Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

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

    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Linzikins)
    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.
    • Offline

      14
      If professional footballers are paid so handsomely for such pitiful performances and little talent, why not become one yourself?
      Offline

      1
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by TheRealDarthVader)
      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.
      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.
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Swayum)
      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.
      are you serious swayum there is a lot productivity do you realize how much they bring in for the people that own the teams you're talking from a subjective pov saying they're not really doing any for society which might be true but it's a business if a good player can earn a team millions then he gets paid that much what do doctors do they're not earning anyone money and this is coming from someone who thinks football is retarded but it's still a business taxing should be the same for every salary regardless of profession
      Offline

      2
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Linzikins)
      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.

      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.
      Offline

      2
      ReputationRep:
      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.
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      should make it at least 98% tax
      Offline

      2
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Tilly87)
      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.


      You are an idiot. Leave the internet.
      Offline

      2
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Linzikins)
      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.
      Your argument is based on normative statements, unfortunately in our economy no-one individually determines prices, the price mechanism does. :rolleyes:

      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.
      Offline

      2
      ReputationRep:
      They should earn less than 20k a month
      (Original post by Tilly87)
      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.
      FACEPALM :eek:

      Whatever you are proposing would completely destroy the whole theory our economy is structured on. We live in a mixed economy, where the market sector dictates prices BTW.They should earn less than 20k a month

      A little useful info: Our government cannot interfere like that with markets, so none of the "the price should be this"," the price should be that" and so on, end the complete bullcrap.
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      (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.
      A very simple and naive comment. Damn, I can't even formulate a response to correct you, as you will never have the capacity to understand it.:stupid:
      Offline

      2
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Swayum)
      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.
      So basically you have no answer to the second point

      And I mean that the footballers should get the money rather than the people who run the clubs
      • PS Helper
      Offline

      14
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Tilly87)
      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.
      Stupid people leave the thread please. Thanks for playing
      Offline

      1
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by TheRealDarthVader)
      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.
      You dont need money to raise money! People run for charity and give small amounts of money that they can manage. I know a lady who has VERY little and she is the nicest person you could meet and she gives whatever she can to so many charities.

      My money is taxed at a high rate to what I earn and it is spent by a load of ****ers called the conservatives.

      I understand the importance of football to community etc but it does not merit the wages and greed.
      Offline

      1
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by dsinghdahiya257)
      Your argument is based on normative statements, unfortunately in our economy no-one individually determines prices, the price mechanism does. :rolleyes:

      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.
      It doesn't take a genius to realise that the more money the public spend on football the higher the wages :rolleyes:

      That's not the debate.
      Offline

      3
      ReputationRep:
      Because their lawyers and accountants are better at evading tax than the taxman is at taxing them.
      Offline

      12
      ReputationRep:
      Basic economics.
      Rich earn money. They spend money. Other people earn money from the rich people spending money. Other people who earnt money from the rich people spending money spend money. Other people earn money from the other people...

      Thus, multiplyer effect, increasing economic growth.
      Tax is a withdrawl from the economy = bad.

      If there is too much tax, there will be too much government spending.
      Too much government spending increases the number of people employed who generate a service but do not create wealth. For example, lollypop ladies. They generate no income for anyone. They are pretty useless apart from helping people across the road. Thus, they pose no economic benefit.

      So basically, when you tax the rich, you ask the question - whats better, us all being richer and better off, or us all having more lollipop ladies?
      Offline

      2
      ReputationRep:
      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?
      Offline

      1
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by TheRealDarthVader)
      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.
      And thus they will slit their wrists... sniff sniff
      • Offline

        14
        I don't think half the user in this thread even watch football by the looks of their posts.
       
       
       
    • See more of what you like on The Student Room

      You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

    • Poll
      Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
      Useful resources
    • See more of what you like on The Student Room

      You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

    • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

      Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

      Quick reply
      Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.