You can't confirm anything without looking at parents and how money moves. Large companies work very similar to state run institutions so I assume a lot of nepotism and backstage dealings. The company itself does not gain anything from it. Although I assume those are just small part of it.
The rest is just how a corrupt system that focuses on "growth" ends up.
Smaller companies have the potential to be better but not always. Funny story, a friend is a programmer at a rather small company that has an app as their main product. They went all in with diversity and hired a lot of people, then they realized that the company was going under despite having millions in investments, makes you question how much ESG stuff is even working. Investors got mad and they had to drop all their diversity employees, mostly tech-women.
Look at the way capital gains works, and how someone on the tier Elon Musk is at operates. The assets they have (say a large percentage of Twitter/X and Tesla) can be used as collateral for a loan, the interest on which is a loss for actual income purposes. Meanwhile, when they pay the loan back by selling off assets, they do so at the capital gains rate, vs income tax. That's provided they don't take out another loan using assets as collateral to pay off the first loan.
That's assuming you don't incorporate and have everything run through your organization as a business expense. Like Trump. That's another layer.
What we're talking about are variants of the same financialization as shell game.
I'd think that having had the Panama Papers in our collective rear view mirror, this kind of corruption would be common knowledge, but yes. The rich are playing with insider rules. DEI, too, is a way to deal in sponsored minorities including the vapid social media addicts you noticed.
As you're realizing, it's a big club and we ain't in it.
This sounds like commie whinging
So you are against family members helping each other? What is your point exactly?
You can't confirm anything without looking at parents and how money moves. Large companies work very similar to state run institutions so I assume a lot of nepotism and backstage dealings. The company itself does not gain anything from it. Although I assume those are just small part of it.
The rest is just how a corrupt system that focuses on "growth" ends up.
Smaller companies have the potential to be better but not always. Funny story, a friend is a programmer at a rather small company that has an app as their main product. They went all in with diversity and hired a lot of people, then they realized that the company was going under despite having millions in investments, makes you question how much ESG stuff is even working. Investors got mad and they had to drop all their diversity employees, mostly tech-women.
Look at the way capital gains works, and how someone on the tier Elon Musk is at operates. The assets they have (say a large percentage of Twitter/X and Tesla) can be used as collateral for a loan, the interest on which is a loss for actual income purposes. Meanwhile, when they pay the loan back by selling off assets, they do so at the capital gains rate, vs income tax. That's provided they don't take out another loan using assets as collateral to pay off the first loan.
That's assuming you don't incorporate and have everything run through your organization as a business expense. Like Trump. That's another layer.
What we're talking about are variants of the same financialization as shell game.
I'd think that having had the Panama Papers in our collective rear view mirror, this kind of corruption would be common knowledge, but yes. The rich are playing with insider rules. DEI, too, is a way to deal in sponsored minorities including the vapid social media addicts you noticed.
As you're realizing, it's a big club and we ain't in it.