The very idea that there are individuals who make more money than they are able to spend while there are droves of workers struggling to pay the bills is morally fucked the fuck up. The average CEO makes nearly 400 times the average bottom barrel worker. Surely there is a line, somewhere between 2 and 399, where we could fill that gap with a greater distribution of funds directed towards a greater number of people, rather than one individual.
This is a moral conundrum. To advocate for the CEO that makes millions upon millions over the day worker who makes $12 an hour is to be a complete chump.
>Do you think there are SO many of those types of cases that it would make a difference if they slashed those CEO's salaries?
Yes? I mean the answer is yes, so it's not a matter of what I think.
I'm not advocating for the government to necessarily straight up slash the salaries of CEOs. That's a bit too interventionist for me. I am advocating for 1.) The government to increase the tax rate on these people who make millions, so as to lessen the tax burden on those making less money. As it stands, the CEOs are getting the tax breaks and the day workers are shouldering the burden, 2.) Corporations and companies as a whole to take the moral high ground and spread the company's wealth to the entire workforce.
The onus is largely on the American people to use their votes and their spending dollars to influence this kind of thing. Unfortunately, as I stated before, we have dickheads like whiskeyx who self-hate and perpetuate the entire premise that nobody deserves anything better than they got so fuck it. Unfortunately with this mentality and action, the rich win by default.