The 'where are they now?' files

[Norbs]

Because the money that Bob saved also made money and that income was not taxed fairly, so Bob is wealthier than he should have been.

Bob saved so he could retire early as he had a family history of dieing young and the state don't recognise that. Bob spent his savings through his 60s while Fred saved nothing and stopped spending any money

[Catrin]

Fred and Bob earn exactly the same amount as each other but Fred spends all his income whilst Bob saves as much of his as he can. After a while, these savings make Bob wealthy. Why in this example is taxing the wealth considered the sensible thing to do?

Because the money that Bob saved also made money and that income was not taxed fairly, so Bob is wealthier than he should have been.

[Paul12]

Tax wealth not work.

Fred and Bob earn exactly the same amount as each other but Fred spends all his income whilst Bob saves as much of his as he can. After a while, these savings make Bob wealthy. Why in this example is taxing the wealth considered the sensible thing to do?

[fidget]

Tax wealth not work.

If the super rich can't afford to pay more taxes on their wealth maybe they should learn to live within their means like they're so fond of getting their proxies to tell the rest of us. That cunt Simon Jordan bangs on non stop about how footballers get paid too much while he chums around with cunts like Richard Tice who wreck the country for profit.

[Tatterdemalion]

Sure. It’s of course depending on your perspective of what is good for society.

I don’t think it is an optimal outcome for a society (not the optimal allocation of resources for social good)when you end up paying people to kick a ball around to the degree that they get in a week what an essential worker like a nurse gets in a year.

I don’t think it’s optimal in the context of many countries struggling healthcare systems or in many cases stagnant real wages for many public roles that are actually more important to how society’s function.

I think it would be better if it were the other way around but even if it wouldn’t be, the extreme disparity in earnings between premier league players and the average person is pretty gross.

You can say but it’s what the market decides which may be the “optimal outcome” from an economic perspective but that’s not always the same thing as maximising social good.

I do love what you are saying, but when it comes to optimality the sad point is that there are lots of nurses - who have few other options than working for the NHS - and few footballers with real talent who have the option of signing for a number of clubs. The net result is that nurses have little bargaining power individually (which is why unions are needed, for those of you who doubt), whereas players with talent have lots of bargaining power because their talent is rare and they have a number of suitors. Unfortunately within that calculus, what society needs is secondary. Not saying it's right, just the way it works.

[Corndog]

Possibly… probably sub-optimal…. but what’s the alternative?

Should society just let Corndog decide what he thinks is important? Corndog could write down how much he thinks goods and services should cost according to his value system and then we’ll all just follow that? Would that be better? No unforeseen circumstances under that scenario?

Well in 2025, we don’t really have a good proven alternative to capitalism at scale but perhaps in the future we will.

Obviously autocracies and planned economies don’t work well for everyone and tend to be worse, but that’s all besides my original point which was simply pointing out how ridiculous the outcome is.

[Corndog]

Players generate revenue through ticket sales, merch, prize money, tv revenues etc etc etc and they should be paid accordingly. As daft as it is to be paid that much for kicking a ball they're actually being paid for the money they bring in to the club, not their value to society.
What I do begrudge is the fees paid to agents by clubs. I also wished that more of the money generated at the top of the game filtered down to grassroots. Unfortunately it just provides further proof of how trickle down economics is a load of bollocks.

Of course, that’s all true but it’s still a ridiculous outcome.

[Patricks_Berger]

The rise in transfer costs for premier league clubs has far outpaced general inflation though, all because of the TV revenues.

It’s a great example of how market forces in a capitalist society can produce sub optimal outcomes for society.

Possibly… probably sub-optimal…. but what’s the alternative?

Should society just let Corndog decide what he thinks is important? Corndog could write down how much he thinks goods and services should cost according to his value system and then we’ll all just follow that? Would that be better? No unforeseen circumstances under that scenario?

[Catrin]

Players generate revenue through ticket sales, merch, prize money, tv revenues etc etc etc and they should be paid accordingly. As daft as it is to be paid that much for kicking a ball they're actually being paid for the money they bring in to the club, not their value to society.
What I do begrudge is the fees paid to agents by clubs. I also wished that more of the money generated at the top of the game filtered down to grassroots. Unfortunately it just provides further proof of how trickle down economics is a load of bollocks.

[Corndog]

Could you help me please understand your point... More people want to watch football on TV so TV companies' revenue from football increases, meaning they are willing to pay more to leagues/clubs to show that football. The clubs hand more of that increased TV money over to other clubs and to players for the same quality players. Which is the outcome that is suboptimal for society?

Sure. It’s of course depending on your perspective of what is good for society.

I don’t think it is an optimal outcome for a society (not the optimal allocation of resources for social good)when you end up paying people to kick a ball around to the degree that they get in a week what an essential worker like a nurse gets in a year.

I don’t think it’s optimal in the context of many countries struggling healthcare systems or in many cases stagnant real wages for many public roles that are actually more important to how society’s function.

I think it would be better if it were the other way around but even if it wouldn’t be, the extreme disparity in earnings between premier league players and the average person is pretty gross.

You can say but it’s what the market decides which may be the “optimal outcome” from an economic perspective but that’s not always the same thing as maximising social good.

[Paul12]

..It’s a great example of how market forces in a capitalist society can produce sub optimal outcomes for society.

Could you help me please understand your point... More people want to watch football on TV so TV companies' revenue from football increases, meaning they are willing to pay more to leagues/clubs to show that football. The clubs hand more of that increased TV money over to other clubs and to players for the same quality players. Which is the outcome that is suboptimal for society?

[Charly]

Crash, bang, wallop are the sounds of misery when the deck of cards that TV Money is based on come tumbling down.

That money isnt going to get smaller, imho.

As soon as it does, they just cut out the middleman. Who needs sky?

[Angryred]

The rise in transfer costs for premier league clubs has far outpaced general inflation though, all because of the TV revenues.

It’s a great example of how market forces in a capitalist society can produce sub optimal outcomes for society.

Crash, bang, wallop are the sounds of misery when the deck of cards that TV Money is based on come tumbling down.

[Yozza]

Besiktas have terminated the contract of Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain...

[Corndog]

Ridiculous how inflation has gotten!!

The rise in transfer costs for premier league clubs has far outpaced general inflation though, all because of the TV revenues.

It’s a great example of how market forces in a capitalist society can produce sub optimal outcomes for society.