Bank salary controls should cover athletes as well. Taxpayer money used to bail out banks gets public attention only when it goes into executive salaries and bonuses.
Politicians usually do not understand basic economics. Most never have to hire anyone within a free, supply-and-demand, employment market. Liberals, particularly, contribute nonsensical rules, opinions and regulations on the matter.
And neither does the brainwashed public, which stands for it. Especially the ardent sports followers.
Athletes probably get far too much salary for what they do. Yet the taxpayers never complain. Yes, taxpayers.
Ball parks and thus ball clubs are invariably subsidized by state and local taxpayers. Each time a new ball park is built, you can be sure some government entity helped in its financing, whether it be in cash, tax abatement or bond funding.
This is an ongoing subsidy over years. These days, Federal stimulus funds are actually backing up those local and state entities who received athletic subsidies.
The Left complains when a "rich" top executive gets more than a million or so a year of “taxpayer=protected” income. What about a ball player who hires no one, who makes ten million and more a year? And may actually be a loser?
Remember: Money is fungible. The payment does not have to be direct. Money can be substituted from one pocket of government or payer to the other, to hide the source of funding. It adds up to the same total outlay.
No comments:
Post a Comment