• Log in | Sign up@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    Lol.

    Johnny made 400 apples for the company, who gave him 100, the government took 13 and he got 87. The government also took 27 of the 250 apples (left after rent, heating, lighting cleaning and maintenance costs) that the company had wanted to keep for the executive pay and shareholders. They complained bitterly about how expensive it was and lied to Johnny that they would definitely have given him all of those 27 apples, honestly, definitely, if only the nasty government hadn’t stolen them for a bunch of very undeserving sick people and elderly people who were just making Johnny poorer.

    Last year, when Johnny made 30 more apples than usual, he got a one apple bonus, the chief executive got a 10 apple bonus and the shareholders got the other 19.

    • iii
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      If that’s the case for you, it might be good for you to change jobs or become self-employed? That way you’re free from what you perceive as evil corp?

      • Log in | Sign up@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        I’m not actually Johnny. I’m David, and I don’t speak French or Walloon or Frisian or Flemish well enough to live in Belgium. It’s just how most shareholder or private equity owned companies in the USA are run.

        I actually think that the solution isn’t so much a change of career for me, but an increase in the taxes on the shareholders and chief executives to find better health care, better education, better social care, better care for veterans, better infrastructure etc etc etc, so that we all benefit from the profits rather than just the already wealthy folks.

        So no, I don’t get cross with the government for taking the shareholders’ money, I get cross with the shareholders for taking my money. I think that’s far more rational.

        • iii
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          2 months ago

          Why rather be cross, than change your situation?

          • Log in | Sign up@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 months ago

            Why rather pay twice for healthcare when you can pay once, it doesn’t matter what illness you get, and no one has to remortgage their house to keep their relative alive?

            • iii
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              2 months ago

              One does not exclude the other?

              • Log in | Sign up@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                2 months ago

                When I see the job with my skills where the ceo doesn’t take most of the money I earn, I’ll be sure to apply and look up my old comments to tell you that you were right, but I would still want socialised healthcare because it’s much cheaper and has better health outcomes and I won’t have to remortgage the house if my Mum needs expensive treatment.