State planned economies make everybody worse off. I would prefer a society where top people earn 10,000 and bottom 100 to one where the top earn 60 and the bottom 50. More equal but worse off. Rooney will pay tax at 40% on his income so that gives £6m to the exchequer - better there than sitting in Manchester United's bloated coffers. Income DOES trickle down inevitably. The wealthy buy form those less wealthy and so on. It may not be a substitute for socialsm but who says it is? Capitalism has raised the prosperity of people in this country massively. To compare us to people even a century ago you must see that today's poor are yesterday's better off. If poverty were measured in real terms rather than as a statistical nonsense there would be very few people in poverty in this country. Whenever I see people interviewed as living in poverty I often see nicely manicured nails, Fresh hair do's, mobile phones, huge flat screen TVs and the rest. Yesterday someone supposedly dependant on food handouts was shown bewailing her fate - yet she possessed 3 pedigree cats !! I deliberately overstate my case and in reality appreciate that matters are more complicated than I argue - but people really need to look a little closer and see to what extent they have a responsibility for themselves rather than a "right" to benefits. One final point - yesterday they pointed out that since Poland threw off the shackles of Communism and joined the EU their economy which had been on a par with the Ukraine was now double it. I would wager a large bet that most of the population of Poland have shared to a greater or lesser extent in that growth of prosperity. Capitalism Is not evil - it is probably the greatest force for good the world has ever known. Far more so than the churches that ponitificate and lecture us about poverty while retaining vast wealth and supporting warfare and hatred.
I do not think you will find one serious economist who still believes in this 'trickle down' theory ie. that if you allow the rich to become richer it will in some way benefit society as a whole. The wealth of the super rich does not improve the economy but tends to become amassed and sheltered in tax havens - therefore having a negative effect upon the tax bases of home economies. It makes more sense economically to allow the base of the society to become richer - this money then radiating upwards to all stratas of that society. This is why leading economists in Germany are advocating the idea of a 'basic, unconditional wage for all citizens, irrespective of employment`. Your ideas regarding Poland throwing off the shackles of Communism ? I can only say that when I first went to East Germany (during the Communist period, and also just after the collapse) I saw not homelessness, and no soup kitchens, things which you see in abundance in America.
I think, Harry, you have completely misread what I said. I don't advocate planned economies. Nor do I say capitalism is evil...after all I Choose to live in a capitalist country. Nor do I compare conditions now with previous centuries. What I do say is that if the trickle down theory was right we would be seeing less inequality not the growing wage gap we are now experiencing. It's an idea supported by few serious analysts. I also insist than it is misleading to suggest capitalism is force for good. It is driven by people whose prime concern is making money for themselves. It could be a force for good if the people driving it were more concerned for the general good rather than their own acquisition of more possessions.
It is a simple fact that money does trickle down. I never said that ALONE it benefits society - merely that it is not always the evil it is portrayed because it does get spent. Whether Wayne Rooney earns £15m or ten players each earn £1.5m the effects will not be dissimilar. I support capitalism to create wealth. It is then for sensible people to create laws that ensure tax is paid and not avoided. I would favour a higher minimum wage - the suggested "living wage" strikes me as a good thing. I would increase the tax threshold to take more people who earn money out of the tax net and have more lower bands of taxation to encourage people to find and keep jobs where they feel better off than on benefits. I would not make benefits an automatic right though but something that few people should need to access - the old idea of a safety net. It is not the fact that trickle down does not happen - it is that alone it does not eliminate inequality. That is for society to achieve and you cannot do that by driving money abroad and into tax havens. People will pay fair taxes but will pay to avoid unfair ones. I do not suggest that capitalism is good due to good motives. It just happens to appeal to human nature and greed which creates wealth - certain other systems destroy wealth. You have to bake a cake to share it out. Capitalism helps bake that cake. I do not think public ownership per se helps - I do accept it is acceptable for some industries.
I am not sure where you get your calculations from here ! 10 people earning 1.5 million each represents 10 people with spending power, 10 houses needing work on them, 10 cars needing to be built etc. which in turn creates more knock on effects than if one person earns 15 million.
Interesting - I believe that a Citizens' Basic Income has been part of the Green Party policy for some time now. The Swiss are due to have a referendum on the subject some time this year - and there was an EU wide petition recently submitted for exactly the same thing. It was also a topic under discussion up here early last year, but I don't know what, if anything, ever came of it.
While looking at minimum wages around the world I came across this for Germany. None; except for construction workers, electrical workers, janitors, roofers, painters, and letter carriers. Minimum wage is often set by collective bargaining agreements in other sectors of the economy and enforceable by law. The law states that paying a worker an "immoral wage" is illegal. There is no general consensus what constitutes "immoral" payment. One judge at a court in Krefeld, Germany, ruled that a cashier at a supermarket has to earn the equivalent of approximately 7USD per hour. The federal courts in Germany ruled that any wage lower than 75% of the average wage or salary for a specific occupation constitutes illegal payment. However, since there is no well defined legal minimum wage as of February 2013, courts are usually the ones who have the final say and will only rule for individual cases. No wonder that people want to change that one.
I can tell you Frenchie that about a quarter of all workers in Germany are earning less than the French minimum wage. Unfortunately they are only now waking up to the fact that German spending power has been stagnating for years and that this is bad for the rest of Europe. This supposed 'powerhouse' of Europe is so obsessed with exports (Germany exports 30% more than it imports) that it's internal spending power has been fatally neglected - hence calls for an unconditional basic wage for all citizens.
First off, a lot of posts have been made since you voiced your opinion and I responded, but I'll stick to each point in turn, okay? It is an example of capitalism in the extreme... in excess. And, in kind, before I go on, in terms of this being a football related thread I can assure you that your original post was pretty horrific. As for our late former prime minister my views on her and some of the comments following her death are well documented on these boards. I shall leave it at that. With regard to the tv companies ruining football, that is a chicken and egg question. I do not subscribe to Sky either, but nor do I pay Murdoch knowingly via his newspapers or other media activities. There is more than one factor at work here: yes tv money, but also agents fees, the Bosman ruling, employment law. Money goes only to players and the agents: we all suffer for it. Our top tier has gone exactly the same way as the Italians and the Spanish: as you rightly point out, pretty uncompetitive. There is a law of supply and demand, and no we cannot walk away from our team: the team chooses us, we do not choose the team. It is pretty much like a drug habit and it's hard to break. The point is those who have allowed this free for all (sic) in the first place can be clearly identified: Bosman and the ruling judges for allowing players to get away with pretty much anything they want; and a certain former prime minister who opened up the airwaves (bound to happen sometime I suppose anyway, that is the way of things) even famously crying on tv when it cost her own daughter her own blossoming CRT career. We are reaping from the seeds that were sown. Our wealth is WHOLLY relevant. We are the ones paying for it. Don't misunderstand, I do not begrudge the players earning a decent crust for what is a relatively short and fairly insecure career (though, that's how it should be but we hear regularly of players on silly money who can't be sacked because their performances or otherwise merit such action... what do you do, hold a gun to a player's head and say "your performances are rubbish and you are gonna sign a new contract for 1/4 of the money and play in the Conference South as you ought to be"?) but I do begrudge them being paid more in a month than I could happily retire on just for playing. Yeah, if you sell a gazillion pairs of underpants or whatever, then good luck to you - that's underpants money not football money. Fine, if he sells shirts, give the player a percentage, fair dibs. But when a players salary exceeds the income he is likely to generate for the club then something needs to be done. We all cut our cloth accordingly, or pay the consequences. I am perfectly happy to tax the top 5% to give those lower down the a greater share of the wealth. Earn more, contribute more but not so much as it makes it not worth while to earn that much more in the process... there is a limit. It's not hard, not from an armchair anyway - a bit like football. We are bloody lucky to live where we live but there are a lot of people who struggle more than they should. My God-Daughters mother struggles with three jobs and lives in what would technically be called a slum... believe me it is a rough area, better off than other parts of the world? - yes indeedy; Good enough for this country? - not even close, mate. So no, I do not blame the players but I do blame the judges and the politicians who created the conditions to allow the current scandal in football to happen. I have a season ticket, in the most expensive part of the ground, and I am entitled to complain about footballers wages in general because I contribute to them. Mrs H-F has a decent season ticket at a Premiership club, one that is prudent and renowned for living within their means and, as diametrically opposed politically as we are, this is one subject (players wages) that we agree on and she feels as strongly about as I do. So, no kneejerk reaction from me. Everything is connected, its just that the connections start a lot further back down the line than you are prepared to acknowledge.
I dont want to be a bighead but I got 7 out of a possible 10 The only one I new for certain was QPR as I had seen the design
http://www.givemesport.com/434086-s...medium=outbrain-rss&utm_campaign=outbrain-rss Stranger things have happened
I think this will be my last response on this topic on this thread as it is in the wrong place and deserves its own thread if we were to continue but I am not prepared to start one as politics is too all consuming. My original post was not horrific - you just found it horrific - personal opinion not fact. I find it horrific that people contribute to a system they seem to abhor, putting money in the hands of people they say they disagree with and then blame judges, politicians and everyone else - but themselves. Again that is just an opinion. A few years ago I gave up my season ticket in the Upper Rous as I did not like the way football was going. I cannot walk away from the Hornets entirely but I choose my games more carefully and do not buy additional merchandise - a small protest and not one anybody will notice but it is the most I can do. Footballers wages at all levels can be criticised what is £300,000 per week as compared with £30,000 per week or £3,000 per week. None are really justifiable if you want to look at the benefit to society as a whole - they are not putting out fires, educating our children, reducing violence in our streets or healing us. However if we as a society want to fawn over pop stars and sportsmen and film stars then so be it. Nobody puts a gun to our heads so people get paid what society deems them worth by what they will pay for a product. Anyone who doesnot like that needs to either campaign for change or go and find a country that pays on a level that the service "deserves". Good luck to anyone trying to find that place. I actually stand by my original comment. Capitalism is good. It creates wealth and it comes with excesses. My first post was to contradict another which suggested that Rooney's pay settlement was an area where capitalism lets itself down. I could not disagree more - as I say it is a brilliant example of capitalism at work. Supply and demand and the market setting the price/value. What I have never said is that I think capitalism should be unrestrained. Let Rooney earn as much as he and his agents can get - every other footballer, film star etc does the same. So do teachers, policemen and engineers. It is just a shame for them that their skills are more common and can be replicated by enough people for them not to be able to demand stratospheric wages. The trick comes in creating a tax system that prevents people hiding away their money and demands a level of tax appropriate to those earnings - WITHOUT killing the goose that lays the golden eggs. We are poles apart on what we believe but again that is good as without different opinions and debate we would be in a totalitarian society where some dictator decided what is best for us.
Speaking of horrific - I just spotted this on twitter - I sincerely hope that we never become successful if this is what it means...
If someone has already paid for a season ticket, you'd have thought it was illegal to remove part of the product you've paid for at a later date. I'd certainly stop going if anyone tried to pull something like that on my season ticket - not to mention addressing a loyal supporter in such a curt manner.
Will this if successful remove the Eustace type player from the field? http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-26355985
