Wayne Rooney: Man Utd striker agrees new £300k per week deal

He'll be paying more than 2%, no doubt, but the point still stands; he's still paying less that he ought to be. It might be legal but it's certainly not ethical or morally just. And whilst it's more than most people will pay, that's only true in cash terms - that's not the most fair way to measure it. It's quite possible that as a proportion nurses, cleaners and teachers will be paying more tax than Rooney.

Of course it's morally just. People have no obligation to do the worst for themselves possible. Only idiots believe that. All the people who cry about the morality of not paying the maximum possible tax only do so in the context of high-earners. Everyone else does it every day, just in different ways.

Duty Free goods are essentially a legal tax avoidance scheme. Is that immoral? Of course not. ISAs are also tax avoidance schemes. Perfectly legal. Immoral? Of course not.

Even people on very modest incomes could in some way shape or form pay more tax. Are they obliged to do so? No. Are they morally compelled to? Of course not.

Reply 21

Burridge

17

Original post by Clip

Of course it's morally just. People have no obligation to do the worst for themselves possible. Only idiots believe that. All the people who cry about the morality of not paying the maximum possible tax only do so in the context of high-earners. Everyone else does it every day, just in different ways.

Duty Free goods are essentially a legal tax avoidance scheme. Is that immoral? Of course not. ISAs are also tax avoidance schemes. Perfectly legal. Immoral? Of course not.

Even people on very modest incomes could in some way shape or form pay more tax. Are they obliged to do so? No. Are they morally compelled to? Of course not.

I understand that using an ISA is a form of tax avoidance - as is, for example, choosing a different route to work to avoid paying a toll-booth fee; but perspective is important here - this is almost trivial and accounts for only a fraction of the total amount lost to tax avoidance.

I don't believe it's morally just to avoid paying £600,000 worth of tax in two years. I wonder if you would feel the same you look at it from a different perspective; people are dying in NHS hospitals and soldiers are coming home in body-bags due to a lack of resources stemming from underfunding. The only way we fund such public services is via taxation. In no way am I attributing these deaths to Wayne Rooney - or anyone else in particular who avoids tax, both legally and illegally - but it certainly raises a moral question about tax avoidance.

They're called tax "loopholes" for a reason. It's not wrong in the eyes of the law, but common sense dictates that it shouldn't be allowed to happen - for example, the way drug manufacturers have been able to sell untested drugs on the UK market simply by labelling them "not fit for human consumption" even though they were intended for humans. It's wrong and shouldn't happen, most people would accept that.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 22

Cll_ws

19

If you'd like to see what Rooney earns per second in real-time....

http://ampp3d.mirror.co.uk/2014/02/21/wayne-rooney-earnings/

It is a ridiculous amount of money, but i'm sick of people thinking it is only football that has this ''problem''. Rooney's new contract will still be a drop in the water compared to the big names in American sports. In fact on the Forbes 2014 list, Rooney is 60th and there are only three footballers above him:

http://www.forbes.com/athletes/list/#page:1_sort:2_direction:desc_search:

That's not even getting in to other areas like film where the best actors and actresses will again command obscene salaries, e.g Robert Downey Jr getting $50m for Iron Man 3.

Reply 24

Cll_ws

19

Original post by sr90

It is a ridiculous amount of money, but i'm sick of people thinking it is only football that has this ''problem''. Rooney's new contract will still be a drop in the water compared to the big names in American sports. In fact on the Forbes 2014 list, Rooney is 60th and there are only three footballers above him:

http://www.forbes.com/athletes/list/#page:1_sort:2_direction:desc_search:

That's not even getting in to other areas like film where the best actors and actresses will again command obscene salaries, e.g Robert Downey Jr getting $50m for Iron Man 3.

It is stupid. It's usually just people that aren't too into football though, who because they don't like it see it as a waste of money (Not that it's their money to waste)

Plus, whilst I don't think Rooney is worth that kind of wage, not even in today's market, it'll undoubtedly work out cheaper for United than if they bought in a new player of a similar caliber to Rooney and gave him a 5 year contract.

Reply 25

Old_Simon

12

The money is in line with others. The length of the contract at his age with his injury record is ridiculous. It is also a hostage to fortune for Moyes. This is his first big signing and if it ends in tears it will be another nail in his coffin. Rooney is too big for his boots and could easily have been offloaded for good money.

Reply 26

yo radical one

6

Not sure a mid table team can really afford that tbh

Reply 27

mojojojo101

17

Original post by Old_Simon

The money is in line with others. The length of the contract at his age with his injury record is ridiculous. It is also a hostage to fortune for Moyes. This is his first big signing and if it ends in tears it will be another nail in his coffin. Rooney is too big for his boots and could easily have been offloaded for good money.

Really? Where? Utd clearly don't want to sell to a domestic rival, so that rules out Chelsea and City. Abroad Real Madrid have never been interested due to Rooney's lack of galatico factor, Bayern have no need for him, neither do Barca. PSG and Monaco remain an option as would going to the US / Middle East / China, the latter I see as extremely unlikely.

If United were going to cash in on Rooney they had to it in the summer when they held the cards. However 6 months later other clubs have lost intrest, Rooney's form is better and he holds all the cards as United cannot be seen to give up their best player when they are trying desperately to attract other 'world class' players. In reality, United were over a barrel and had to sign whatever Rooney's people put forward.

Reply 28

uktotalgamer

13

Makes me sick. Ticket prices are through the roof yet they can afford to do that. Premier league football is a waste of time. Would rather watch non league.

Reply 29

Drewski

19

If someone was dumb enough to offer it, would you really be dumb enough to say no?

Original post by Old_Simon

The money is in line with others. The length of the contract at his age with his injury record is ridiculous. It is also a hostage to fortune for Moyes. This is his first big signing and if it ends in tears it will be another nail in his coffin. Rooney is too big for his boots and could easily have been offloaded for good money.

All your points are so inaccurate it's laughable.

- He's never played fewer than 37 matches in a season, and one of those was when he'd just left school.
- Juan Mata?
- The only club that he would have moved to is Chelsea. Can anyone really seen Rooney learning French or Spanish?

Reply 31

9MmBulletz

16

Original post by sr90

All your points are so inaccurate it's laughable.

- He's never played fewer than 37 matches in a season, and one of those was when he'd just left school.
- Juan Mata?
- The only club that he would have moved to is Chelsea. Can anyone really seen Rooney learning French or Spanish?

The kid still needs to learn English :lol:

Reply 32

9MmBulletz

16

Original post by Cll_ws

It is stupid. It's usually just people that aren't too into football though, who because they don't like it see it as a waste of money (Not that it's their money to waste)

Plus, whilst I don't think Rooney is worth that kind of wage, not even in today's market, it'll undoubtedly work out cheaper for United than if they bought in a new player of a similar caliber to Rooney and gave him a 5 year contract.

He's costing them 60 million with his contract extension.

He's gonna cost at least 100 million for any club willing to buy him. Paying 100 million towards a player who will spend most of his contract on the wrong side of his 30's isn't worth it. As a Chelsea fan, he's not worth it, although if he's 3-4 years younger then I can see more sense

Reply 33

Cll_ws

19

Original post by 9MmBulletz

He's costing them 60 million with his contract extension.

He's gonna cost at least 100 million for any club willing to buy him. Paying 100 million towards a player who will spend most of his contract on the wrong side of his 30's isn't worth it. As a Chelsea fan, he's not worth it, although if he's 3-4 years younger then I can see more sense

I agree that he's not worth it. It's an insane contract for a person of his age, with his injury history. But I do think United would be hard pushed to find a player of Rooney's quality for cheaper than the overall cost of this contract. Especially once you factor in the inevitable £30-50M transfer fee for said player.