This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
- Footballers aren't overpaid
- Doing a part-time beauty course ontop of uni
- Where can I find cash-in-hand jobs?
- Council Tax Exemption Certificate
- Pff2 form, student finance wales
- Guardian - UK middle classes ‘struggling despite incomes of up to £60,000 a year’
- how many people here smoke?
- Council tax exemption- multiple addresses
- Labour plans to add 20% VAT to Private School fees.
- Court summons
- what's the most useless job?
- Edinburgh vs Durham vs Imperial for civil engineering
- Crowe Tax Graduate interview
- Have the Tories stopped being Conservative?
- AQA A Level Economics Paper 2 (7136/2) -22th May 2023 [Exam Chat]
- Whats the rules on importing stuff from the EU now and China or America?
- Welcome to Part-Time and Temporary Employment
- I am thinking of rejecting a high salary cause of my autism
- UK Medical School Debt is about £184.5k over 30 years
- SFE Application
Why don't we just tax footballers and other sportsmen?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Sabertooth
Which part of the definition of market inefficiency does this meet? The lack of information? Or you just using the latest economic buzz word you know so you'll look smart?
Thought so, obviously a third year thing.
Don't worry, you'll get your answer to the thread once you get there, unless LSE's standards have dropped significantly.
Thought so, obviously a third year thing.
Don't worry, you'll get your answer to the thread once you get there, unless LSE's standards have dropped significantly.Market inefficiency shouldn't be the discussion. It's about social inefficiency, which all comes down to preferences -- I can assure you there is nothing 'right' or 'wrong' about it, so claiming that it is wrong makes you look a bit silly.
The question is, what would it achieve? It would assuage everyone's jealousy and the feeling of injustice that doctors and soldiers get paid less than footballers, but it wouldn't actually make any of those people better off since a huge tax would just disincentivise being a footballer altogether. To be honest when you think about the risk you take when you focus on football instead of school from the age of 12, the fact that your career could end at any moment and even if everything goes perfectly will not last past your late 30s and the fact that you are a commodity who must essentially be willing to move countries on the whim of a business meeting I would say that the "ludicrously overpaid footballers" thing isn't as endemic as it's often made out. Lots are overpaid, but probably not ludicrously. A few are, and they usually seem to turn out to be douchebags, but taxing them won't achieve anything except the gratification of seeing John Terry throw down on Bum Fights 15 instead of in a city bar.
Original post by burningnun
The question is, what would it achieve?
A short term surge of money more or less.
It would assuage everyone's jealousy and the feeling of injustice that doctors and soldiers get paid less than footballers, but it wouldn't actually make any of those people better off since a huge tax would just disincentivise being a footballer altogether.
I would support that though. So then the salaries would eventually drop and the tax imposition could be lifted so long as the salaries don't start rising again (or keep the tax imposition but only on very highly paid ones so the disincentive still exists).
To be honest when you think about the risk you take when you focus on football instead of school from the age of 12, the fact that your career could end at any moment and even if everything goes perfectly will not last past your late 30s and the fact that you are a commodity who must essentially be willing to move countries on the whim of a business meeting I would say that the "ludicrously overpaid footballers" thing isn't as endemic as it's often made out. Lots are overpaid, but probably not ludicrously. A few are, and they usually seem to turn out to be douchebags, but taxing them won't achieve anything except the gratification of seeing John Terry throw down on Bum Fights 15 instead of in a city bar.
Agree with you on the most part.
Anyway, I'm off now and I won't be replying to people any more because, by the time I'm back, there'll be far too many posts for me to go through probably and I've already said what I want to. Will read everyone's response though.
Original post by Swayum
Seriously, some of them earn like, what, 100k a WEEK? Why not just tax the hell out of them? Most of them don't deserve it at all if you look at the way they play (I mean come on, they've been playing all their lives and yet a lot of their shots go way off target most of the times - some of it is SHOCKING).
Not just footballers, but other sportsmen to a lesser extent.
Yes, I know they are taxed, but I'm suggesting a massive tax.
*Edit*
FFS, people keep banging on about moving to other countries. I AM PROPOSING THAT EVERY COUNTRY DOES THIS. Or, if you'd prefer, imagine that we have just one country. Or, if you'd prefer, imagine a closed economy. Or, if you'd prefer, imagine a world tax.
*Edit 2*
Since some people are asking about numbers, I think it's fair to impose an 80% tax on footballers earning 100k/week. Even then, they're earning 20k a WEEK. That's more than a lot of people earn in a year still. I definitely support an 80% tax on footballers who still make 20k a week more than I do raising the fees.
If you can't live off of 20k a week, you have issues.
Not just footballers, but other sportsmen to a lesser extent.
Yes, I know they are taxed, but I'm suggesting a massive tax.
*Edit*
FFS, people keep banging on about moving to other countries. I AM PROPOSING THAT EVERY COUNTRY DOES THIS. Or, if you'd prefer, imagine that we have just one country. Or, if you'd prefer, imagine a closed economy. Or, if you'd prefer, imagine a world tax.
*Edit 2*
Since some people are asking about numbers, I think it's fair to impose an 80% tax on footballers earning 100k/week. Even then, they're earning 20k a WEEK. That's more than a lot of people earn in a year still. I definitely support an 80% tax on footballers who still make 20k a week more than I do raising the fees.
If you can't live off of 20k a week, you have issues.
You cant attempt to **** with the logic and systematic ways of economics.
What you are attempting will just **** with the objective of the labour market, too much interference is just defeating the purpose of the automatic market price set by the forces of demand and supply.
Looking at the social welfare point of view, a person's income consisting of 80% tax seems extremely unjust as well as reducing the supply of labour within that market.
Place a higher tax on these players and they will just move to a foreign club with a more attractive reward for labour. SIMPLE AS.
Your idea of a SUPERTAX sounds ridiculously illogical and contradicts the theory of labour supply, a higher tax will result in negative fight back such as footballers refusing to play.
Also market forces deserve to dictate the wages of these men, not your normative statements highly based on opinion. Whether doctors or footballers contribute more is extremely tedious and difficult to calculate for us humans individually, therefore the market will do it for us
Too many people think footballing is a profession involving "kicking a ball around"
, all these people have been defeated by nature of economics. High wages of a footballer arise from the amount of barriers to entry: Physical skillset, Mental skillset, natural aptitude, geographical mobility etc. The economics agents are agreeing to the wages of these players. No single person is dictating the wages of these players, its all of us. If people pay to watch em, they will get paid (wages will depend on ticket sales). So stop moaning.Why stop at 80%!?!?
They should be taxed 99.75% of their 100k
That leaves £250 per week!! 13k a year!....Which is very generous if you ask me as people live on 12k and if you cant do that then you have issues.
A whole £1000 in the pocket!!!
(if you didnt notice there was a tad of sarcasm in there)
They should be taxed 99.75% of their 100k
That leaves £250 per week!! 13k a year!....Which is very generous if you ask me as people live on 12k and if you cant do that then you have issues.
A whole £1000 in the pocket!!!
(if you didnt notice there was a tad of sarcasm in there)
Original post by Swayum
Seriously, some of them earn like, what, 100k a WEEK? Why not just tax the hell out of them? Most of them don't deserve it at all if you look at the way they play (I mean come on, they've been playing all their lives and yet a lot of their shots go way off target most of the times - some of it is SHOCKING).
Not just footballers, but other sportsmen to a lesser extent.
Yes, I know they are taxed, but I'm suggesting a massive tax.
*Edit*
FFS, people keep banging on about moving to other countries. I AM PROPOSING THAT EVERY COUNTRY DOES THIS. Or, if you'd prefer, imagine that we have just one country. Or, if you'd prefer, imagine a closed economy. Or, if you'd prefer, imagine a world tax.
*Edit 2*
Since some people are asking about numbers, I think it's fair to impose an 80% tax on footballers earning 100k/week. Even then, they're earning 20k a WEEK. That's more than a lot of people earn in a year still. I definitely support an 80% tax on footballers who still make 20k a week more than I do raising the fees.
If you can't live off of 20k a week, you have issues.
Not just footballers, but other sportsmen to a lesser extent.
Yes, I know they are taxed, but I'm suggesting a massive tax.
*Edit*
FFS, people keep banging on about moving to other countries. I AM PROPOSING THAT EVERY COUNTRY DOES THIS. Or, if you'd prefer, imagine that we have just one country. Or, if you'd prefer, imagine a closed economy. Or, if you'd prefer, imagine a world tax.
*Edit 2*
Since some people are asking about numbers, I think it's fair to impose an 80% tax on footballers earning 100k/week. Even then, they're earning 20k a WEEK. That's more than a lot of people earn in a year still. I definitely support an 80% tax on footballers who still make 20k a week more than I do raising the fees.
If you can't live off of 20k a week, you have issues.
Have you been on poppers or something lad?
Original post by burningnun
The question is, what would it achieve? It would assuage everyone's jealousy and the feeling of injustice that doctors and soldiers get paid less than footballers, but it wouldn't actually make any of those people better off since a huge tax would just disincentivise being a footballer altogether. To be honest when you think about the risk you take when you focus on football instead of school from the age of 12, the fact that your career could end at any moment and even if everything goes perfectly will not last past your late 30s and the fact that you are a commodity who must essentially be willing to move countries on the whim of a business meeting I would say that the "ludicrously overpaid footballers" thing isn't as endemic as it's often made out. Lots are overpaid, but probably not ludicrously. A few are, and they usually seem to turn out to be douchebags, but taxing them won't achieve anything except the gratification of seeing John Terry throw down on Bum Fights 15 instead of in a city bar.
I doubt taxing them more would put them off. I also doubt if Wayne Rooney and his ilk even knew what tax was before they started earning money. Do you seriously think that a young footballer is going to say, "the tax on us is too high so now I am going to become an investment banker". Unlikely. A 60 or 70 percent tax on the top earners will still leave them with extremely large sums of cash so they will not be queuing up for benefits.
Original post by Oh my Ms. Coffey
You worked your arse off for your degree, they kick a ball around and get millions more then you. UMAD
Professional footballers will have played around 10,000 hours of football by the time they are thirteen. That shows a lot more dedication and sacrifice than anyone studying for a degree.
Well let's say bye to the EPL being the best league in the world then!
Like it ever was anyway
Like it ever was anyway
Original post by TheRealDarthVader
Professional footballers will have played around 10,000 hours of football by the time they are thirteen. That shows a lot more dedication and sacrifice than anyone studying for a degree.
PPE at Oxford, Checkmate.
Original post by Swayum
Seriously, some of them earn like, what, 100k a WEEK? Why not just tax the hell out of them? Most of them don't deserve it at all if you look at the way they play (I mean come on, they've been playing all their lives and yet a lot of their shots go way off target most of the times - some of it is SHOCKING).
Not just footballers, but other sportsmen to a lesser extent.
Yes, I know they are taxed, but I'm suggesting a massive tax.
*Edit*
FFS, people keep banging on about moving to other countries. I AM PROPOSING THAT EVERY COUNTRY DOES THIS. Or, if you'd prefer, imagine that we have just one country. Or, if you'd prefer, imagine a closed economy. Or, if you'd prefer, imagine a world tax.
*Edit 2*
Since some people are asking about numbers, I think it's fair to impose an 80% tax on footballers earning 100k/week. Even then, they're earning 20k a WEEK. That's more than a lot of people earn in a year still. I definitely support an 80% tax on footballers who still make 20k a week more than I do raising the fees.
If you can't live off of 20k a week, you have issues.
Not just footballers, but other sportsmen to a lesser extent.
Yes, I know they are taxed, but I'm suggesting a massive tax.
*Edit*
FFS, people keep banging on about moving to other countries. I AM PROPOSING THAT EVERY COUNTRY DOES THIS. Or, if you'd prefer, imagine that we have just one country. Or, if you'd prefer, imagine a closed economy. Or, if you'd prefer, imagine a world tax.
*Edit 2*
Since some people are asking about numbers, I think it's fair to impose an 80% tax on footballers earning 100k/week. Even then, they're earning 20k a WEEK. That's more than a lot of people earn in a year still. I definitely support an 80% tax on footballers who still make 20k a week more than I do raising the fees.
If you can't live off of 20k a week, you have issues.
I agree. I don't even know why the hell they're paid so much, there's soldiers out there on 11k a YEAR and they are on more than that a week. It's disgusting. Perhaps if they swapped soldiers could afford treatment for PTSD and other such like things
Original post by KellyWellyWoo537
I agree. I don't even know why the hell they're paid so much, there's soldiers out there on 11k a YEAR and they are on more than that a week. It's disgusting. Perhaps if they swapped soldiers could afford treatment for PTSD and other such like things
The entry requirements for becoming a soldier are significantly lower than those of a professional footballer.
People don't pay to watch two different battalions do war.
Footballers are never sent out to fight for a cause that they don't believe in (though some may point to the Carling Cup).
So perhaps if soldiers had spent more time practising their drag-backs and banana kicks rather than beating people up at school and drinking paint they might be on the higher wages.
Original post by Oh my Ms. Coffey
PPE at Oxford, Checkmate.
Does that come with the weight, pressure and expectancy of a nation? Does it incurr death threats for poor performances? Do these students have the media camping on their front lawns? Do these students become icons for national failure?
Let's make no mistake, modern footballers are usually very low on academic intelligence. Many of them will have worked very hard to be where they are today. Only around one in one thousand kids at academies go on to make it professional, which I would imagine is a ratio smaller than those trying to obtain places at the top universities.
Original post by TheRealDarthVader
The entry requirements for becoming a soldier are significantly lower than those of a professional footballer.
People don't pay to watch two different battalions do war.
Footballers are never sent out to fight for a cause that they don't believe in (though some may point to the Carling Cup).
So perhaps if soldiers had spent more time practising their drag-backs and banana kicks rather than beating people up at school and drinking paint they might be on the higher wages.
People don't pay to watch two different battalions do war.
Footballers are never sent out to fight for a cause that they don't believe in (though some may point to the Carling Cup).
So perhaps if soldiers had spent more time practising their drag-backs and banana kicks rather than beating people up at school and drinking paint they might be on the higher wages.
Most sportsmen don't earn very much. You're only looking at the top 12 Premiership clubs where salaries are in 6 figures. Think about the salaries at Championship, League One, League Two, Conference etc. and also foreign leagues (excluding La Liga and Serie A).
Also, pay isn't particularly high in many other sports which are not as well advertised (e.g. rugby, hockey, badminton). Only the top (and I mean really distinguished) sportspeople are making millions. Most aren't and most earn quite a bit less than the average consultant
Also, pay isn't particularly high in many other sports which are not as well advertised (e.g. rugby, hockey, badminton). Only the top (and I mean really distinguished) sportspeople are making millions. Most aren't and most earn quite a bit less than the average consultant
Original post by win5ton
I doubt taxing them more would put them off. I also doubt if Wayne Rooney and his ilk even knew what tax was before they started earning money. Do you seriously think that a young footballer is going to say, "the tax on us is too high so now I am going to become an investment banker". Unlikely. A 60 or 70 percent tax on the top earners will still leave them with extremely large sums of cash so they will not be queuing up for benefits.
Higher taxes would mean that the best players would not come or stay in this country. That reduces the value of the product. That means less people watch or attend matches. In a lot of cases this will devalue some people's lives who rely heavily on their professional sports teams for entertainment, social gatherings, and pick-me-ups. If you would like, I could show you the statistics and evidence that says people who follow a sports team are less at risk from suicide.
Original post by KellyWellyWoo537
Without formulating a reasoned argument to contest my points, I can only assume that your use of a facepalm smilie is symbolic of you hitting yourself in the face after realising how stupid you are.
(edited 13 years ago)
Original post by TheRealDarthVader
Without formulating a reasoned argument to contest my points, I can only assume that your use of a facepalm smilie is symbolic of you hitting yourself in the face after realising how stupid you are.
No it was me hitting myself in the face because you seriously think that a footballer needs more training and skills than a soldier.
Original post by TheRealDarthVader
Higher taxes would mean that the best players would not come or stay in this country. That reduces the value of the product. That means less people watch or attend matches. In a lot of cases this will devalue some people's lives who rely heavily on their professional sports teams for entertainment, social gatherings, and pick-me-ups. If you would like, I could show you the statistics and evidence that says people who follow a sports team are less at risk from suicide.
First part of your argument: They said it with the bankers and now they say it with the footballers...
Secound part; WTF.
1. The standard of footballers has been rising throughout the last century, so earlier in the century people killed themselves at an increased rate due to the low standard of football.
2. The better the footballers the less the suicide rate (according to you)
3. Therefore, countries who have better football leagues have a greater chance of having a low suicide rate!
NO.
Original post by KellyWellyWoo537
No it was me hitting myself in the face because you seriously think that a footballer needs more training and skills than a soldier.
Move along.
Related discussions
- Footballers aren't overpaid
- Doing a part-time beauty course ontop of uni
- Where can I find cash-in-hand jobs?
- Council Tax Exemption Certificate
- Pff2 form, student finance wales
- Guardian - UK middle classes ‘struggling despite incomes of up to £60,000 a year’
- how many people here smoke?
- Council tax exemption- multiple addresses
- Labour plans to add 20% VAT to Private School fees.
- Court summons
- what's the most useless job?
- Edinburgh vs Durham vs Imperial for civil engineering
- Crowe Tax Graduate interview
- Have the Tories stopped being Conservative?
- AQA A Level Economics Paper 2 (7136/2) -22th May 2023 [Exam Chat]
- Whats the rules on importing stuff from the EU now and China or America?
- Welcome to Part-Time and Temporary Employment
- I am thinking of rejecting a high salary cause of my autism
- UK Medical School Debt is about £184.5k over 30 years
- SFE Application
Latest
Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
