£300k per week

[272BHP]

Far too much money, but only because Rooney personally is not worth it. Rooney was always going to fade quite quickly as a player and he is reaching that point now. He is working real hard this season and playing really well but his genetics will catch up with him soon enough. Ferguson knew that Rooney could extend his position at the top level by a couple of seasons if he buckled down with his training and diet and he looks to have taken notice of the advice but for how long?

We will find out about Rooney at the World Cup this summer. At the last 2 major championships he went off on holiday for a few weeks and turned up at England HQ overweight, slow and out of shape, even admitting never lacing up his trainers once post season.

At least with a Ronaldo, Bale or Van Persie you know you are paying silly wages for a perfect professional and athlete; with Rooney you let him out of your sight for 5 minutes and he is stuffing donuts into his gob.

[Adam B]

Chrisgr31 said:

Personally I think its an obscene amount of money to pay anyone whether they are a footballer, banker or whatever. Its also morally wrong that he will then seek to minimise his tax bill. I know its not his fault and its a commercial decision by the club etc, and that it is capitalism at work but it shows exactly what is wrong with capitalism. Indeed its strange because everyone I have known on benefits has Sky and here they are effectively paying these salaries.

I don't agree on the availability of tax loopholes, but find someone on benefits being able to afford Sky is more obscene than his wages, exactly what is wrong with socialism in UK.

Petrolhead95 said:

Wayne earns 720,000% more than me, but only gets taxed 20% more than me. It does sound weird when you put it like that

It sounds weird when you abuse statistics so badly
Leaving aside you dodgy maths (unless you really do earn £42 per week)....
Try comparing apples with apples and it will be a lot less distorted, ie compare his absolute salary and his absolute tax bill, not his absolute salary and % tax rate

CHN said:

Why is 30% ok for those of us on normal salaries, but 50% for someone on a huge amount is not? Where do you draw the line? I'm of the opinion that the more you benefit from what this country offers you, the more you give back.

There is no 30% tax rate, zero then 20, 40 and 45%. Personally I think 40% should be the cap and we should kill the 45% for precisely the reason you mention (although you have it completely wrong IMHO). People earning higher salaries draw the least benefit from the country - they rarely commit crime, they get paid no benefits, they don't use the NHS as much, and they don't use state schools. Cap at 40% and remove a lot of the worst loopholes! like offshore companies.

Edited by Adam B on Sunday 23 February 12:23

[CHN]

Adam B said:

There is no 30% tax rate, zero then 20, 40 and 45%. Personally I think 40% should be the cap and we should kill the 45% for precisely the reason you mention (although you have it completely wrong IMHO). People earning higher salaries draw the least benefit from the country - they rarely commit crime, they get paid no benefits, they don't use the NHS as much, and they don't use state schools. Cap at 40% and remove a lot of the worst loopholes! like offshore companies.

Edited by Adam B on Sunday 23 February 12:23

I disagree completely, to me the financial benefits that they receive from everything they've achieved through living in this country of ours means that they should contribute at a higher rate, but its all opinions and we obviously differ. Everything you highlight there as a reason why they shouldn't contribute at a higher rate can be completely turned around to argue why the highest earners should actually contribute more not less.

I do agree about the tax loopholes though.

[Adam B]

CHN said:

I disagree completely, to me the financial benefits that they receive from everything they've achieved through living in this country of ours means that they should contribute at a higher rate, but its all opinions and we obviously differ. Everything you highlight there as a reason why they shouldn't contribute at a higher rate can be completely turned around to argue why the highest earners should actually contribute more not less.

I do agree about the tax loopholes though.

But they do contribute at a higher rate because we have a progressive tax system - they pay 45%, they get no tax free allowance, people who earn less pay a lower % and get the allowance, plus child benefit etc. And that is talking %s, they also pay a hell of a lot more when talking £s.

So they do contribute more. Why do you think they don't?

I agree with having our progressive tax system, I also agree with funding health, education etc etc.

Your point I was addressing which you now seem to be sidestepping was "I'm of the opinion that the more you benefit from what this country offers you, the more you give back". I was pointing out that wealthy do not draw anything like as much on government expenditure, ie they benefit less. They benefit equally living in a free state, freedom of speech, decent legal system, strong defences etc as a poorer person. Because someone earns more you think they have benefited more from this, I tend to think they have worked harder or applied themselves better or made better use of that opportunity.

Anyway I fear we digress, back to overpaid granny shaggers......

Edited by Adam B on Sunday 23 February 21:16

[CHN]

Adam B said:

But they do contribute at a higher rate because we have a progressive tax system - they pay 45%, they get no tax free allowance, people who earn less pay a lower % and get the allowance, plus child benefit etc. And that is talking %s, they also pay a hell of a lot more when talking £s.

So they do contribute more. Why do you think they don't?

I agree with having our progressive tax system, I also agree with funding health, education etc etc.

Your point I was addressing which you now seem to be sidestepping was "I'm of the opinion that the more you benefit from what this country offers you, the more you give back". I was pointing out that wealthy do not draw anything like as much on government expenditure, ie they benefit less. They benefit equally living in a free state, freedom of speech, decent legal system, strong defences etc as a poorer person. Because someone earns more you think they have benefited more from this, I tend to think they have worked harder or applied themselves better or made better use of that opportunity.

Anyway I fear we digress, back to overpaid granny shaggers......

Edited by Adam B on Sunday 23 February 21:16

I'm not sidestepping it in the slightest, trying to do several things at the same time and simply stating my point without it digressing further from the topic at hand. However, my point being that the poorer classes commit more crime due in part to poorer education, less opportunity and low incomes, they use the NHS more because of poorer diets as a result of low incomes. We're all benefiting from what this country has offered us, but the wealthiest are obviously benefiting far more and should contribute at a higher rate, IMO. I'm not sure where we need to draw the cap on tax and what would be considered fair though, but I really do think its needs a change, especially for those at the very top.

Anyway, as I said originally, fair play to Wayne, good on him.

[northwest monkey]

Adam B said:

But they do contribute at a higher rate because we have a progressive tax system - they pay 45%, they get no tax free allowance, people who earn less pay a lower % and get the allowance, plus child benefit etc. And that is talking %s, they also pay a hell of a lot more when talking £s.

So they do contribute more. Why do you think they don't?

Also worth mentioning that chaps earning megabucks don't tend to be shy with the cash. £10m for a new house - plenty of stamp duty. Fleet of new cars - lots of VAT there as they probably won't be active participants in the "Barge Bargains £1k - £5k" thread. Wife sees a new £100k kitchen in Cheshire Life to go in the new house - money spent with UK businesses etc etc.

Directly or indirectly, they'll pay a fair amount in tax.