All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 285 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 ... 15  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Feb 19, 2012 1:35 pm 
Member
User avatar
Somebody Else's Problem wrote:
Lucien wrote:
Let's downsize that massive boat a footballer could have got, to a small boat, and use the money on... saving lifes?


That's a bullshit argument and you know it. People are spending money on what they want to spend it on. If they're not spending it on football tickets, they're not about to start spending it on saving lives. They're going to buy something else fun.


What I mean is...

Instead of a man being paid £25 million, he is paid £1 million and the rest is transferred to the state to spend.

Or in othe words, Manchester United make 'y' amount per year, and can only pay 'x' while 'y - x' goes to the government. Like that, but across all high paying industry.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 19, 2012 1:38 pm 
Member
User avatar

AKA: Somebody Else's Problem
Lucien wrote:
Instead of a man being paid £25 million, he is paid £1 million and the rest is transferred to the state to spend.


What strawberry floating right does the state have to take that money from him? What if the Government told you you didn't need to earn more than £65 per week (the current rate of Jobseekers Allowance for over-25s), and that you should hand over any money that you earn over that?

If someone earns a fortune in a private business, they earn a fortune. It's their right to do with it what the strawberry float they please. No-one has the right to decide that they should only be allowed so much money.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 19, 2012 1:41 pm 
Member
User avatar
In the absence of any better solution, the best method to minimise inefficiency in our economy is to pay footballers etc their economic worth, not their social worth (which would ruin any economy).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 19, 2012 1:42 pm 
Member
User avatar
Lucien, you sir are talking out of your arse :lol: :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 19, 2012 1:44 pm 
Member
User avatar
Lucien wrote:
Somebody Else's Problem wrote:
Lucien wrote:
Let's downsize that massive boat a footballer could have got, to a small boat, and use the money on... saving lifes?


That's a bullshit argument and you know it. People are spending money on what they want to spend it on. If they're not spending it on football tickets, they're not about to start spending it on saving lives. They're going to buy something else fun.


What I mean is...

Instead of a man being paid £25 million, he is paid £1 million and the rest is transferred to the state to spend.

Or in othe words, Manchester United make 'y' amount per year, and can only pay 'x' while 'y - x' goes to the government. Like that, but across all high paying industry.


How would that work?! If the company paying him knows that 24 of that 25m are going to the state, they wouldn't pay him 25! They'd pay him 1m and keep the rest for themselves! We need more taxes for higher earners, not a pay cap.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 19, 2012 1:46 pm 
Member
User avatar
Ecno wrote:
I think we should give them back. It's time the oppressed indigenous Argentinian population should be freed from British rule.

Wait there's no indigenous Argentinian population? Well the non indigenous Argentinian population and their settlements should at least be allowed a say in who governs them. Oh there's no Argentinian population or settlement, well the current population must surely want to be reunited with Buenos Aries.

They don't, well at least the Argentinians have a historic claim having discovered the islands and put in a claim since the 18th century. Wait the country didn't exist when the islands were discovered. Well then the British must have regonised the continuing claim of the islands by the Spanish and applied them to the newly independent state of Argentina in 1816 then. Wait your telling me they didn't. Well at least the Argentinian government has only pursued its claim through peaceful means since then. Wait your telling me that they invaded the Falkland islands and caused numerous deaths but it doesn't count because it was under an old military dictatorship. Got ya, so that therefore means that any implicit actions by the 1820s British government in allowing Argentinian explorations to the islands are also really too old to be considered. Oh wait they aren't?

How about you just strawberry float off then?

:fp: ban requests for over sarcasm!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 19, 2012 1:57 pm 
Member
User avatar
aaronayl1 wrote:
Lucien wrote:
Somebody Else's Problem wrote:
Lucien wrote:
Let's downsize that massive boat a footballer could have got, to a small boat, and use the money on... saving lifes?


That's a bullshit argument and you know it. People are spending money on what they want to spend it on. If they're not spending it on football tickets, they're not about to start spending it on saving lives. They're going to buy something else fun.


What I mean is...

Instead of a man being paid £25 million, he is paid £1 million and the rest is transferred to the state to spend.

Or in othe words, Manchester United make 'y' amount per year, and can only pay 'x' while 'y - x' goes to the government. Like that, but across all high paying industry.


How would that work?! If the company paying him knows that 24 of that 25m are going to the state, they wouldn't pay him 25! They'd pay him 1m and keep the rest for themselves! We need more taxes for higher earners, not a pay cap.


Example: (Let's imagine)

Manchester United make £500 million per year, they spend £400 million.

*A wage cap is brought in*

Manchester United make £500 million per year, they now spend £200 million. The money 'saved', through taxation, increases money going to the state.

So maybe in the short term Manchester United loses out, more teams can afford capped rate players. Sucks for them. Money will be more evenly distributed, anyone can win the league and more money goes to the government in the medium to long term.

MCN wrote:
What strawberry floating right does the state have to take that money from him? What if the Government told you you didn't need to earn more than £65 per week (the current rate of Jobseekers Allowance for over-25s), and that you should hand over any money that you earn over that?


Well if the government decided that you couldn't do anything about it, could you? Difference being we're talking about a man being deprived of food on one end, and a yacht on the other.

We'll never agree, me and Lagamorph are going to go set up a better state ourselves, albeit with shitter football teams. C'mon Laga. 8-)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 19, 2012 1:58 pm 
Member
User avatar
Lucien wrote:
aaronayl1 wrote:
Lucien wrote:
Somebody Else's Problem wrote:
Lucien wrote:
Let's downsize that massive boat a footballer could have got, to a small boat, and use the money on... saving lifes?


That's a bullshit argument and you know it. People are spending money on what they want to spend it on. If they're not spending it on football tickets, they're not about to start spending it on saving lives. They're going to buy something else fun.


What I mean is...

Instead of a man being paid £25 million, he is paid £1 million and the rest is transferred to the state to spend.

Or in othe words, Manchester United make 'y' amount per year, and can only pay 'x' while 'y - x' goes to the government. Like that, but across all high paying industry.


How would that work?! If the company paying him knows that 24 of that 25m are going to the state, they wouldn't pay him 25! They'd pay him 1m and keep the rest for themselves! We need more taxes for higher earners, not a pay cap.


Example: (Let's imagine)

Manchester United make £500 million per year, they spend £400 million.

*A wage cap is brought in*

Manchester United make £500 million per year, they now spend £200 million. The money 'saved', through taxation, increases money going to the state.

So maybe in the short term Manchester United loses out, more teams can afford capped rate players. Sucks for them. Money will be more evenly distributed, anyone can win the league and more money goes to the government in the medium to long term.

MCN wrote:
What strawberry floating right does the state have to take that money from him? What if the Government told you you didn't need to earn more than £65 per week (the current rate of Jobseekers Allowance for over-25s), and that you should hand over any money that you earn over that?


Well if the government decided that you couldn't do anything about it, could you? Difference being we're talking about a man being deprived of food on one end, and a yacht on the other.

We'll never agree, me and Lagamorph are going to go set up a better state ourselves, albeit with shitter football teams. C'mon Laga. 8-)



The Laffer curve just exploded.

_________________
http://www.phantomgoal.com

Football Betting Analysis and other related topics.

#boycottSeanPenn


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 19, 2012 1:59 pm 
Member
User avatar

AKA: Somebody Else's Problem
Lucien wrote:
Well if the government decided that you couldn't do anything about it, could you? Difference being we're talking about a man being deprived of food on one end,


Trust me, it's perfectly possible to surivie on £65 per week. All you're getting deprived of is luxuries like video games, or TV license.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 19, 2012 2:00 pm 
Member
aaronayl1 wrote:
Lucien wrote:
Somebody Else's Problem wrote:
Lucien wrote:
Let's downsize that massive boat a footballer could have got, to a small boat, and use the money on... saving lifes?


That's a bullshit argument and you know it. People are spending money on what they want to spend it on. If they're not spending it on football tickets, they're not about to start spending it on saving lives. They're going to buy something else fun.


What I mean is...

Instead of a man being paid £25 million, he is paid £1 million and the rest is transferred to the state to spend.

Or in othe words, Manchester United make 'y' amount per year, and can only pay 'x' while 'y - x' goes to the government. Like that, but across all high paying industry.


How would that work?! If the company paying him knows that 24 of that 25m are going to the state, they wouldn't pay him 25! They'd pay him 1m and keep the rest for themselves! We need more taxes for higher earners, not a pay cap.


They had a similar system in the 60 -70s where the tax rate climbed to around 95% for high earns so it became difficult to earn vast fortunes . The Beatles song Taxman was about this issue.


_________________
Image
Lexus Manson - The Worst Blog on the Internet or your money back!!!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 19, 2012 2:02 pm 
Member
User avatar
I would like to see the rules about football clubs changed so that they can only spend a maximum of 50% of income on wages and 25% being allocated to the youth team.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 19, 2012 2:03 pm 
Member
User avatar
Lucien wrote:
aaronayl1 wrote:
Lucien wrote:
Somebody Else's Problem wrote:
Lucien wrote:
Let's downsize that massive boat a footballer could have got, to a small boat, and use the money on... saving lifes?


That's a bullshit argument and you know it. People are spending money on what they want to spend it on. If they're not spending it on football tickets, they're not about to start spending it on saving lives. They're going to buy something else fun.


What I mean is...

Instead of a man being paid £25 million, he is paid £1 million and the rest is transferred to the state to spend.

Or in othe words, Manchester United make 'y' amount per year, and can only pay 'x' while 'y - x' goes to the government. Like that, but across all high paying industry.


How would that work?! If the company paying him knows that 24 of that 25m are going to the state, they wouldn't pay him 25! They'd pay him 1m and keep the rest for themselves! We need more taxes for higher earners, not a pay cap.


Example: (Let's imagine)

Manchester United make £500 million per year, they spend £400 million.

*A wage cap is brought in*

Manchester United make £500 million per year, they now spend £200 million. The money 'saved', through taxation, increases money going to the state.

So maybe in the short term Manchester United loses out, more teams can afford capped rate players. Sucks for them. Money will be more evenly distributed, anyone can win the league and more money goes to the government in the medium to long term.

MCN wrote:
What strawberry floating right does the state have to take that money from him? What if the Government told you you didn't need to earn more than £65 per week (the current rate of Jobseekers Allowance for over-25s), and that you should hand over any money that you earn over that?


Well if the government decided that you couldn't do anything about it, could you? Difference being we're talking about a man being deprived of food on one end, and a yacht on the other.

We'll never agree, me and Lagamorph are going to go set up a better state ourselves, albeit with shitter football teams. C'mon Laga. 8-)


You missed my point.

Why would Manchester United keep paying this guy £500m if he won't get it?! They'd drop it down to £200m which is the max he can earn! And then they'd keep the £300m for themselves!

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 19, 2012 2:07 pm 
Member
User avatar
aaronayl1 wrote:
Why would Manchester United keep paying this guy £500m if he won't get it?! They'd drop it down to £200m which is the max he can earn! And then they'd keep the £300m for themselves!


If someone is currently getting £25 million a year, and a cap makes it so he can only be paid £1 million a year, then the football club will have a £24 million surplus.

They wouldn't get to keep it all though, it would be taxed. Don't realte this to current taxation laws, I'm talking about something new brought in that would be more beneficial for the government.


Last edited by Lucien on Sun Feb 19, 2012 2:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 19, 2012 2:08 pm 
Member
User avatar
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=25888


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 19, 2012 2:08 pm 
Moderator
User avatar
What the strawberry float has footballers wages got to do with Sean Penn being a dick about the Falklands?

_________________
Image

Skarjo's Scary Stories...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 19, 2012 2:09 pm 
Member
aaronayl1 wrote:
Lucien wrote:
aaronayl1 wrote:
Lucien wrote:
Somebody Else's Problem wrote:
Lucien wrote:
Let's downsize that massive boat a footballer could have got, to a small boat, and use the money on... saving lifes?


That's a bullshit argument and you know it. People are spending money on what they want to spend it on. If they're not spending it on football tickets, they're not about to start spending it on saving lives. They're going to buy something else fun.


What I mean is...

Instead of a man being paid £25 million, he is paid £1 million and the rest is transferred to the state to spend.

Or in othe words, Manchester United make 'y' amount per year, and can only pay 'x' while 'y - x' goes to the government. Like that, but across all high paying industry.


How would that work?! If the company paying him knows that 24 of that 25m are going to the state, they wouldn't pay him 25! They'd pay him 1m and keep the rest for themselves! We need more taxes for higher earners, not a pay cap.


Example: (Let's imagine)

Manchester United make £500 million per year, they spend £400 million.

*A wage cap is brought in*

Manchester United make £500 million per year, they now spend £200 million. The money 'saved', through taxation, increases money going to the state.

So maybe in the short term Manchester United loses out, more teams can afford capped rate players. Sucks for them. Money will be more evenly distributed, anyone can win the league and more money goes to the government in the medium to long term.

MCN wrote:
What strawberry floating right does the state have to take that money from him? What if the Government told you you didn't need to earn more than £65 per week (the current rate of Jobseekers Allowance for over-25s), and that you should hand over any money that you earn over that?


Well if the government decided that you couldn't do anything about it, could you? Difference being we're talking about a man being deprived of food on one end, and a yacht on the other.

We'll never agree, me and Lagamorph are going to go set up a better state ourselves, albeit with shitter football teams. C'mon Laga. 8-)


You missed my point.

Why would Manchester United keep paying this guy £500m if he won't get it?! They'd drop it down to £200m which is the max he can earn! And then they'd keep the £300m for themselves!


Football works on inflated prices wealth business men pump in large amounts of cash knowing they won't make any ROI. Look at Chelsea or Man City there is no way there income covers the cost of running those teams. The majority of teams in the football league run at loses and those that have zero debt often have been paid off by sugar daddies. So Man Utd would pay the money because otherwise the players would go else where and if they do will be less competitiveness and then will lose revenue steams by dropping out of competitions and losing supporters.

_________________
Image
Lexus Manson - The Worst Blog on the Internet or your money back!!!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 19, 2012 2:10 pm 
Member
Skarjo wrote:
What the strawberry float has footballers wages got to do with Sean Penn being a dick about the Falklands?


He's paid too much and so are footballers although people seem to be more concerned about footballers pay rather than actors or musicians.

_________________
Image
Lexus Manson - The Worst Blog on the Internet or your money back!!!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 19, 2012 2:11 pm 
Member
User avatar
Skarjo wrote:
What the strawberry float has footballers wages got to do with Sean Penn being a dick about the Falklands?


He was just about to get onto the footballers wages problem but the interview ended :shifty: .


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 19, 2012 2:18 pm 
Member
User avatar
Somebody Else's Problem wrote:
And something about the Falklands.


Try to keep the talk on topic.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 19, 2012 2:19 pm 
Member
User avatar
Skarjo wrote:
What the strawberry float has footballers wages got to do with Sean Penn being a dick about the Falklands?

Someone brought up swapping oil rights for yet another overpaid footballer and I pointed out the oil would be more worthwhile. Obviously I was wrong and footballers are a far more valuable commodity than Oil ever has been or can ever hope to be from the looks of things.
Time to invent a car that can run by burning professional footballers. That way all our problems are solved.


In a vain last ditch effort to get the thread back on topic, we should turn around and say that Sean Penn has a point. However, he must acknowledge that if Argentina has a valid right to reclaim the Falklands, the UK has just as valid a right to reclaim the original 13 American Colonies. Pretty much the same principle really :lol:

_________________
Lagamorph's Underwater Photography Thread

Zellery wrote:
Good post Lagamorph.

Turboman wrote:
Lagomorph..... Is ..... Right


Image


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 285 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 ... 15  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Barley, Boo!, Codename 47, Cosmo, Johnny Ryall, Mockmaster, Return_of_the_STAR, Skippy and 23 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group