Why don't we just tax footballers and other sportsmen?

I think people are blind that think this idea is stupid or down to jealousy. Thousands of people across the UK are suffering in poor areas and being forced to live in homes that are no longer suitable because the government have stopped the re-building of run down houses. One footballer earns more money than a full family will in their lifetimes. The money generated by football could help so many run down cities across the UK.

Football players generate high amounts of tax, which the government is using to not re-build these rundown areas.

Lots of footballers have charities, do charitable work, and make many donations annonymously. It's not often you hear about Michael Essien giving someone in Zambia a donation so they can move to the UK and receive an education.

How is 40-50% high for someone earning 100k a week when that same tax is applied to someone earning 200k a year?

They add no real productivity to our world besides entertainment (compared with a doctor, let's say). I am proposing that sportsmen should earn less than doctors per year, not just in UK, but around the world.

I don't think that because someone extremely well off does charity work makes them a good person. People that literally have nothing try their hardest to raise money for charities and organise events all over the place. I dont understand why people think that footballers are so amazing for doing something any considerate person would.

They should earn less than 20k a month, the rest should go back to re-building the UK instead of cutting things such as disability allowances (10%) which is morally wrong. Most young people earn around 1k a month in normal jobs why would 20k to live on be so difficult.

Of course this would never happen due to capitalism.

Oh and I have no idea who Michael Essien is. I don't like football.

I completely completely agree. In fact I would go as far as saying no-one should be allowed to earn over 100K a year or thereabouts. Maybe this would solve some economic problems.

I don't think that because someone extremely well off does charity work makes them a good person. People that literally have nothing try their hardest to raise money for charities and organise events all over the place. I dont understand why people think that footballers are so amazing for doing something any considerate person would.

They should earn less than 20k a month, the rest should go back to re-building the UK instead of cutting things such as disability allowances (10%) which is morally wrong. Most young people earn around 1k a month in normal jobs why would 20k to live on be so difficult.

Of course this would never happen due to capitalism.

Oh and I have no idea who Michael Essien is. I don't like football.

I completely completely agree. In fact I would go as far as saying no-one should be allowed to earn over 100K a year or thereabouts. Maybe this would solve some economic problems.

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.

What board? If you mean the government steals the money or whatever, then what I mean is a government that doesn't and spends the money well.



Yawn, this has been said a million times on this thread and has nothing to do with my point.

I completely completely agree. In fact I would go as far as saying no-one should be allowed to earn over 100K a year or thereabouts. Maybe this would solve some economic problems.

Therefore your opinion is possibly biased and uninformed.

From your example that "People that literally have nothing try their hardest to raise money for charities and organise events all over the place", if they literally had nothing, then they would have no means from which they would be able to raise money, and they themselves would become the sorts who are in need of charitable aid.

I agree that footballers earn too much and that it should be resricted, but this cannot be done without much rational thinking.

A lot of people seemingly understimate the value that they bring to the economy and the nation as a whole, and disregard them as a bunch of idiots who only know how to kick a ball.

The charity argument was a point that they are willing to share their earnings with those less fortunate, despite being heavily taxed. Imagine how you would feel if half of your wage was taken away from you to be spent by a bunch of people you may not know or agree with.

Your argument is based on normative statements, unfortunately in our economy no-one individually determines prices, the price mechanism does.

The wages footballers earn are well deserved, apparently due to the fact that most of Britain likes to football (the wages speak for themselves.)
More spectators = Higher wages.

I was stating that football was important for many reasons, with one of them being just how much the social belonging side means to some people.

If the better players do leave then people may become disillusioned with the game, and perhaps will stop watching games with friends and being part of their social circle.

It is relative. If a medium or low standard league has dedicated fans and then ceases to exist, fans will feel terrible, just as they would if it was a high standard league. Thus it is not the standard that will affect people, but the reduction in standard of the product itself that is held so dear to people. With a mass migration of great players from our country, suddenly the top leagues and players in this team will be so much worse than they were previously, taking out a lot of the meaning and bond for some fans.

A lot of fans have their favourites, and if these players were to leave it would be a catastrophe for them.

When I saw the thread title, obviously, it's just un-ethical to tax footballers more. But when you think about how much the taxpayer is taxed, that is un-ethical.

When thinking about this, it's interesting:

Take a team like Tottenham Hotspur for example. They have 27 registered players in their first team squad, with each player earning (give or take) £7,000,000. That's a player net salary of £189,000,000.

This is just one club. There are 44 teams in the Premier League. Of course, each team earns different and has different salaries for each player. But let's take the example and multiply it by 44:

£8,316,000,000.

Let's just say, 10% of that could help bring the country out of deficit.

It just makes you think about teams in other leagues, in other countries. World Poverty eradicated, anyone?