Do they prefer covering for shareholder value? Who wants to pay people simply for having, or being able to borrow, the money to buy shares? Or put money in a VC

Do they prefer covering for shareholder value? Who wants to pay people simply for having, or being able to borrow, the money to buy shares? Or put money in a VC fund? Do they perhaps prefer covering for execs bonuses? It’s really weird how many people will wail and rage against welfare for both their peers and poorer people, but have no issue whatsoever making a someone else richer. Just to be clear, I personally have no issue with either, as long as it feels reasonable.