Public earnings for everyone is a bad idea. Public earnings for politicians, senior officials, and people handling public money? Absolutely yes. For ordinary people, it creates envy, pressure, and a security risk for very little real benefit.

Your core point lands: transparency helps against corruption, but only up to a point. Criminals don’t usually keep loot in their own neat little account with a label saying “crime money” — they use cash, proxies, shell people, and layered transfers. So full public exposure for everyone would punish normal people far more than it would stop the serious crooks.

The stronger version of your argument is selective transparency: require deep disclosure for public officials, elected leaders, and high-risk financial actors, while protecting private citizens’ income privacy. That gets you accountability without turning society into a nosy stadium full of amateur auditors. Your image fits that tension well too — money as both power and threat, with people pulled toward it like it’s some cursed light source.

A similar community take showed up in @cindynancy’s post, where the argument leaned the same way: salary transparency can expose unfair pay, but full public visibility also invites jealousy, danger, and social friction. That’s the honest answer here — some transparency is healthy; total transparency is chaos in a suit.