Like there is for the energy industry or other professional industries (think monopolies commision). Sports stars and Celebrities just earn too much. The revenue should be redirected elsewhere in the country or world.
2006-09-24 22:58:01 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous in Entertainment & Music ➔ Celebrities
Why? Because celebrities dont need a 15000 square foot house, 6 cars, indoor basketball court etc. Think about if earnings were capped the extra money could be used to readicate hunger and poverty.
2006-09-24 23:01:21 · update #1
I wouldnt mind so much if sports or celebrities were actually doing something worthwhile but (for example) kicking a football or just having big **** isnt exactly world changing.
2006-09-24 23:05:41 · update #2
Its not about democracy its about a capitalist society but the overt greed and sums of money celebs get paid is getting out of proportion!
2006-09-24 23:07:09 · update #3
Over and Above the Taxman?
2006-09-24 23:12:00 · update #4
karinabjs - i have never heard so much rubbish in my life. You make an example that stars need money to fund an expensive lifestyle. What rubbish - they dont NEED to live an expensive lifestyle - it is not a NECESSITY its a LUXURY. Please dont come out with such stupid comments. and what i am talking about is not communism but merely admitting that celebs and sports stars are paid too much - i dont think anyone would disagree about that. What they get paid is complately disproportionate to what they do.
2006-09-25 08:05:20 · update #5
Their earnings ARE monitored ... by their employers or whoever pays them.
If an athlete makes tens of millions of dollars for a team, or an actress makes tens of millions for a film studio, shouldn't they be rewarded accordingly?
However, they should be taxed progressively, as should everybody else ... and yes, those taxes should be spent wisely.
There's nothing wrong with some people making lots of money legally.
However, it is a big problem when lots of people perform very important social services and do not get paid well enough. Think school teachers, health care professionals, even garbage truck crews and other people who have a hard time negotiating a fair wage. That's why all those people should have strong labor unions to bargain for them, just as celebrities have agents to represent them.
2006-09-24 22:59:50 · answer #1 · answered by Jim 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I've said this before. The people who do jobs that actually change the world for the better get paid less than the useless people (useless in the grand sceme of things) like celebrities, sports personalities etc. The people who should be paid the most are Doctors and Nurses, Engineers, Teachers etc. People who actually improve the world, and develop the future generations.
Why does a footballer get paid tens of millions of pounds a year to kick a leather ball about when a nurse who saves lives is struggling to make ends meet? It makes no sense.
2006-09-25 06:16:24 · answer #2 · answered by genghis41f 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
This is a tricky one because we are told by every tabloid how much they earn and how many homes, cars and designer dresses they have but we do not here much on how they donate there time and money to charities across the globe for projects close to there hearts. There fore it is not fair to assume they keep it all. They also have to pay tax and NI just like the rest but at a higher rate as well as tax on what they have already paid tax on as it sits in there bank accounts. The stars get paid in according to how much the public wants them. Take Tom Cruise for instance he has been taken over by Brad Pitt for highest earner in Hollywood this is partly because the whole Tom Katie thing it hit his credibility hard were as People can not get enough if the Brangalina and Jeniffer story at the moment. Unfortunately there are commissions in place for company's in the public sector and those who supply to the public because they have a service to provide which benefits us and does not steel from us. To do the same for celebrities would mean un-fair treatment and therefore the whole equality and equal rights come into play. If you don't like how much there paid don't pay to watch them.
2006-09-25 06:16:21 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No.
Earnings should only be restricted where there is a monopoly or oligopoly position (as with utilities).
Someone who can persuade millions of people to watch their movies or buy their records deserves as much money as that can generate. People who don't like it should stop buying them.
Do you think that Dyson should only be allowed to sell a limited number of the vacuum cleaners he invented, just so he doesn't get "too rich"?
If Jonathan Ross (say) earns £6m a year, then as long as he pays a couple of million in taxes, I'm happy. He's contributing as much to the treasury as 1,000 people who each pay £2k per year (ie earning about £15,000) - shouldn't we congratulate him on that?
Equality of opportunity is an important freedom. Equality of outcome is Communism - and that stifles creativity and effort, which is why it collapsed as a social system. Those who are more talented and/or work harder should be better rewarded.
2006-09-25 07:01:24 · answer #4 · answered by gvih2g2 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Definitely. It's scandalous that there are charities and people in need all over the world who are crying out for money when other people are getting hundreds of thousands more than they know what to do with for kicking a ball around a pitch, walking down a runway with clothes on and sitting around on their backsides on reality TV shows.
I know that many famous people do give a lot of their earnings to good causes, but that kind of money shouldn't be going in their back pockets in the first place for doing such pointless things. Of course, you have to work for money but in reality and fairness, cancer research and endless other organisations should be the ones getting the thousands of pounds per week if the money's out there at all and the celebs' salaries should seriously be cut down to accommodate the more important things in our world.
2006-09-25 06:35:45 · answer #5 · answered by Hotpink555 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I don't AGREE with your comments. Organizations just make what they should do. Banks, loans, invetsments are those things that are directed to help those poors. What about UN? There are 192 states contributing to, for example, African states on the global level.
Just like---I am for exampple a celebrity--- but I would not share my income with those poors. All I can do is to promote organizations, businessmen and other people who donate. U think Stars are so rich??? Their life is expensive and all their earning are directed to sustain their expensive lives. Britney Spears needs a house costing minimum 10 million dollars, otherwise she would not live at all. Because she is used to it. Poors also used to it.
I am not selfish, I am sorry for those people, but I need my bread also.This problem should not be delivered to stars, this is a global issue. National politics. Stars are pictures on the screen!!!Thats all I mean.
2006-09-25 07:58:40 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
It does seem unfair that these celebs are useless fluff and British and Irish nurses get paid peanuts, but hey life's like that in a democracy.
2006-09-25 06:04:16 · answer #7 · answered by Nobody200 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes, because a lot of them have clever accountants and don't pay the 40% tax which is due from them.
On the other hand, who pays them? Its the people who pay silly money to "celebrate" their existence.
I could go on, but I won't. I think you have done it for me!
2006-09-28 13:38:59 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes I agree,I was dicussing this yesterday when we saw a huge "cruise liner" that aparently belongs to a Manchester United footballer, it's ridiculous what they earn. People like doctors earn pocket money compared to them.
2006-09-25 06:01:47 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
No! When you become famous enough to earn a boatload of money, let's see if you still want someone else to dictate what you can keep.
You seem ignorant of the taxes these people pay.
2006-09-25 06:37:36 · answer #10 · answered by Caffeinated 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋