6 ms·

As shown by the covid payments. $900 a year is a lot of money to a lot of folks. Heck annual social security average is 24k a year, so you are talking about ne

As shown by the covid payments. $900 a year is a lot of money to a lot of folks. Heck annual social security average is 24k a year, so you are talking about nearly 4% more money for just those people alone.

simianwords 1y ago
Fair, lets then count income tax which makes it more like $500 assuming net taxes around 40%. I'm ignoring salary increase due to stock valuation going up because it complicates things and there is equal force from both sides of the argument. So you decide: 20,000 companies running with a CEO being paid like an average person. And every citizen gets $500 in their account per year. Edit: its not just a CEO but the C suite. 20,000 running without a C suite.
- Aurornis 1y ago
  > So you decide: 20,000 companies running with a CEO being paid like an average person. And every citizen gets $500 in their account per year In these contrived scenarios people will always choose the anti-CEO scenario. You could restructure your hypothetical scenario such that the money was lit on fire instead of being paid to executives and you’d still find support from people who are just angry at executives getting paid a lot.
  - simianwords 1y ago
    I agree but funnily enough - lighting it on fire will have the same consequence as every citizen being paid $500 (assuming similar spending patterns of CEO's and workers which is an exaggeration).
- drunner 1y ago
  I don't think tax is that high for that income bracket but your point still stands for the rules of the current system. I agree with your sentiment there are way better ways to redistribute wealth. Just dont discount what several hundred bucks means to way too many people in such a prosperous country.
  - simianwords 1y ago
    This is the tax bracket for CEO's. >Just dont discount what several hundred bucks means to way too many people in such a prosperous country. Sure.. but the real disposable income has increased by a decent amount over the years. Just in the last 10 years (including covid) the real disposable income has increased by over 20%.
- papascrubs 1y ago
  Shouldn't it be distributed to just the employees of those companies? Why are we including every citizen. That seems to dilute that overall picture.
  - simianwords 1y ago
    Multiply it by 4 then. Around $2000 per worker.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
Forlien 1y ago
You might be interested in https://www.theargumentmag.com/p/giving-people-money-helped-less-than https://www.theargumentmag.com/p/giving-people-money-helped-... which talks about the studies showing low effects for just giving money to Americans. It seems like just giving people money is still unproven to have impacts to make people healthier, happier (beyond the year they start giving money), get them better jobs, or improve their children’s intellectual development. There's still hope for targeted programs, but it changed my view on blanket payments.

simianwords 1y ago

Fair, lets then count income tax which makes it more like $500 assuming net taxes around 40%. I'm ignoring salary increase due to stock valuation going up because it complicates things and there is equal force from both sides of the argument. So you decide: 20,000 companies running with a CEO being paid like an average person. And every citizen gets $500 in their account per year. Edit: its not just a CEO but the C suite. 20,000 running without a C suite.

Aurornis 1y ago
> So you decide: 20,000 companies running with a CEO being paid like an average person. And every citizen gets $500 in their account per year In these contrived scenarios people will always choose the anti-CEO scenario. You could restructure your hypothetical scenario such that the money was lit on fire instead of being paid to executives and you’d still find support from people who are just angry at executives getting paid a lot.
- simianwords 1y ago
  I agree but funnily enough - lighting it on fire will have the same consequence as every citizen being paid $500 (assuming similar spending patterns of CEO's and workers which is an exaggeration).
drunner 1y ago
I don't think tax is that high for that income bracket but your point still stands for the rules of the current system. I agree with your sentiment there are way better ways to redistribute wealth. Just dont discount what several hundred bucks means to way too many people in such a prosperous country.
- simianwords 1y ago
  This is the tax bracket for CEO's. >Just dont discount what several hundred bucks means to way too many people in such a prosperous country. Sure.. but the real disposable income has increased by a decent amount over the years. Just in the last 10 years (including covid) the real disposable income has increased by over 20%.
papascrubs 1y ago
Shouldn't it be distributed to just the employees of those companies? Why are we including every citizen. That seems to dilute that overall picture.
- simianwords 1y ago
  Multiply it by 4 then. Around $2000 per worker.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]

Forlien 1y ago

You might be interested in https://www.theargumentmag.com/p/giving-people-money-helped-less-than https://www.theargumentmag.com/p/giving-people-money-helped-... which talks about the studies showing low effects for just giving money to Americans. It seems like just giving people money is still unproven to have impacts to make people healthier, happier (beyond the year they start giving money), get them better jobs, or improve their children’s intellectual development. There's still hope for targeted programs, but it changed my view on blanket payments.