The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
now i've posted this thread to complain about soldiers sacrificing their lives for thier country and foot ballers just getting about 25'000 pounds/dollars just for showing up at a football match and playing with the only threat of breaking thier leg whilst in afganistan soldiers sometimes come home in a coffin so if ur like me and think soldiers should get more wages then plz reply
Page:
Seeing as pokemanic333 started this thread....does anyone see a comment from him at this point? (Just like other threads 'he' has begun):-|
I agree with you that alot of soldiers sign up from having family ties with the army, sort of stepping into the boots of a relative or something along those lines. But I'm not arguing that soldiers should get footballers wages, realistically, that's ludicrous, it wouldn't work at all. No, it's not that soldiers don't get enough, it's the footballers that get too much.
For some soliders it's a family tradition or something done out of a feeling of patriotism. It's not all about the money.
Unfortunately in the real world if the government paid soldiers the wages of some premiership footballers they'd quickly find themselves bankrupt.
Once they've finished their terms of service soldiers are able to be mercenaries in various warzones (I believe just driving a truck for various private companies in Iraq is a high paying job or it was ). So there is potential for large amounts of money to be made if soldiers go on to be private contractors.
But as said before for some it's a patriotic thing and the money doesn't really enter into the decision.
Unfortunately in the real world if the government paid soldiers the wages of some premiership footballers they'd quickly find themselves bankrupt.
Once they've finished their terms of service soldiers are able to be mercenaries in various warzones (I believe just driving a truck for various private companies in Iraq is a high paying job or it was ). So there is potential for large amounts of money to be made if soldiers go on to be private contractors.
But as said before for some it's a patriotic thing and the money doesn't really enter into the decision.
Yeh the whole deal is not who pays their wages, it's the inbalance in society that is messed up. Footballers earn their money through advertisements and endorsements. What are soldiers expected to do? Start wearing adverts on their uniforms and promoting a new fragrance? Of course not, they're too busy trying their best to calm the turmoil, whilst some bloke who 'entertains us' enjoys the peace and the sun while it lasts, and has a couple of training sessions a week. That £50,000 must be good company though.
pokemanic333 wrote:
> but even if soldiers don't get the same wages the goverment needs
> to relize that they save lives (but also end them but not
> civillians) and stop wasting thousands of pounds on foot ballers
> and start putting that money towards not just the army but to
> emergancy services im not saying that footballers should not get
> any wages full stop but to not waste thousands of pounds just to
> get a celebrity to kick a ball about.
You have gotten confused here I think. As Hmmm stated, the government don't pay money to footballers. It is individual commercial clubs that deal out the wages, which comes from companies sponsoring the teams through advertising, TV companies buying the rights to show their game, merchandise and most importantly through the ticket sales.
True, they do get paid an obscene amount of dosh, but at the same time they are taxed on their earnings. This tax must be around the 40% mark - so the more they earn, the more that goes back in to the government coffers. So in theory, this means the more footballers are paid, the more money is available to be spent on soldiers and other services.
Celebs and sport stars. Lucky them. If they can get someone to pay them a huge amount of money then fair-play to them. Either way, the taxpayer aren't paying for them.
> but even if soldiers don't get the same wages the goverment needs
> to relize that they save lives (but also end them but not
> civillians) and stop wasting thousands of pounds on foot ballers
> and start putting that money towards not just the army but to
> emergancy services im not saying that footballers should not get
> any wages full stop but to not waste thousands of pounds just to
> get a celebrity to kick a ball about.
You have gotten confused here I think. As Hmmm stated, the government don't pay money to footballers. It is individual commercial clubs that deal out the wages, which comes from companies sponsoring the teams through advertising, TV companies buying the rights to show their game, merchandise and most importantly through the ticket sales.
True, they do get paid an obscene amount of dosh, but at the same time they are taxed on their earnings. This tax must be around the 40% mark - so the more they earn, the more that goes back in to the government coffers. So in theory, this means the more footballers are paid, the more money is available to be spent on soldiers and other services.
Celebs and sport stars. Lucky them. If they can get someone to pay them a huge amount of money then fair-play to them. Either way, the taxpayer aren't paying for them.
Hmmm... wrote:
> Hi pokemanic333,
> I think you're getting a bit confused :¬)
>
> The government aren't 'wasting thousands of pounds' on
> footballers!
>
> The UK government pay the wages of our Army, Navy and Air Force
> using Tax Payers money. But football players wages come from the
> football clubs which are run as a commercial proposition and
> nothing to do with the government.
>
> On the bright side the footballer's have to pay a lot of tax on
> their high earnings - which helps the government to fund
> 'everything'! :¬)
Not something I wanted to get involved in...but one or two points may assist further discussion:
Hmmm took the 'Army test' - general training for an army infantry recruit is 12 weeks tops.
Same for a RAF Regiment Gunner is 29 weeks.
For a Royal Marine, 31 weeks.
When this respective 'training' is successfully completed (ie preparation to kill and to stay alive), there will be at least 6 months training with the 'posted' unit/squadron before 'tour of duty' begins.
As far as The Gunner is concerned, his basic pay during training touches £14000 per annum gross. OK, he pays a subsidized monthly housing and food bill but still has to fork out for essential equipment etc etc. True, they train for 29 weeks and don't have much free-time, but the NAAFI does charge 'top dollar' for essential items.
After training and joining a 'squadron in readiness', his wage hasn't increased at all. An 'overseas allowance' is paid but this is basically like 'overtime' payments. If the 'recruit' stays in for four years, he gets a 'one off' bonus of about £2-3000. This will also trigger after 7, I think. Don't forget, that as a Gunner, the minimum 'stay' is 9 years, not 3 years like the army.
And my last comment on this subject will be:
Just tell me how many RAF Regiment Gunners make up the total death toll so far in Afghanistan - not a nice question, but extremely relevant when read with the above comments:-(
> Hi pokemanic333,
> I think you're getting a bit confused :¬)
>
> The government aren't 'wasting thousands of pounds' on
> footballers!
>
> The UK government pay the wages of our Army, Navy and Air Force
> using Tax Payers money. But football players wages come from the
> football clubs which are run as a commercial proposition and
> nothing to do with the government.
>
> On the bright side the footballer's have to pay a lot of tax on
> their high earnings - which helps the government to fund
> 'everything'! :¬)
Not something I wanted to get involved in...but one or two points may assist further discussion:
Hmmm took the 'Army test' - general training for an army infantry recruit is 12 weeks tops.
Same for a RAF Regiment Gunner is 29 weeks.
For a Royal Marine, 31 weeks.
When this respective 'training' is successfully completed (ie preparation to kill and to stay alive), there will be at least 6 months training with the 'posted' unit/squadron before 'tour of duty' begins.
As far as The Gunner is concerned, his basic pay during training touches £14000 per annum gross. OK, he pays a subsidized monthly housing and food bill but still has to fork out for essential equipment etc etc. True, they train for 29 weeks and don't have much free-time, but the NAAFI does charge 'top dollar' for essential items.
After training and joining a 'squadron in readiness', his wage hasn't increased at all. An 'overseas allowance' is paid but this is basically like 'overtime' payments. If the 'recruit' stays in for four years, he gets a 'one off' bonus of about £2-3000. This will also trigger after 7, I think. Don't forget, that as a Gunner, the minimum 'stay' is 9 years, not 3 years like the army.
And my last comment on this subject will be:
Just tell me how many RAF Regiment Gunners make up the total death toll so far in Afghanistan - not a nice question, but extremely relevant when read with the above comments:-(
pokemanic333 wrote:
> but even if soldiers don't get the same wages the goverment needs
> to relize that they save lives (but also end them but not
> civillians) and stop wasting thousands of pounds on foot ballers
> and start putting that money towards not just the army but to
> emergancy services im not saying that footballers should not get
> any wages full stop but to not waste thousands of pounds just to
> get a celebrity to kick a ball about.
Hi pokemanic333,
I think you're getting a bit confused :¬)
The government aren't 'wasting thousands of pounds' on footballers!
The UK government pay the wages of our Army, Navy and Air Force using Tax Payers money. But football players wages come from the football clubs which are run as a commercial proposition and nothing to do with the government.
On the bright side the footballer's have to pay a lot of tax on their high earnings - which helps the government to fund 'everything'! :¬)
> but even if soldiers don't get the same wages the goverment needs
> to relize that they save lives (but also end them but not
> civillians) and stop wasting thousands of pounds on foot ballers
> and start putting that money towards not just the army but to
> emergancy services im not saying that footballers should not get
> any wages full stop but to not waste thousands of pounds just to
> get a celebrity to kick a ball about.
Hi pokemanic333,
I think you're getting a bit confused :¬)
The government aren't 'wasting thousands of pounds' on footballers!
The UK government pay the wages of our Army, Navy and Air Force using Tax Payers money. But football players wages come from the football clubs which are run as a commercial proposition and nothing to do with the government.
On the bright side the footballer's have to pay a lot of tax on their high earnings - which helps the government to fund 'everything'! :¬)
[s]Hmmm...[/s]
Hmmm... wrote:
> "soldiers should get more wages than
> footballers"
>
> I don't think it's as simple as that!
>
> The MOD advertise the 3 services as a career choice - so
> presumably people that volunteered to become a soldier knew in
> advance what it entailed?!
>
> I've just tried the
> Army
> online numeracy test it seemed to be on a par with my
> daughter's 11+ ! I do appreciate there are more factors
> involved.
> But I think it would be easier to get accepted into the forces
> than Man United!
>
> Not all 'soldiers' are poorly paid, a bit like not all
> footballers are highly paid.
>
> I'm no football fan (ask Warhunt!) and a lot of them do seem
> obscenely over-paid but I can't see how that can really be
> compared to people that choose to join the forces.
>
> If the UK had conscription then obviously it would be a different
> argument!
>
but even if soldiers don't get the same wages the goverment needs to relize that they save lives (but also end them but not civillians) and stop wasting thousands of pounds on foot ballers and start putting that money towards not just the army but to emergancy services im not saying that footballers should not get any wages full stop but to not waste thousands of pounds just to get a celebrity to kick a ball about.
> "soldiers should get more wages than
> footballers"
>
> I don't think it's as simple as that!
>
> The MOD advertise the 3 services as a career choice - so
> presumably people that volunteered to become a soldier knew in
> advance what it entailed?!
>
> I've just tried the
> Army
> online numeracy test it seemed to be on a par with my
> daughter's 11+ ! I do appreciate there are more factors
> involved.
> But I think it would be easier to get accepted into the forces
> than Man United!
>
> Not all 'soldiers' are poorly paid, a bit like not all
> footballers are highly paid.
>
> I'm no football fan (ask Warhunt!) and a lot of them do seem
> obscenely over-paid but I can't see how that can really be
> compared to people that choose to join the forces.
>
> If the UK had conscription then obviously it would be a different
> argument!
>
[s]Hmmm...[/s]but even if soldiers don't get the same wages the goverment needs to relize that they save lives (but also end them but not civillians) and stop wasting thousands of pounds on foot ballers and start putting that money towards not just the army but to emergancy services im not saying that footballers should not get any wages full stop but to not waste thousands of pounds just to get a celebrity to kick a ball about.
Exactly. I wonder if the same people saying about how they are paid so little realise where their money comes from?
Would the same people be making such as fuss if they had to pay 100% more of their wages to taxes so that soldiers could live that little bit extra above the bread line. (Not that many armed forces career employess live anywhere near that bread line at the moment anywho)
:D
Would the same people be making such as fuss if they had to pay 100% more of their wages to taxes so that soldiers could live that little bit extra above the bread line. (Not that many armed forces career employess live anywhere near that bread line at the moment anywho)
:D
You can't really put a price on the service they do. Anyway, they're meant to be fighting for this country, not meaningless possessions. If they have enough to support their families than that should be enough.
Page: