Money in football (3 Viewers)

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

I have a business, I employ people, and I work 60 hours a week and give myself 5 days holiday a year. It's a struggle, and it may fail before the end of the year, but if it does I won't blame anyone but myself, and I certainly won't moan about the fact I went to Caludon Castle and that my old man was skint. If it happens, you dust yourself down and go again.
.

But you've shown yourself. You have to put huge amount of hours in, have very little holiday and even then it might go tits up. That doesn't happen for the privileged. They're enjoying regular breaks and finishing as and when they want. Their 'work' involves champagne lunches and receptions. They get the deals because they all know each other, not because they're the best choice.

And because they've got the assets and cash, if they make a bad decision it doesn't totally alter their lives. Maybe they have to cancel the new Jag but they don't end up in fear of losing their homes.

 

---

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

Of course there is privilege. Of course some people benefit from a leg-up. We'd all like a society that is fair and provides opportunity for all, but we cannot engineer such a society by being slaves to ideological dogma. How many more failed socialist states do there have to be people stop saying 'ah, well, that wasn't true socialism'. It never is, is it. The penny will drop one day. The unequal sharing of virtues versus the equal sharing of miseries. Take your pick.

The world is not perfect and is not fair. It can be less imperfect and less unfair, but anyone who believes the answer lies in a system of collectivism and central planning should be given a wide berth.

I agree with you that 'socialism' isn't the answer and a race to the bottom, but a meritocracy is potentially possible. All it takes is a change to how inheritance works.

(Almost) everyone wants to provide for their family and give them help after they've gone, but that doesn't mean they have to have whole access to an entire estate and its wealth in one lump sum. If we made it so that all inheritance had to be done via trust, with a maximum amount equal to say the average pay, or double the average pay etc then that is enough for any family to get by. If they want a better lifestyle they have to earn it like normal. Property would be owned by the trust and maintained at its expense. Then when/if the money runs out then they have to fend for themselves.

Peter Jones (Dragons Den) has said he's set something of this ilk up. Whatever his kids earn in a year his estate will match. If they go into a profession like teaching, care or nursing then they get double their earnings.

 

[Astute]

Given there are far more kids on council estates it would actually be far more from council estates would make it rich.

Exactly. Many multiples and hardly any from a privileged background. But we know it isn't true.

I am one of those from a single parent dragged up on council estates. I had ideas when younger but no way of securing the funds. Couldn't even afford to go to university. There was no running up debt to go like you can these days. So I had to train for a trade whilst working 80 hours plus a week.

I wanted to go down the legal route by this time or even put something back and teach mathematics. But by then I would have had to take a pay cut to become a teacher or many more years of training to become a solicitor.

Yes I have done OK in life. But I am not rich. I should be able to retire at 55 if I don't have an extravagant retirement. Yet someone comes along and says that it doesn't matter which walk of life you come from. You all supposedly have the same chances in life. It has taken many years of hard work and saving to not even be on the same level as someone born into money.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

I think I may have mentioned this before, but a client from a few years ago when he had children asked us to set up a trust fund for them from birth. An infant literally just been born was richer than everyone in my team put together. And the client himself had a £1m house built for him in the middle of the countryside as his 18th birthday present - that was over 30 years ago now so god knows what it's worth now.

Same for everybody.....

 

[Brylowes]

Of course it’s wrong and obscene, when you consider most people working
at a football club ie: shop and office staff, cleaners, bar and food staff etc
Will be earning poverty wages and claiming family tax credits ‘often with only
A zero hours contract.
The game generates the wealth ‘that isn’t the problem, the problem is the way
The wealth is then distributed. Same applies across the business world.

 

[robbiekeane]

Of course it’s wrong and obscene, when you consider most people working
at a football club ie: shop and office staff, cleaners, bar and food staff etc
Will be earning poverty wages and claiming family tax credits ‘often with only
A zero hours contract.
The game generates the wealth ‘that isn’t the problem, the problem is the way
The wealth is then distributed. Same applies across the business world.

Do you pay to go and watch the office staff and the cleaners?

 

[Brylowes]

Do you pay to go and watch the office staff and the cleaners?

WTF does that mean, could a Club even exist without the people working behind the scenes.
You think it’s ok to pay players millions ‘whilst hard working people live in poverty ‘sums up
everything that’s wrong with society.

 

[robbiekeane]

WTF does that mean, could a Club even exist without the people working behind the scenes.
You think it’s ok to pay players millions ‘whilst hard working people live in poverty ‘sums up
everything that’s wrong with society.

Do you really not know what it means?

The players get paid millions because people can't do what they can do, and demand to view them do what they do means they get a lot of money.

You complaining that the players get paid loads of money while the staff at the stadium get shit wages is a bit silly isn't it? They get paid for the value of their labour?

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

But how many people would be able to watch them if the stadium was shut due to not being up to health and safety standards

Would you go to a game knowing there was a high chance you were going to get dysentry from unclean toilets, e-coli from poorly prepared and cooked food or electrocuted in your seat due to poor wiring?

*For the record, I'm being facetious.

 

[shmmeee]

Is it?

So it is as easy for someone to start up any sort of company that will struggle for funding as it is for someone who only has to ask daddy nicely?

Yes that is all walks of life. Who you know can also help a lot. Of course it doesn't guarantee anything. But it is much easier to start with money to make money than it is to start with nothing and make money.

In proportion how many kids from dodgy council estates will make it rich against those born into money? Exactly the same if what you say is true.

Sorry I think we are in agreement here. Wealth begets wealth and being born into wealth is luck not judgement is my point.

 

[fernandopartridge]

Maddison and Wilson apart I can’t really think of many “quality” players, unless you are talking about the likes of Burge/Willis/Bigi/Stevenson et al all who will only get you so far?

Zzz, they'd probably be a better referee than you

 

[fernandopartridge]

Tired, discredited, leftist tropes. The politics of envy taken up a notch.

Of course people will benefit from circumstance. I suggested that in my original post, especially when referring to tech billionaires who would have benefitted from being in the right place at the right time with the right idea. To suggest, however, that their success was somehow achieved in the absence of hard work, perseverance and personal sacrifice is nonsense.

You live in a world I don't recognise. One where companies are all headed up by Oxbridge educated Tarquins who were gifted everything. I have a business, I employ people, and I work 60 hours a week and give myself 5 days holiday a year. It's a struggle, and it may fail before the end of the year, but if it does I won't blame anyone but myself, and I certainly won't moan about the fact I went to Caludon Castle and that my old man was skint. If it happens, you dust yourself down and go again.

Social mobility is not at the lowest level for years. Just because a sociology professor wrote a book saying it is doesn't make it true. For every study that suggests this, there is another that contradicts it, and all of them are influenced by the ideological bias of the author. In 2007 54% of FTSE100 bosses were privately educated. By 2015 it had fallen to 34%. You can argue that we are regressing but it isn't backed up by the facts.

Of course there is privilege. Of course some people benefit from a leg-up. We'd all like a society that is fair and provides opportunity for all, but we cannot engineer such a society by being slaves to ideological dogma. How many more failed socialist states do there have to be people stop saying 'ah, well, that wasn't true socialism'. It never is, is it. The penny will drop one day. The unequal sharing of virtues versus the equal sharing of miseries. Take your pick.

The world is not perfect and is not fair. It can be less imperfect and less unfair, but anyone who believes the answer lies in a system of collectivism and central planning should be given a wide berth.

"Leftist" come off it, you're better than that shite

 

[fernandopartridge]

I raise you... Lord Alan Sugar.

There are exceptions to most rules, and there was a lot of luck involved in his rise to money. He's an utter c**t as well

 

[fernandopartridge]

But you've shown yourself. You have to put huge amount of hours in, have very little holiday and even then it might go tits up. That doesn't happen for the privileged. They're enjoying regular breaks and finishing as and when they want. Their 'work' involves champagne lunches and receptions. They get the deals because they all know each other, not because they're the best choice.

And because they've got the assets and cash, if they make a bad decision it doesn't totally alter their lives. Maybe they have to cancel the new Jag but they don't end up in fear of losing their homes.

And Ferret thinks that his mutual interests are closer to theirs somehow

 

[theferret]

And Ferret thinks that his mutual interests are closer to theirs somehow

Not really, because I don't know who 'they' are meant to be. I run a small business. I'm not competing against Etonians who used Daddy's money to gain an unfair advantage, they're just ordinary people like myself who had a bit of a punt. If they succeed and I fail, we'll so be it. They did it better than me and made better choices. Perhaps they took more risk, perhaps they sold themselves better when applying for funding. Some of the most successful business people I know started with nothing, and I don't get a sense at all that I am unfairly disadvantaged because of my lack of privilege.

It happens of course, perhaps moreso in the corporate world, but I don't buy into this almost cartoonish depiction of the business world where privately educated Jeremies sit in their hollowed-out volcanoes plotting world domination while the Daves and Steves struggle to make a success of their ventures. It's just not something I recognise and it certainly isn't an excuse I'd ever make.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

Not really, because I don't know who 'they' are meant to be. I run a small business. I'm not competing against Etonians who used Daddy's money to gain an unfair advantage, they're just ordinary people like myself who had a bit of a punt. If they succeed and I fail, we'll so be it. They did it better than me and made better choices. Perhaps they took more risk, perhaps they sold themselves better when applying for funding. Some of the most successful business people I know started with nothing, and I don't get a sense at all that I am unfairly disadvantaged because of my lack of privilege.

It happens of course, perhaps moreso in the corporate world, but I don't buy into this almost cartoonish depiction of the business world where privately educated Jeremies sit in their hollowed-out volcanoes plotting world domination while the Daves and Steves struggle to make a success of their ventures. It's just not something I recognise and it certainly isn't an excuse I'd ever make.

But the point is that you and your small business competitors are there fighting over the scraps left by those that get it easy. I think what annoys me more is when those people complain about taxes and actively deprive society of improving out of sheer greed.

I greatly admire your work ethic and wish you every success but the fact is there are people out there who will always do vastly better than you with no reason to deserve it. I accept there will be inequality, but that doesn't mean it can't be made a more equitable society. That won;t come about by playing the rules that those with the wealth and power set out.

In a similar vein I admire those that volunteer or work for little or no money caring for others, but in many ways it's playing into the hands of those with power. Society keeps on going because they're frantically filling in the gaps left by those who won't do it because there's nothing in it for them and refuse to get out of bed for less than what most people would expect to see on their P60.

I did accounts, finance and economics at uni and you can make all the theory and sums work fine. But you can do the same with Marxism. But what both fail to do is take into account human nature.

On the left, you end up with a "meet the new boss, same as the old boss" situation whereby the leaders of the left end up assuming the positions of the elite they've replaced. As I've commented before "they don't despise an elite, they despise they aren't it"

On the right, it doesn't take into account the inherent imbalance that those with the wealth and power will use to prevent others from obtaining it, often to startling extremes. Financial clout to price out competition, expensive legal wrangles.... I don't mind them having comfortable lifestyles, I just don't like that they actively prevent others from having them too.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

There are exceptions to most rules, and there was a lot of luck involved in his rise to money. He's an utter c**t as well

He has said in an interview that one of his regrets is not spending more time with his mother. He had the opportunity, he chose money instead. And you know that if he was given his time over he'd still chase the £ again.

Those that make it do so because they're ruthless, bordering on sociopathic, greedy and self-centred. Are these really the working class people we want to be making into the elite and shaping the future of society - people that don't really believe in society and community?

 

[theferret]

But the point is that you and your small business competitors are there fighting over the scraps left by those that get it easy. I think what annoys me more is when those people complain about taxes and actively deprive society of improving out of sheer greed.

I greatly admire your work ethic and wish you every success but the fact is there are people out there who will always do vastly better than you with no reason to deserve it. I accept there will be inequality, but that doesn't mean it can't be made a more equitable society. That won;t come about by playing the rules that those with the wealth and power set out.

In a similar vein I admire those that volunteer or work for little or no money caring for others, but in many ways it's playing into the hands of those with power. Society keeps on going because they're frantically filling in the gaps left by those who won't do it because there's nothing in it for them and refuse to get out of bed for less than what most people would expect to see on their P60.

I did accounts, finance and economics at uni and you can make all the theory and sums work fine. But you can do the same with Marxism. But what both fail to do is take into account human nature.

On the left, you end up with a "meet the new boss, same as the old boss" situation whereby the leaders of the left end up assuming the positions of the elite they've replaced. As I've commented before "they don't despise an elite, they despise they aren't it"

On the right, it doesn't take into account the inherent imbalance that those with the wealth and power will use to prevent others from obtaining it, often to startling extremes. Financial clout to price out competition, expensive legal wrangles.... I don't mind them having comfortable lifestyles, I just don't like that they actively prevent others from having them too.

The discussion regarding taxation is completely distorted. The perception being that we have a regressive system, when that really isn't the case at all.

Roughly 90% of income tax is paid by the 50% of taxpayers with the highest incomes, while more than a quarter is paid by the richest 1% (in the US the top 1% contribute around 90% of all income based tax revenue) . The UK figure is far higher than in the late 1970s when tax rates were as high as 98%.

Our starting rate of tax is one of the highest in the western world. In the UK, nobody pays any tax on the first £12,500, whereas in the Netherlands, for example, you pay 36% on anything above zero, and this doesn't really change until you hit 60K.

People get hysterical. Boris proposes to increase the top rate threshold a bit, which is entirely sensible as it was set years ago and many more middle earners have moved into that bracket and will continue to do so in coming years, people who are not 'rich' by any reasonable definition, but it doesn't stop people screaming 'tax cuts for the rich'. Take the tube drivers, they strike over a pay deal that would deliver in excess of 50K a year and the left backs them. Suggest that we might tax them a little less and people are horrified.

I don't think there is much wrong with the income tax thresholds. They could be tweaked of course and a debate had about that. Personally, I think it is VAT that disproportionately impacts on the less well off.

None of this fits the narrative about Britain having a regressive tax system though when (comparatively) it just doesn't.

 

[Adge]

Zzz, they'd probably be a better referee than you

Maybe, football wise I wouldn’t be far behind some of them!

 

[theferret]

He has said in an interview that one of his regrets is not spending more time with his mother. He had the opportunity, he chose money instead. And you know that if he was given his time over he'd still chase the £ again.

Those that make it do so because they're ruthless, bordering on sociopathic, greedy and self-centred. Are these really the working class people we want to be making into the elite and shaping the future of society - people that don't really believe in society and community?

I think there is an element of truth in that. I'm often shocked by how some people operate in business. Only last week I had an old lady in tears because another company charged her 15K for something she didn't really need, should have cost 2K and which didn't work. We ended up fixing it for free. It's probably why it's failing!

Its not universally true though. If you look at people like Theo Paphitis and Duncan Bannatyne, both came out of nothing, succeeded, and now appear quite philanthropic.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

The discussion regarding taxation is completely distorted. The perception being that we have a regressive system, when that really isn't the case at all.

Roughly 90% of income tax is paid by the 50% of taxpayers with the highest incomes, while more than a quarter is paid by the richest 1% (in the US the top 1% contribute around 90% of all income based tax revenue) . The UK figure is far higher than in the late 1970s when tax rates were as high as 98%.

Our starting rate of tax is one of the highest in the western world. In the UK, nobody pays any tax on the first £12,500, whereas in the Netherlands, for example, you pay 36% on anything above zero, and this doesn't really change until you hit 60K.

People get hysterical. Boris proposes to increase the top rate threshold a bit, which is entirely sensible as it was set years ago and many more middle earners have moved into that bracket and will continue to do so in coming years, people who are not 'rich' by any reasonable definition, but it doesn't stop people screaming 'tax cuts for the rich'. Take the tube drivers, they strike over a pay deal that would deliver in excess of 50K a year and the left backs them. Suggest that we might tax them a little less and people are horrified.

I don't think there is much wrong with the income tax thresholds. They could be tweaked of course and a debate had about that. Personally, I think it is VAT that disproportionately impacts on the less well off.

None of this fits the narrative about Britain having a regressive tax system though when (comparatively) it just doesn't.

I'm not sure why you've picked up so heavily on the tax thing given the other points I made. I certainly didn't mention the UK having a regressive tax system, although it has given me some flashbacks on tax theory lectures and the pros and cons of a tax free allowance and incremental tax rates and who benefits the most. One of the lesser arguments discussed was increased rates because richer people could 'hide' money from the taxman due to being able to afford 'better' accountants, with the counter argument that the higher you set the tax rate the more they try to hide.

Also find your example of the Netherlands odd (I admit I didn't know the income tax thresholds and rates there and haven't bothered to check so I'll take your word for it). UK has a tax tree allowance and then basic rate of 20% up to £50k when you hit the higher 40% rate. But your saying the Netherlands has what is almost our higher rate for every single penny earned.

Your example of how much of the tax revenue comes from the rich isn't a thing showing how good they are at paying tax and contributing - it just shines a light on the massive inequality in society in terms of wealth and income.

I agree with you VAT is a big problem in terms of taxing the poorest, as it's a tax paid for by the end consumer - those VAT registered can usually reclaim much of their VAT expense.

Talking of that, it was often startling how many of those running businesses misunderstood who the tax burden fell on. When they were talking about how much tax they'd forked out they would mention the income tax bill for their employees, the VAT bill, NI etc as well as corporation/income tax. They completely failed to understand that the employee tax, around half the NI and their VAT bill wasn't THEM paying it - it was their employees and clients and they were essentially just the middleman to send it to the government as it's far easier and efficient to get them to pay it all in one lump for everyone than get each individual to do so. If they paid an employee £25k gross pa, and the government got rid of income tax they'd still be paying out £25k. Just now it would all be going to the employee, before they were splitting it between the employee and the tax man.

It's like if Peter owed Paul a tenner. Peter gives you the tenner to give to Paul because you're going to see him sooner. You can't then go around saying you've given Paul a tenner as if it was your money - you've given him Peter's tenner.

 

[fernandopartridge]

The discussion regarding taxation is completely distorted. The perception being that we have a regressive system, when that really isn't the case at all.

Roughly 90% of income tax is paid by the 50% of taxpayers with the highest incomes, while more than a quarter is paid by the richest 1% (in the US the top 1% contribute around 90% of all income based tax revenue) . The UK figure is far higher than in the late 1970s when tax rates were as high as 98%.

Our starting rate of tax is one of the highest in the western world. In the UK, nobody pays any tax on the first £12,500, whereas in the Netherlands, for example, you pay 36% on anything above zero, and this doesn't really change until you hit 60K.

People get hysterical. Boris proposes to increase the top rate threshold a bit, which is entirely sensible as it was set years ago and many more middle earners have moved into that bracket and will continue to do so in coming years, people who are not 'rich' by any reasonable definition, but it doesn't stop people screaming 'tax cuts for the rich'. Take the tube drivers, they strike over a pay deal that would deliver in excess of 50K a year and the left backs them. Suggest that we might tax them a little less and people are horrified.

I don't think there is much wrong with the income tax thresholds. They could be tweaked of course and a debate had about that. Personally, I think it is VAT that disproportionately impacts on the less well off.

None of this fits the narrative about Britain having a regressive tax system though when (comparatively) it just doesn't.

The stats you sight about tax contributions don't take into account how much of the wealth is concentrated in that 1%. There clearly is a problem with tax here as this supposedly rich country no longer collects enough of it to meet the demands on public services, despite the no of millionaires rising exponentially in the last 20 years.
You are right that VAT is regressive so can't see why you'd be opposed to a higher rate of income tax on the very high earners, i.e. a progressive tax.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

I think there is an element of truth in that. I'm often shocked by how some people operate in business. Only last week I had an old lady in tears because another company charged her 15K for something she didn't really need, should have cost 2K and which didn't work. We ended up fixing it for free. It's probably why it's failing!

Its not universally true though. If you look at people like Theo Paphitis and Duncan Bannatyne, both came out of nothing, succeeded, and now appear quite philanthropic.

Fair play to you for fixing it for free.

There are people who do become philanthropic, but it's much easier to be philanthropic when you've made it and can afford to be. It's how they've acted on the way up that's of particular interest to me. I often wonder if it's essentially guilt over stuff they've done before and they're trying to make get rid of the guilty conscience. I also then remember there can be quite decent tax incentives for charitable donations....

Bill Gates is now well known for his philanthropy. But Microsoft were also extremely well known for being incredibly ruthless with up and coming potential competitors and destroyed many small businesses and start ups through aggressive practices and lawsuits. I imagine he left many, many people in severe trouble, both financial and personal, due to those tactics.

 

[Astute]

Do you really not know what it means?

The players get paid millions because people can't do what they can do, and demand to view them do what they do means they get a lot of money.

You complaining that the players get paid loads of money while the staff at the stadium get shit wages is a bit silly isn't it? They get paid for the value of their labour?

And there is the problem.

We are in the shit because of the money players are on. Look what has happened to Sunderland. Will Bolton still have a football club?

Some football clubs can afford crazy money. Most can't. The Sky money is obscene. But to sign players that are good enough to give you a chance of staying in the Prem you have to gamble with the future of the football club.

 

[Astute]

Sorry I think we are in agreement here. Wealth begets wealth and being born into wealth is luck not judgement is my point.

No. You said it doesn't matter if you are born into money or not. And you said it doesn't matter which walk of life you come from.

Yes you need luck in life. But the poorer you are the more luck you need.

 

[theferret]

I'm not sure why you've picked up so heavily on the tax thing given the other points I made. I certainly didn't mention the UK having a regressive tax system, although it has given me some flashbacks on tax theory lectures and the pros and cons of a tax free allowance and incremental tax rates and who benefits the most. One of the lesser arguments discussed was increased rates because richer people could 'hide' money from the taxman due to being able to afford 'better' accountants, with the counter argument that the higher you set the tax rate the more they try to hide.

Also find your example of the Netherlands odd (I admit I didn't know the income tax thresholds and rates there and haven't bothered to check so I'll take your word for it). UK has a tax tree allowance and then basic rate of 20% up to £50k when you hit the higher 40% rate. But your saying the Netherlands has what is almost our higher rate for every single penny earned.

Your example of how much of the tax revenue comes from the rich isn't a thing showing how good they are at paying tax and contributing - it just shines a light on the massive inequality in society in terms of wealth and income.

I agree with you VAT is a big problem in terms of taxing the poorest, as it's a tax paid for by the end consumer - those VAT registered can usually reclaim much of their VAT expense.

Talking of that, it was often startling how many of those running businesses misunderstood who the tax burden fell on. When they were talking about how much tax they'd forked out they would mention the income tax bill for their employees, the VAT bill, NI etc as well as corporation/income tax. They completely failed to understand that the employee tax, around half the NI and their VAT bill wasn't THEM paying it - it was their employees and clients and they were essentially just the middleman to send it to the government as it's far easier and efficient to get them to pay it all in one lump for everyone than get each individual to do so. If they paid an employee £25k gross pa, and the government got rid of income tax they'd still be paying out £25k. Just now it would all be going to the employee, before they were splitting it between the employee and the tax man.

It's like if Peter owed Paul a tenner. Peter gives you the tenner to give to Paul because you're going to see him sooner. You can't then go around saying you've given Paul a tenner as if it was your money - you've given him Peter's tenner.

I picked on the tax thing because I didn't really disagree with anything else in your post and I wasn't suggesting that you had argued the tax system was regressive. It is something that frustrates me, because the debate is skewed by people who come at it from an ideological standpoint rather than one based on data and examples from history.

On business taxes, I've not come across anyone who misunderstands who the burden for income tax and NI contributions falls on. I find that odd, but I totally believe that you have encountered that. What I have seen is how some in business will argue, usually in the context of discussing their overall tax contribution as a business, that if they weren't in business and they weren't successful, they wouldn't be employing people and those tax and NI contributions wouldn't exist, which is a fair point. I've seen this in the sector I work in (renewable energy). Constant government interference, red tape, withdrawal of subsidies and now proposals to remove the reduced rate of VAT have resulted in the loss of thousands of jobs and the industry has contracted massively. It is the VAT proposals that will probably kill my business, and 3 people will be out of work. It is such as shame how this thriving industry has been decimated.

Anyhow, interesting discussion, but not one I expected to have on a football forum. All the best.

 

[theferret]

The stats you sight about tax contributions don't take into account how much of the wealth is concentrated in that 1%. There clearly is a problem with tax here as this supposedly rich country no longer collects enough of it to meet the demands on public services, despite the no of millionaires rising exponentially in the last 20 years.
You are right that VAT is regressive so can't see why you'd be opposed to a higher rate of income tax on the very high earners, i.e. a progressive tax.

You're right, they don't. The point stands though, that tax revenues are at record highs, the tax burden is as high as it has been for a long time at 34% of GDP and the contribution of the wealthiest (as a proportion of the total tax take) is also at a record high.

What's the answer? I simply don't know. I'm not against a higher rate of tax for high earners - but it has to work and achieve the desired results, otherwise what's the point? When the top rate of tax was reduced from 50p to 45p in 2013, tax revenues increased by £8 billion the following year. Some argue that a lot of that was down to deferment, but it certainly didn't result in reduced revenues, so why will putting it back up increase them?

I get it. You see people in terrible poverty while some people enjoy obscene wealth. It's insane when you think about it. The problem is, you go after the wealthy, start putting caps on aspiration in an attempt to reduce the gap between rich and poor, and all that happens is the gap closes but everyone is less well off. We tried this in the 70s. The entire economy collapsed and we had to go to the IMF for a bailout and the result was deep cuts in public spending.

I know 'tax the rich' plays well politically, but it isn't as simple as that. Then again, I'm not an economist and don't pretend to be. On the basis I am probably boring people I'll shut up now!

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

I picked on the tax thing because I didn't really disagree with anything else in your post and I wasn't suggesting that you had argued the tax system was regressive. It is something that frustrates me, because the debate is skewed by people who come at it from an ideological standpoint rather than one based on data and examples from history.

On business taxes, I've not come across anyone who misunderstands who the burden for income tax and NI contributions falls on. I find that odd, but I totally believe that you have encountered that. What I have seen is how some in business will argue, usually in the context of discussing their overall tax contribution as a business, that if they weren't in business and they weren't successful, they wouldn't be employing people and those tax and NI contributions wouldn't exist, which is a fair point. I've seen this in the sector I work in (renewable energy). Constant government interference, red tape, withdrawal of subsidies and now proposals to remove the reduced rate of VAT have resulted in the loss of thousands of jobs and the industry has contracted massively. It is the VAT proposals that will probably kill my business, and 3 people will be out of work. It is such as shame how this thriving industry has been decimated.

Anyhow, interesting discussion, but not one I expected to have on a football forum. All the best.

It's interesting you work in renewable energy - it's an industry I really feel that the country should be getting behind and providing help for for any number of reasons, especially environmental and reducing energy dependancy on other nations which means we allow them to get away with some horrific abuses because we're afraid they'll turn the lights off.

But it's also a prime example of how the 'elite' use their power and influence. There is so much that says we should be moving towards renewable energy, but official policy is massively reducing the help it receives and instead continuing with fossil fuels, nuclear and support of fracking. Why? Because they and their friends have large financial interests in those industries. If they were promised massive returns on renewables so they divested their fossil fuel interests you'd be amazed how quick the support from public funds would come. We only got railways because those in power were promised massive returns - up until then they'd been dead against it, then all of a sudden it couldn't be built fast enough.

The reason your business might fail isn't because of your lack of hard work, ability or common sense - it's the policies set out by those in power because you're is an industry they and their friends see little personal financial benefit in.

 

[Brylowes]

Do you really not know what it means?

The players get paid millions because people can't do what they can do, and demand to view them do what they do means they get a lot of money.

You complaining that the players get paid loads of money while the staff at the stadium get shit wages is a bit silly isn't it? They get paid for the value of their labour?

They don’t get paid the value of their Labour you Clown ‘they get the minimum they’re
Allowed to be given, the Government then have to top their money up in tax credits.
It’s the same across all sectors, how is it right that a supermarket chain making Billions
Annually are subsidised by Government topping up workers wages ‘a Government that
Is already unable to pay for vital services.
Yes of course Footballers deserve to get paid well, but if you believe they should earn
in a week ‘what the average man would have to work (proper work) 10 years for I despair.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

The problem is, you go after the wealthy, start putting caps on aspiration in an attempt to reduce the gap between rich and poor, and all that happens is the gap closes but everyone is less well off. We tried this in the 70s. The entire economy collapsed and we had to go to the IMF for a bailout and the result was deep cuts in public spending.

The 'cap on aspiration' is another term used by the rich - apart from a few far left nutters it's no such thing. It's not a 'cap' on anything - most people aren't saying "you can only earn £x per year max or have £x in assets". They're just saying that society is giving you the opportunity to earn that so you should contribute to society as a means of thank you. Although I disagree with the term cap if you want to use it it's a cap on greed, not aspiration.

With the 'everyone' is less well off remark and economies collapsing etc this is often more to do with the decision of the capitalists to refuse to invest in order to maintain the status quo. They decide to reduce the money they put in because they'll get lower returns (not no returns) by having to share out the pie, jobs are lost and economies contract and they then use this as evidence that a more equitable society is a bad thing. It's not the equality that leads to the downturn, it's the decisons of those that don't want equality that does.

The last collapse was due to greed from the rich - rather than steady sustainable growth they go for unsustainable bubbles with higher short term returns knowing full well they will burst before long, but as long as they've got out before it does and they're not personally impacted they don't care.

A lot of the stuff capitalists and economists use like "a rising tide floats all boats" and "trickle down economics" are pretty much nonsense when you look beyond the rhetoric.

Take trickle down economics. The basis of that suggests that if two people are lost in the desert and you're given supplies to go and find them. You find one and they have water. You then find the other and they have no water. Trickle down economics would suggest what you should do is give the water to the person who already has water because they're clearly more capable when it comes to managing water supplies and they should decide if the other person gets any. Even though there's a probability that the person without water doesn't have any because the person with loads of water took their supplies.

 

[Evo1883]

I don't care what football clubs choose to pay players or pay for players.

What I do care about is the exploitation of the working man or women so they can part fund such deals with ridiculous St prices etc

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

I don't care what football clubs choose to pay players or pay for players.

What I do care about is the exploitation of the working man or women so they can part fund such deals with ridiculous St prices etc

I've no problem with players being the main beneficiaries of vastly overinflated revenues. Agents and directors I've very much got a problem with.

The only reason I care is that it can't last forever and when it does loads of clubs will go to the wall and the people most affected will be the fans and communities.

Of course an equilibrium will eventually reassert itself with players earning more reasonable wages in comparison with the reduced income, playing for resssurected clubs but the lag time between the two will be very damaging.

 

[Astute]

I don't care what football clubs choose to pay players or pay for players.

What I do care about is the exploitation of the working man or women so they can part fund such deals with ridiculous St prices etc

Even when it starts a massive decline at a club like with us?

 

[fernandopartridge]

You're right, they don't. The point stands though, that tax revenues are at record highs, the tax burden is as high as it has been for a long time at 34% of GDP and the contribution of the wealthiest (as a proportion of the total tax take) is also at a record high.

What's the answer? I simply don't know. I'm not against a higher rate of tax for high earners - but it has to work and achieve the desired results, otherwise what's the point? When the top rate of tax was reduced from 50p to 45p in 2013, tax revenues increased by £8 billion the following year. Some argue that a lot of that was down to deferment, but it certainly didn't result in reduced revenues, so why will putting it back up increase them?

I get it. You see people in terrible poverty while some people enjoy obscene wealth. It's insane when you think about it. The problem is, you go after the wealthy, start putting caps on aspiration in an attempt to reduce the gap between rich and poor, and all that happens is the gap closes but everyone is less well off. We tried this in the 70s. The entire economy collapsed and we had to go to the IMF for a bailout and the result was deep cuts in public spending.

I know 'tax the rich' plays well politically, but it isn't as simple as that. Then again, I'm not an economist and don't pretend to be. On the basis I am probably boring people I'll shut up now!

Britain went 'cap in hand' to the IMF but actually didn't need to, the government at the time had totally underestimated tax receipts (Andrew Marr's History of Modern Britain describes). The government budget deficits in the 70s as a percentage of GDP were nothing compared to those in the last 10 years and the government recorded a budget surplus 1970-74 before the impact of the oil crisis kicked in.

It isn't worth arguing about though so I'll shut up too. I don't think a rise in income tax will fix the country's problems.

 

[robbiekeane]

They don’t get paid the value of their Labour you Clown ‘they get the minimum they’re
Allowed to be given, the Government then have to top their money up in tax credits.

I think you need to read a basic economics textbook. Markets will clear. In fact, you're right in one way, minimum wages are artificially inflated and if they didn't exist the value of their labour would probably be lower!