You're viewing a single thread.
Subsidies for fossil fuels need to go, but this isn't exactly a fair comparison. How many people get $1500? You gotta at least compare total values.
"Bob" is supposed to represent an average, or a common man, at least. Your focus is off.
Why? Shell's not the only corporation
How does that change anything? THE TOTALS SHOULD BE COMPARED. Not exactly going to be millions of corporations getting billions of dollars.
I don't think you need millions getting billions to equal all the Bobs. If there are 50 million Bobs getting $1500, you only need about 40 corporations getting $2B to exceed them.
Because this is about Bob
The totals should be compared ON A MAXIMIZATION OF RETURNS sense - i.e. how much good is done for each dollar being spent.
Giving money to people with lots of money - which is what corporate subsidies do, as that money ends up indirectly (and at times even directly) in the hands of shareholders - is just giving money to mainly very rich people and some middle class ones (who hold proportionally tiny amounts have shares either direct or via things like their pension fund), who need it far less than the kind of people who wouldn't be able to feed their family without those $1500 per year.
In fact the very same logic also justifies progressive taxation (if done properly without loopholes for the very rich) - every extra dollar in the hands of a poor or low earner person, no matter how it gets there (be it less tax or social security) has thousands, even millions and in some cases billions of times the utility value of every extra dollar in the hands of a rich person, not just in direct terms of the benefits it brings for that person and their family but even in Economic terms because they spend every cent they get, so that money circulates a lot more in the Economy, doing good for others as it does so.
One of biggest swindles in the discourse of modern neoliberal politicians is exactly to go around celebrating the good they do with taxpayers's money (or by "saving people from having to pay as much tax") whilst never showing or even discussing if that is the best possible use of that money, because generally its not, which is how we end up with corporates being subsidized and the very well off getting tax cuts whilst the money could've yielded far more massive returns if used differetly, not just in terms of a better life for more people but often even in purelly Economic terms, such as how, for example, State investment in free Education tends to all in all yield an actual profit for the nations that do it.