Re: Researcher Gets Death Threats After Revealing Shocking Findings About College Ath
Most of the states have, as their highest paid public employee job "coach". I do not follow sports, but understand one college coach in Alabama can draw as much as five million dollars a year in salary. Is a university really a non-profit
As long as those "profits" go towards either the athletic program or to academics, I would consider it a non-profit. I'm kind of shocked to see you complaining about multimillion dollar salaries though. So if this guy can create a winning team which brings in millions of dollars above the operating cost of the program (including his salary), then why shouldn't he be paid millions? And if having a winning program is what brings in the revenue, then why would any college not be willing to pay out the big bucks to hire someone who can create a winning program.
These high paid coaches typically have decades of experience and proven ability, who eat, drink and breath their profession.
Why thank you, you must also be wise because you are the first person on this forum to ever recognize that fact!
How would all income and wealth ever accumulate into the hands of the few, unless by "few" you mean those of us, roughly half, who pay the federal income tax?
Because in our capitalistic economy, income tends to pool, when there is not enough natural redistribution forces to keep it from doing so. With every dollar of wealth/income acquired, the next dollar becomes easier to acquire, mostly due to being able to afford a higher risk level, and due to an improved negotiating position.
Part of the reason that we origionally established the income tax almost 100 years ago (aside from needing revenue for the WW1 war effort), was due to the fact that income was pooling so fast that many in the wealthy/elite class has so much power, and occasionally abused this power, that we dubbed them "robber barons". but I'm confident you were already aware of that. the origional income tax was only intended to be levied on the uber rich. I have know idea how it ever came to be that today we feel that everyone should have to pay a tax because taxing income from a job, regardless of the purpose, creates an effective penality for whatever it is that we are taxing. I can't imagine why today we think that we need to penalize ordinary working class people for being productive. It's a rediculus thought.
The most "natural" way that wealth is prevented from pooling long term is by death. However, in this country we seem to have a strong dislike of the concept of the "death tax", so by accepting that financial wealth inheritance is normal, we have pretty much eliminated the strongest form of natural redistribution.
Since most taxes tend to be income regressive, the income tax needs to be highly income progressive, to balance taxation between all income classes.
Wouldn't it be far better for everyone to get the government out of our lives and watch the businesses thrive? Everyone could have a job and no one would have to have almost half of what they ear seized from them to fund massive government.
For the most part, aside from environmental regulations and some fairly modist worker protections, the federal government does stay out of the way of most businesses. State and local governments are much more intrusive. Anyhow, we have done fairly well with our particular amount of regulation, far better than most countries in the world that has less regulation. Better regulations, ya, I am all for that, but no regulations, nope, I like my water to be potable, and my air to be breathable.
I would go the other way. I would tax, at a flat rate all income up to a half million. Anything earned above that should be tax free. By that point the rich have already done way more than their fair share.
Well, if you want to decrease demand, increase income disparity, decrease the standard of living on 99% of our population, accelerate income disparity, decrease the rewards of working, and put a stop to small business growth, your suggestion is certainly the great way to do all of that!
Now all that said, the only significant deviations that I have with conservatism is that I recognize that our income disparity is growing, and that this disparity leads to a pooling of wealth that eventually may cause the downfall of capitalism, virtually every time that I disagree with any conservative, it's based on some variation of this theme. Otherwise, I am pretty much in lock step with conservatives (maybe excluding some social issues - but they seem to be coming around to my point of view on those issues). I do not support means tested welfare of any kind, I am not a global warming freak, or any of that other silly stuff that liberals tend to get really weird about.
