Footballers wages and the government.

The government are making all these cuts and making life harder for poor people but the income they are getting off footballers alone is ridiculous. I just randomly thought how ridiculous it is.

We'll use Frank Lampard as a random example.

Frank Lampards wages are around £150k a week.

£75k is gone straight away as tax because if you earn over £200k a year (i think) you get taxed 50%

Then there's national insurance around 1.8% - around £2700

Once he goes shopping, from January it'll be 20% on everything he spends. I'm gonna be random and say he spent £7k that week on random shit so that'll be another £1400 to the government.

Council tax in Westminster in a big house will be around £200 a week

Petrol is 90% tax!!!

Stamp duty on properties is around 7% too.

So Lampard who is paid £150k a week would have paid the government £79,300 in that week. With property and purchases he is paying 78% of his salary to the governemnt.



Random but I was bored.

But fotbalurz do nufin for the cuntry, dey get paid 2 much. Dey does nufin for uz.


/ random stupid person on facebook/life in general.

I keep getting distracted because of your avatar.

Explains why the likes of Andrei Arshavin get pissed when they come to England and realize how much of their wages are taken away.

Lamps is still getting paid a fat ass sum of money though, he'll be alright.

Yeah they still do get paid a lot obviously but the government have no right to take 78% of someones earned income.

British Government

Mal wrote:Yeah they still do get paid a lot obviously but the government have no right to take 78% of someones earned income.

Yeah, it's funny though, because here in America, we need the rich people to be taxed like fuck, the millionaires and billionaires get fucking tax breaks, while the regular folk have to pay well... regular tax. I'm sure the sports stars get a fat slice taken out of their paycheck, but still.

The British government take a definite £75m before house purchases and retail purchases from the Chelsea squad alone in a year.

Top paid sportsman in Australia gets about 1 million pounds a year

Most of the big footballers have Swiss bank accounts I think

forestfcfan wrote:Most of the big footballers have Swiss bank accounts I think

So Lamps definetley would then

They still get paid an absolute bomb load though

forestfcfan wrote:Most of the big footballers have Swiss bank accounts I think

That wouldn't stop income tax, council tax, VAT and stamp duty.

wages from clubs is only fraction of their earning these days

due to supply and demand, 3rd party agreements are very popular in these day and also under some laws can avoid taxing

service agreements is another way for play to get some side cash

but cannot forgetting image rights as well. perhapss tiger woods is best example, at his peak he earning around $90million a year bu only 3 million of this was from golf winnings, rest is from image rights in marketing and advertising

dena wrote:Explains why the likes of Andrei Arshavin get pissed when they come to England and realize how much of their wages are taken away.

Lamps is still getting paid a fat ass sum of money though, he'll be alright.

Well, Arshavin can cry away he's sorrows in a 5 million pound mansion

Kuled wrote:I keep getting distracted because of your avatar.

Don't lie

They get soo much more from image rights on the advertising, so I dont feel sorry for them. Fat Frank certainly have enough for a constant food supply to maintain his weight.

Bebe_Fun wrote:They get soo much more from image rights on the advertising, so I dont feel sorry for them. Fat Frank certainly have enough for a constant food supply to maintain his weight.

. Plus they don't even get taxed on advertisements because its not a consistent wage from what I know.

Dan wrote:But fotbalurz do nufin for the cuntry, dey get paid 2 much. Dey does nufin for uz.


/ random stupid person on facebook/life in general.

they pay much more towards the NHS and public services than normal people do. i'd bet they dont use them anywhere near as much as the average man on the street does!

Mal wrote:Yeah they still do get paid a lot obviously but the government have no right to take 78% of someones earned income.

i agree. i think that the sliding scale for tax contributions is unethical. if everyone paid 20% tax whether you are a cleaner earning minimum wage or a professional footballer earning £100k a week it would be fair. 20% of £100k is still a load more than 20% of £6 an hour!

Mal wrote:The government are making all these cuts and making life harder for poor people but the income they are getting off footballers alone is ridiculous. I just randomly thought how ridiculous it is.

We'll use Frank Lampard as a random example.

Frank Lampards wages are around £150k a week.

£75k is gone straight away as tax because if you earn over £200k a year (i think) you get taxed 50%

Then there's national insurance around 1.8% - around £2700

Once he goes shopping, from January it'll be 20% on everything he spends. I'm gonna be random and say he spent £7k that week on random shit so that'll be another £1400 to the government.

Council tax in Westminster in a big house will be around £200 a week

Petrol is 90% tax!!!

Stamp duty on properties is around 7% too.

So Lampard who is paid £150k a week would have paid the government £79,300 in that week. With property and purchases he is paying 78% of his salary to the governemnt.



Random but I was bored.

Probably a little more because he will get payed around 5k a week from sponsors as well

dena wrote:

Mal wrote:Yeah they still do get paid a lot obviously but the government have no right to take 78% of someones earned income.

Yeah, it's funny though, because here in America, we need the rich people to be taxed like fuck, the millionaires and billionaires get fucking tax breaks, while the regular folk have to pay well... regular tax. I'm sure the sports stars get a fat slice taken out of their paycheck, but still.

the rich getting tax breaks are also providing jobs to people paying regular tax! and those tax breaks only come to those who are already in a higher tax bracket and will pay far more in taxes than their employees despite their tax breaks!

The Stig wrote:

forestfcfan wrote:Most of the big footballers have Swiss bank accounts I think

So Lamps definetley would then

his wages are taxed before they reach his bank account! and those swiss banks charge a handling fee (which is a tax).

people in the UK and our former government are very short sighted when it comes to taxing the rich! it would be in all of our interests to keep rich people rich and to encourage them to keep their money in UK banks, thus creating jobs and generate more taxes for our government!

Arsenal_nn wrote:

Bebe_Fun wrote:They get soo much more from image rights on the advertising, so I dont feel sorry for them. Fat Frank certainly have enough for a constant food supply to maintain his weight.

. Plus they don't even get taxed on advertisements because its not a consistent wage from what I know.

they will get taxed on all income - thats why its called "income tax"

'orrible bastard wrote:

dena wrote:

Mal wrote:Yeah they still do get paid a lot obviously but the government have no right to take 78% of someones earned income.

Yeah, it's funny though, because here in America, we need the rich people to be taxed like fuck, the millionaires and billionaires get fucking tax breaks, while the regular folk have to pay well... regular tax. I'm sure the sports stars get a fat slice taken out of their paycheck, but still.

the rich getting tax breaks are also providing jobs to people paying regular tax! and those tax breaks only come to those who are already in a higher tax bracket and will pay far more in taxes than their employees despite their tax breaks!

So basically you're telling me that I can't tax Kim Khardasian?



I get what you are saying, but extending the Bush tax cuts for the rich(which Obama just did) was a poor decision, millions in America agree.

dena wrote:

'orrible bastard wrote:

dena wrote:

Mal wrote:Yeah they still do get paid a lot obviously but the government have no right to take 78% of someones earned income.

Yeah, it's funny though, because here in America, we need the rich people to be taxed like fuck, the millionaires and billionaires get fucking tax breaks, while the regular folk have to pay well... regular tax. I'm sure the sports stars get a fat slice taken out of their paycheck, but still.

the rich getting tax breaks are also providing jobs to people paying regular tax! and those tax breaks only come to those who are already in a higher tax bracket and will pay far more in taxes than their employees despite their tax breaks!

So basically you're telling me that I can't tax Kim Khardasian?



I get what you are saying, but extending the Bush tax cuts for the rich(which Obama just did) was a poor decision, millions in America agree.

the masses are often short sighted! i am Bush's biggest critic but any tax cuts which enable small businesses to employ more staff, increase productivity, buy more "raw materials" and produce more finished products thus stimulating the economy in a recession is a good thing.

a small business needs to remain profitable for it to be worthwhile for its owner. if im not making the same profits i will make cuts until i find a way to do so, and if i have to halve my workforce i will, 'cos im not a communist!

raising taxes for higher earners, stifles economic growth and penalises the successful!

I believe small business owners get a certain tax break, it's the likes of Warren Buffet (who says he is undertaxed) who I'm speaking about.

dena wrote:I believe small business owners get a certain tax break, it's the likes of Warren Buffet (who says he is undertaxed) who I'm speaking about.

firstly, i didnt know who warren buffet was but i googled him. while it is commendable for him to say he feels under taxed (17.7% on $46M is $8,142,000 - 30% on $50,000 is $15,000), i think he's paid his due's! why doesn't he go and spend a fuck load of cash and pay a load to the government in consumer tax if he feels that bad about it? i noticed he already gives alot to charity and is responsible for founding companies and creating jobs. whos losing out here?

the US government have rewarded the man for generating so much for the government by cutting his tax bill. they have rewarded success! now he can spend a load more and stimulate the economy.

Yeah too bad not every of the millions of millionaires in the US are like Buffet then eh?

dena wrote:Yeah too bad not every of the millions of millionaires in the US are like Buffet then eh?

absolutely, but on the flipside if you take away the tax breaks, they'd be looking to maintain their profits, they would cut jobs and there would be a domino effect all the way down to the amount of coffee that gets drunk in the offices (detrimental to nescafe/kraft) and the amount of paper used (not good for Dunder Mifflin) and wages will be cut / jobs lost there too!