.

Like Ben Shapiro said, if I have $50 and everyone in the room votes to take my money and spread it around to the people in the room, that's still theft. It doesn't matter how many people agree on it. But, if Ben Shapiro voluntarily decided to give his $50 to the people in the room, that would be fine. That is charity. FORCED CHARITY is theft.

No, in my example there are consequences for not contributing to charity. Do you have a problem being forced to give $0.80 to your church to help a poor person have something that the rest of your group is able to have for themselves? I am betting that if it's "only a few cents" and "everyone is doing it", then you would be ok with it... and that is what taxes are... not "you pay for your neighbor all by yourself", as was the case in your example (that did not reflect what taxes or social programs are anything like).

 

[DBT]

Some folks keep trying to defend the indefensible, a thoroughly outrageous situation where a small percentage of the world's population owns or controls the majority of the world's wealth and resources. Where some have it all, power, wealth, extensive property holdings, mansions, while a vast number of people struggle with the basics.

Some folks keep trying to defend their dogma without regard for whether their arguments are valid or not.

You have done nothing to refute the argument that too much wealth and power has been accumulating in the hands of the few....a fact that's supported numerous studies and statistics. Why this is a bad situation for both society and the economy has also been explained numerous times, but never refuted. You merely express your objections. Objections are not a valid form of argument.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Distributing such shares has no cost to the workers but it does have a cost to the other shareholders.

Not once the workers have shares as well. Then they would get to equally feel the pain that non-worker shareholders are experiencing by having more assets. I'm sure they would hate that.

You're not making sense unless you think the shareholders are the same as the workers.