12/21/24
December 08, 2005
mutombo most generous athlete?: he beats out lance armstrong and thats hard to do hopefully shaq will end up on that list all he need to do is give less than 1 year of his yearly sallary. all sports players should give about 10 percent of their earnings in my opinoion
posted by barry from h-town to other at 09:28 PM - 37 comments
I agree with the 10% its biblical any. MC Hammer should have invested 10% each album. He'd still be paid right now.
posted by RZA at 10:06 PM on December 08, 2005
Have you seeen MC Hammer's church? It seats thousands, and has it's own TV and radio station. So reserve your tears; he ain't that broke. Anyone in any legitimate profession making that much money sohuld automatically have that amount taken from their salary. Unfortunately in the US our government is ass backwards; they make allowances for the rich and overtax the poor.
posted by tadley86 at 08:25 AM on December 09, 2005
So what everyone has said is that we should be a Communist Society. No matter what you do or what you get paid, you should give to those less fortunate and equal out the pay all around. I believe that this has been tried in the past (see Soviet Union). Get your head out of your asses. I believe in giving to charity, but Anyone in any legitimate profession making that much money sohuld automatically have that amount taken from their salary. you have got to be shitting me!
posted by grabofsky74 at 08:41 AM on December 09, 2005
grabofsky - did you just call a charity challenge a Communist device? Dude, whether or not mandatory charity gifts are good are not is one thing - Your understanding of what communisim is and what the Soviet Union was is another. You're so wrong I don't even know where to start. It would help to even look up an encyclopedia entry on the Soviet Union you're so far away from it.
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 08:52 AM on December 09, 2005
Mutombo is a class act, plain and simple. He does what he does because it needs to be done not for any kind of attention he might get. grabofsky74 Don't you think that people who are better off in life, with more money than anyone could realistically spend in a lifetime, have a more of a responsability to give back to their communities? Sadly most people (wealthy or not) are scum and should be forced to tithe (I believe that is the biblical word for it) maybe we'd all be a little better off with some "forced' charity.
posted by HATER 187 at 09:06 AM on December 09, 2005
communism 2 entries found for communism. To select an entry, click on it. communismCommunism Peak Main Entry: com·mu·nism Pronunciation: 'käm-y&-"ni-z&m Function: noun Etymology: French communisme, from commun common 1 a : a theory advocating elimination of private property b : a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed 2 capitalized a : a doctrine based on revolutionary Marxian socialism and Marxism-Leninism that was the official ideology of the U.S.S.R. b : a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production c : a final stage of society in Marxist theory in which the state has withered away and economic goods are distributed equitably d : communist systems collectively Here is what Websters has to say about Communism. Although I do believe that those who earn more in a half year than most do in a lifetime, should give back to those less fortunate. I do not believe that it should be a mandated policy. Correct me if I am wrong Weedy (I am sure you will), but in a pure Communistic Society everything is "community" property and there are no rich and there are no poor. If someone was to enact a mandatory charity this is just heading into the direction of communism. I understand that the Soviet Union was not a pure communist society and was more of a socialist society.
posted by grabofsky74 at 09:22 AM on December 09, 2005
All sports players should give about 10 percent of their earnings in my opinoion. The majority of professional athletes do not have multi-million dollar, or even multi-year, contracts. The only reason professional athletes can leverage ownership into the contracts that they *do* get is because middle america pays out the nose to see them perform. You can't complain about an athlete's contract when you watch their games, buy their merchandise, and otherwise support the system. Professional athletes have absolutely zero obligation to donate part of their income to charity. A bunch still do, and that's great. But let's not forget what kind of people we're talking about, and why they have the money that they do. HATER187: You do realize that a society in which wealth is forcibly restributed from the wealthy to the poor encourages people to prove how poorly off they are, and not well off. I don't want to be part of a society where everyone is in a rush to prove how shitty life is for them. Rather than encouraging human improvement (developing good work habits, getting an education), it encourages the opposite. Getting an education would mean I have more opportunities than others, therefore more can be demanded of me by those "less-fortunate". Under this sytem, we're all doing our best to turn ourselves into illiterate cripples, so we can freeload the system on the backs of the suckers who actually work. See Ray Bradbury, Ayn Rand, or Kurt Vonnegut Jr. for more information (just to name a few).
posted by chmurray at 09:36 AM on December 09, 2005
I just wonder how many of you sports post heads are actually able to let go of 10%? Charity is a matter of the heart. Unfortunately it is now also a matter of marketing, i.e. the latest NBA campaign. But that's fine, at least making a donation is still voluntary. If it was forced, it wouldn't be called charity anymore, it would be called a tax. Congrats to guys like Mutombo and Lance. Their generosity proves that even sports jocks can sometimes see beyond themselves. I doubt either of them craves a pat on the back for what they are doing.
posted by old school at 09:43 AM on December 09, 2005
grabofsky74, there are no doubt some good articles on communism, socialism, theory and practice on wikipedia. Maybe it would be good to read in depth rather than relying on a dictionary definition. There are always problems with trying to implement theoretical economic systems in real live societies, no matter what the theory is. The problem that we have in capitalist societies is that great riches are often obtained at others' expense, and often by exploiting a resource that the exploiter did not create, cannot replace, and/or that by any reasonable definition belongs to the people as a whole (forests, rivers, petroleum, rights of way, etc.). If we could rely on the rich to honestly assess just how much of their weath they really created with their own efforts and resources, and to give back what they gained by the efforts of their workers or took from the larger community...well, nobody would have ever proposed communism.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 09:45 AM on December 09, 2005
Tom's Tips for Life #71,913: anyone suggesting you consult Ayn Raynd for more info is about to hit you in the head.
posted by yerfatma at 10:37 AM on December 09, 2005
Just because I went there doesn't mean I'm an advocate :) besides I can't be held accountable for having fun when we're discussing communism on Sportsfilter...
posted by chmurray at 11:44 AM on December 09, 2005
grabofsky74 is addressing a point she created out of whole cloth, certainly not what tadley86 pointed out: Unfortunately in the US our government is ass backwards; they make allowances for the rich and overtax the poor. Righting these wrongs would not be communism, or authoritarianism (there seems to be a lot of confusing and conflating of terms going on here; I'll try not to add to it), but something closer to the free-market ideal that I bet grabofsky7 hopes for in her heart of hearts. See, taxes are automatically taken out of salaries, and the problem here is that less tax is paid by the rich than the poor. We ain't talking about equal distribution to everyone; we're talking about equitable taxes to pay for programs that, because of our fucked-up tax scheme, are covered by charity, which is yet another tax dodge for a lot of richies. I'm not sure grabofsy79 knows much about this; I doubt she cares, because her admiration for the wealthy (who knows, maybe she's wealthy herself) probably takes the place of sense and feeling. Poor girl.
posted by Hugh Janus at 11:49 AM on December 09, 2005
ok look the rich pay a higher % of tax than the poor. most are at 45-50% and most of the poor is 25-40%. I am in favor of a flat rate but expecting the rich to pay more is a crock of sh$# and is a step toward communism and if you don't see that you are blind. just because you are rich you are under no obligation to help the poor. should you...yes, but it should not be a requirment. I know people that refuse to work because "they are just fine on hand-outs and don't understand why people want to work so hard" there is how you build a society, which is one of the reasons communism failed, you spread out the wealth and possions and why work? there's the rub. I tip my hat to those that donate not just money but also time. BUT MAKING IT A REQUIRMENT IS BULL SPIT.
posted by sgann22 at 04:58 PM on December 09, 2005
just because you are rich you are under no obligation to help the poor. Even if you got rich by making them poor? Even if you got your executive bonus because you "downsized" a bunch of people and shipped your industry to India? I know people that refuse to work because "they are just fine on hand-outs and don't understand why people want to work so hard" there is how you build a society, which is one of the reasons communism failed, you spread out the wealth and possions and why work? there's the rub. What you know about communism would fit in an ant's tooth and leave room for what you know about capitalism.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 06:17 PM on December 09, 2005
amen lbb amen
posted by Fade222 at 07:19 PM on December 09, 2005
athletes and celebs should give at least 10% if not more. but the gov. should be the one to help the needy. the gov. doesn't need to spend billions every year one the military. some of that money can go to schools and th homeless and poor countries. but don't get me wrong; i'm not a tree-hugging hippie. we should still give a lot of our tax dollars to the military because if the US's army is suddenly smaller, a lot of countries are going to try to kick our ass. but to wrap up, the gov. shouldn't leave all the charity work to the rich.
posted by nort_12345 at 07:42 PM on December 09, 2005
lbb- you make it sound like it is evil to be rich, that wealthy people didn't gain their wealth in an honest fashion and by working hard. What of those entrepreneurs who started with nothing and end up doing very well for themselves. But by making it that means their competition didn't. Would you hold that against them? For every success there are at least 10 failures but I would not fault the one for succeeding. To succeed in business means someone else won't, whether you step on them, over them or around them. You just hope you are the one doing the stepping. Also, I used to work in the financial services industry and dealt with wealthy people every day. For the most part, they were very generous, down to earth and likable. Sure there were also some real assholes, but you find that in every segment of society. These wealthy people donated, time, money, services, etc. Not just for the tax break they were receiving either, because they truly wanted to give back. We all hear of the dirty rotten SOBs who cook books and ruin people's lives (Enron, Arthur Andersen to name a few), but I honestly believe that they only represent the smallest fraction overall of wealthy individuals, entities, corporations, etc. Should wealthy people be charitable? Absolutely. Should they be mandated to give up their money for however noble a cause? Absolutely not. They are the ones that have to live with themselves.
posted by willthrill72 at 08:09 PM on December 09, 2005
anyone suggesting you consult Ayn Raynd for more info is about to hit you in the head Sprayed coffee and keyboards do not mix.
posted by owlhouse at 09:57 PM on December 09, 2005
First off Hugh Janis, I am a man not a woman. Second as you were already informed there are different income levels when it comes to taxes. Here is a saying that works well "The more you make, the more they take.". The poor do not get taxed more and the rich less. Being able to deduct certain things is not what makes you "rich". It is not dedeucting those things that make you stupid! LBB- Although I respect most things that you say, I think that sometimes you are talking out your ass. It appears to me that throughout this whole topic, you are mad at anyone who might have money, and then question the way that they might have gotten it. Just because a person falls into $ or even works their ass off to get it, it is their $. Right place right time. People should stop looking for handouts and actually do something for themselves.
posted by grabofsky74 at 11:59 AM on December 10, 2005
If any of you haven't given your 10% to the poor and needy yet, let me know and I'll forward my address.
posted by drevl at 12:49 PM on December 10, 2005
This may or may not be relevent but I read that the amount of taxes that fortune 500 companies pay has DECREASED by about 4x since the 50's. This is as a percentage but still an interesting stat I think.
posted by Fade222 at 07:01 PM on December 10, 2005
LBB- Although I respect most things that you say, I think that sometimes you are talking out your ass. At least I know what a regressive tax is. Just because a person falls into $ or even works their ass off to get it, it is their $. Is it equally theirs if they got it through exploitation?
posted by lil_brown_bat at 08:40 PM on December 10, 2005
This may or may not be relevent but I read that the amount of taxes that fortune 500 companies pay has DECREASED by about 4x since the 50's. This is as a percentage but still an interesting stat I think. Another fun fact: In 1980, the ratio of the average CEO's compensation to the average worker's pay in that CEO's company was 42 to 1. In 2003, the ratio was 301 to 1.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 08:47 PM on December 10, 2005
lbb so be a ceo. the compaines are there to make money, most of the poor people I know are content. If they are content then they cannot fix thier situation. ant's tooth my a$$, if you take everyone's salary and divide it by all the workers and spread it out, then you lose the reason to work in the first place. another fun fact: spitting out "facts" without links or proof don't make them real. I think the average worker is better off today then even 20 years ago, more people have stuff, but you cannot punish someone because they are rich. that is stupid, it doesn't matter how they got there money, you can not force anyone to give donations.
posted by sgann22 at 09:20 AM on December 12, 2005
I think the average worker is better off today then even 20 years ago, more people have stuff, but you cannot punish someone because they are rich. that is stupid, it doesn't matter how they got there money, you can not force anyone to give donations Ah, the Republican tax policy! A recent survey found out why there is such opposition to taxing high earners. When the Democrats (a few years ago) wanted to increase the rate of tax for the top one per cent of earners, it was howled down in protest. Apparently more than 19 per cent of wage earners think they are in the top one per cent. IMHO this sort of mindless and illogical reasoning helps the exploiters and tax dodgers get away with it.
posted by owlhouse at 03:24 PM on December 12, 2005
grabofsky74 - The high earners' "pay" a larger percentage tax, before all the shelters their congressional cronies built for them rein in that tax rate, sir. The poor do not have recourse to as many tax dodges, and cannot hire clever accountants, and thus pay their entire tax burden. The poor pay their whole share, the rich do not. And it's Janus: J-A-N-U-S. Pronounced "huge anus."
posted by Hugh Janus at 04:15 PM on December 12, 2005
I think the average worker is better off today then even 20 years ago, more people have stuff It certainly is true that there's a great deal of cheap consumer crap available to the average American today that wasn't around 20 years ago: plasma TVs, DVD players, Gameboys, you name it. And they're cheap, too (well, sort of). There's only one thing wrong with this picture: those things are luxuries, not necessities...and as those luxuries have become available and become cheaper in the last 20 years, so some necessities have become more expensive. Food is still affordable if you get the basics and cook it yourself, but housing is much more expensive, fuel oil is much more expensive, health care is much more expensive. How can you call a country prosperous and its average workers better off when the trend has been towards more expensive necessities? What do cheap luxuries buy you then?
posted by lil_brown_bat at 11:25 AM on December 13, 2005
I am no where near the top 1% but I believe in the american dream, if you work hard enough you can move ahead but alas that is not the point the point is IT IS STUPID TO FORCE ANYONE TO DONATE ANYTHING. It is thier choice. no debate, thats it. If you don't like a rich person's use of thier money SO? They may not like your hair style, they don't care and you don't care. Let them do as they wish with thiers and you do what you want with yours.
posted by sgann22 at 08:13 AM on December 14, 2005
I believe in the american dream Well, good for you. Keep believing. That'll help you to ignore the uncomfortable facts I noted in my comment above. Personally, I believe in the tooth fairy, but that's not gonna make a quarter materialize under my pillow.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 02:26 PM on December 14, 2005
Food is still affordable if you get the basics and cook it yourself, but housing is much more expensive, fuel oil is much more expensive, health care is much more expensive. How can you call a country prosperous and its average workers better off when the trend has been towards more expensive necessities? It's called inflation and, believe it or not, it's actually a good thing. It's a key economic indicator of a healthy economy as long as it does not grow at too rapid a rate. Historically, inflation typically grows at 2.5%-3.0% per annum. If there is no inflation, the economy stagnates and the dollar weakens. If your income does not keep up with inflation, maybe you should find a new line of work.
posted by willthrill72 at 03:47 PM on December 14, 2005
Can you point me to something that indicates why an economy would stagnate without inflation? And why would a lack of inflation weaken a currency?
posted by yerfatma at 04:42 PM on December 14, 2005
It's basic economic principle. As consumer's earnings increase, so do the costs of goods and services available to the consumer. Producers would not raise prices if the consumer can not pay for the increase. When prices of goods and services stay flat, or worse, decrease, this indicates consumer's cash flow has done likewise. Less money being pumped back into the economy, the more the economy suffers.
posted by willthrill72 at 07:38 PM on December 14, 2005
No no, not tell me your opinions on inflation, show me something that backs up your claims. A person's earnings are not correlated to the price of things they buy. Neither drives the other. In a macroeconomic sense a rise in income = a rise in general purchasing power which could drive prices up. The part about price decreases meaning people have lower cash flow meaning less money is in the economy is just plain wrong-headed. Here's a good starter.
posted by yerfatma at 07:58 PM on December 14, 2005
Producers would not raise prices if the consumer can not pay for the increase Cripes, where do I begin? Read anything about famine and poverty for a start - Amartya Sen is excellent, and no wishy washy pinko so you can't hold that against him. And please read anything on economic history including the Irish Potato Famine. You will find that ideologies like yours cause people to die. And economic growth without (or with minimal) inflation is not just possible, it has been happening in a huge number of developed economies in recent years. Increasing trade also helps growth without inflation (especially when it's fair and benefits the exporter and the importer). Read David Ricardo.
posted by owlhouse at 09:00 PM on December 14, 2005
"With deflation, the opposite occurs. Joe pays $100k at 8% with inflation of 3%. Inflation drops to 0 then goes negative to be 5% deflation. Joe finds that more than not making 3% because of inflation, he's losing 5%. Overall, his effective interest rate has shot up to 5%+8%=13%. Joe's bank loves this situation, though, since they're making 13% instead of 5%." I may have not stated it as eloquently as the Wikipedia article you directed me to, but higher interest due to deflation = lower cash flows.
posted by willthrill72 at 09:19 PM on December 14, 2005
llb the uncoftable fact is that most of the poor choose to remain poor. Ask them they are happy with thier situation. They would take a handout to be better off but not if it means working hard. They handed out cash debt cards after the hurricane what did the victims do? They bought $500-$1000 purses in Atlanta. yeah good job, the poor are addicted to more drugs and alchol than other groups. They make the same poor choices over and over and expect micrales. Who buys more lotto tickets? The poor. They need to learn to make better choices by making poor ones they are chooseing to stay poor. I have worked my way from earning $2400 a year (doing teaching work at a Native American school) to now earning $40000 a year and a home owner. That is the American dream, theres your quarter, in 2 years I should be making $75000. Not rich but getting better, I don't gamble, drink or do drugs, these restrict your possiblies. Can you make it and do these things YES, but it is inspite of not because of. The disscusions started over should a rich person be forced to donate 10% of thier income and that is the crazy thing anyone who feels this way needs to look up donate or charity in a webster's.
posted by sgann22 at 07:11 AM on December 15, 2005
b from h, all of us should give about 10%. Athletes and other overpaid stars should give considerably more, but too often spend unwisely and need charity before it is all over.