Thursday, July 10, 2008

Humor With Some Truth In It

Tiger Woods is on track to become the first, perhaps second, athlete to be worth a billion.

Does he deserve that money? Hell yes, he does; he makes far more than that for other people and corporations. Is it right that he deserves that money? Well, that's the foundation of a capitalistic society, isn't it? Like it or not. (Yes, teachers and doctors deserve more, but they don't get it.) So, bottom line: If you don't think Tiger deserves to be rich, you're a communist. Plain and simple.


Who faults Tiger for earning his money? Who thinks he doesn't deserve it? Who thinks that he has enough, and that the government should confiscate it for people who don't have as much?

15 comments:

Ronnie said...

I think he should be taxed at a higher rate for the betterment of our country through research and possibly infrastructure. He's actually probably the perfect example of someone who wouldn't be hurt by a higher tax rate.

M.A. said...

Why should Tiger be punished for being the best at what he does? He earns his money and should be able to do with it whatever he pleases. I'm sure he already gives plenty of money to private charities - why should he be forced to give more to the government (which would use the money much less efficiently than the private sector)?

Darren said...

From each, according to their ability....

Ronnie said...

I figured the argument of public vs. private research and charity would come up sooner. If instead of taxes people would prefer forced donations to private research groups or charities I would fully support that when a person's income is larger than they are capable of using or gaining any benefit from.

Darren said...

Liberals always think they know better than everyone else what people should do, or be required to do, with their own money.

Dr Pezz said...

Flat tax - no loop holes. At all.

Erica said...

"when a person's income is larger than they are capable of using or gaining any benefit from"

I am capable of using and directly benefiting from a great deal of money. I have several very useful plans that involve budgets of at least a few hundred million.

I would love to see you try to support your core notion that there's this magic income at which you might as well burn your money because you're not using it.

socalmike said...

1. Tiger deserves whatever he can make. He is the best at what he does, and if he can make that, good for him.
2. I agree with Dr Pezz - flat tax is the only way to be fair. No loop holes.
3. Tiger does have a non-profit - the Tiger Woods Foundation. They just opened a school in Orange County a couple of years ago.

Rhymes With Right said...

Let me say it -- I believe that Tiger Woods makes too much money for doing nothing more than playing a game. Indeed, i am morally offended by the fact that he makes so much money for what is essentially a skill with little or no social value or utility

That said, I do not believe that it is the place of the government to act to remedy that imbalance through income confiscation/redistribution schemes.

And contrary to the position of the idiot author of the article quoted, the fact that I believe that Woods is overpaid does not make me a communist. It is only if I believed that the government should be confiscating and redistributing that wealth that would make me a communist.

socalmike said...

For Rhymeswithright - so then if a brain surgeon happens to be the best in the world because he developed his skills to become the best, should he not make as much money as he can? Certainly he helps society by his skills as a surgeon, but doesn't Tiger help society, in a way, by giving people something to enjoy? What about movie stars or singers? People enjoy their talents, just as people enjoy Tiger's talents.
As a competitive golfer myself, I know how hard it is to play that "game", and his skills allow him to make all the money he can.

Ronnie said...

It comes down to diminishing marginal utility, every unit of something you get is less valuable to you than the last unit. Now there is some controversy over whether this applies directly to money, but there are at least a few theories that say it does. If one were to look at how much of one's income is spent when they make over $5 million dollars and how much is saved I think a clear picture of diminishing marginal utility of wealth would become clear. If Tiger is worth a billion, how much of that is spent on average over a number of years and how much of that is essentially saved. I assume it would be a low percentage of spending meaning he has very little use for most of his money directly and it therefore could be taxed at a higher rate than the current highest tax bracket without harming him. Again I would like to stress that such extra taxation would best be spent not in a way to redistribute wealth, but to better our country through research and stabilizing measures. If such funding from taxes was used to help provide national security through research or stabilization, Tiger also benefits greatly since he has more to lose than the average citizen.

allen (in Michigan) said...

I think it's great that Tiger Woods is about to become a billionaire. His wealth represents not only his dominance in professional golf but it also represents the free exchange that's at the heart of capitalism and upon which is built democracy.

Dismissing golf as *just* a game, and by extension all professional sports and all forms of entertainment, and using that dismissal as a rationale to limit incomes that so derive, is more damaging to a free society then any supposed, offsetting, good that would derive.

Rhymes With Right said...

Brain surgery is a skill with a great deal of social value and utility. Golf isn't. Your comparison therefore does not hold.

Darren said...

I disagree, Rhymes With Right. While I couldn't care less about golf, apparently many people do--which means that those people value it. Like art, apparently, it has great social value--or it wouldn't be as popular as it is.

Unless, of course, you want to say that golf, and other forms of entertainment, are the social equivalent of crystal meth--but I hope you won't go there intellectually.

Darren said...

Ronnie, here's why I find your views on this topic so worrisome:

"Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of
authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution
was made to guard the people against the dangers of good
intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well,
but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but
they mean to be masters." ---Daniel Webster