211–220 of 270 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The board chooses the CEO and his salary; if the board wants to give some of the salary in the form of jet reimbursements it's not really any concern beyond them and the shareholders.
It is a concern for the tax payers if company is paying it as expense and deducting it from taxes instead of paying it as (taxed) salary and him doing what he wants with his money. Don't you have rules what can be expensed in the US?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The board chooses the CEO and his salary; if the board wants to give some of the salary in the form of jet reimbursements it's not really any concern beyond them and the shareholders.
It is a concern for the tax payers if company is paying it as expense and deducting it from taxes instead of paying it as (taxed) salary and him doing what he wants with his money. Don't you have rules what can be expensed in the US?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Japan, Korea and Taiwan had good results for minimal disruption.
All of those countries have societal norms that are vastly different with respect to illness. Japanese people voluntarily, proactively wear masks when sick in public, for example. Notwithstanding some of the later research about the efficacy of masks, there was a lot less those governments HAD to CHANGE to minimize disruption, because their populations were already not generally selfish about their needs versus those…
(And that policy wasn't face masks, it was banning large indoor gatherings but not small or outdoor ones, plus immigration quarantine.)
I love startup culture. The CEO of my company flies commercial, and we've have thousands of employees, have been around since the 1940s, actually ship products, and make a shit-ton money. But startup CEOs leading companies with 800 employees that can't ship hardly anything are movin & shakin so startupfully between plays and deals that they ain't got no time for that. $1.8 million per year for travel is $5,000 per da…
First class flights are completely different from potato class, and private jets are so far above first class it's really hard to exactly explain how much.
You just drive up and walk onto the plane.
For executives in a tight race with hundreds of millions of dollars on the line, where a schedule slipping even 1 day can matter, sometimes flying private does actually make financial sense.
If the reimbursements were solely for corporate travel, it might not be a concern. The CEO here sold his previous company for $6.5 billion [1], so he already owned the jet before starting Canoo. The company reimburses him for corporate travel on it. What's concerning is that Canoo is stacking big losses and living on the edge...it seems like excessive spending for a company that hasn't even made a dime of profit. But…
I think the real issue here is that a CEO who nobody has heard of and is doing a bad job running the company claims that he needs to fly private as a business expense. It's one think for Zuck or Tim Cook to claim that flying commercial would be dangerous and a waste of time, but the way that attitude has filtered down to very small companies is astounding (especially given the outsized negative impact private jet tra…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would anyone think that the current ICE manufacturers will just sit idly by and not get out EV designs at some point? Either on their own, or in collaboration with other legacy manufacturers? They have existing brand loyalty, existing relationships, supply chains, dealership networks etc. etc. that they can make use of even if their designs aren't as good as brand new entrants (and that's assuming brand new entra…
Because for a long time the ICE manufacturers were making half-hearted play attempts at EVs, and Tesla came in and made real EVs and had a huge stock play related to that. So now the ICEs are scrambling to catch up, and are doing so, but lots of money is flowing around hoping to be the next Tesla.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree. It's one thing for the CEO of a large, profitable company to be flying private, but for a small, loss-making company, it feels off. The guy is already ultra-rich...he might as well pay for those flights himself to show solidarity with shareholders. But it's up to Canoo shareholders to decide that, not me.
He is effectively paying for these flights by buying Canoo stock. This whole structure is set up to allow him to maximize the tax efficiency of his compensation. The jet travel is realized as a business expense and offsets future potential profits at the company, he also avoids paying the ~60% (federal and state income tax, as well as payroll tax paid by employer) tax that you incur paying high wage w2 employees.
Every common shareholder is an equal, you don't get to launder jet travel the way he's doing - that's securities fraud.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He is effectively paying for these flights by buying Canoo stock. This whole structure is set up to allow him to maximize the tax efficiency of his compensation. The jet travel is realized as a business expense and offsets future potential profits at the company, he also avoids paying the ~60% (federal and state income tax, as well as payroll tax paid by employer) tax that you incur paying high wage w2 employees.
Exactly. Strangely this is actually tax efficient for both parties.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
All of those countries have societal norms that are vastly different with respect to illness. Japanese people voluntarily, proactively wear masks when sick in public, for example. Notwithstanding some of the later research about the efficacy of masks, there was a lot less those governments HAD to CHANGE to minimize disruption, because their populations were already not generally selfish about their needs versus those…
Japanese people are not mystically different, their outcomes are a policy difference and you too can have that policy. (And that policy wasn't face masks, it was banning large indoor gatherings but not small or outdoor ones, plus immigration quarantine.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
AWS egress fees serve a legitimate business function. They might be higher than what they could be with optimization but they go towards a business service. What we’re seeing here is more like if those egress charges were due to him hosting the business on his own cloud service even though it cost more.
Did it cost more? From a quick search the amount seems reasonable for "years worth of private jet use". If CEO travel is a legitimate business function, you're now arguing "AWS vs server in your closet" kind of questions and haggling on price.