NHL Owners who won’t pay arena staff during Covid19

[chico1]

I guess it is also OK to give 1.5 Trillion of taxpayers money $ CHARITY (according to above definition) to rich banks, but expect for poor people working regular jobs (who paid most of that tax money), which will suffer the most due to all this, to go on without any help.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/fed-to...nt-unusual-disruptions-in-markets-11584033537

Some people here. :shm:

 

[appleomac]

I guess it is also OK to give 1.5 Trillion of taxpayers money $ CHARITY (according to above definition) to rich banks, but expect for poor people working regular jobs (who paid most of that tax money), which will suffer the most due to all this, to go on without any help.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/fed-to...nt-unusual-disruptions-in-markets-11584033537

Some people here. :shm:

If you believe short term loans are "charity", so be it. When I give to charities, I don't expect nor do I make it a condition on the charitable organization that they pay me back. Sometimes charity takes the form of money, but just because it's money doesn't make it charity - it's probably best you keep that in mind.

 

[appleomac]

If you can't wrap your head around the fact that this is an extreme and emergency situation and there are more important things in life than profit and cold calculating "I care only for myself, screw everyone else" philosophy, then there is not much else to say. I guess you support that guy who bought 18000 bottles of hand sanitizer to price gauge them and sell them on Amazon for $70 each. He is just a smart entrepreneur for you and should be allowed to do that. :smash: Unbelievable.



Exactly. What he wrote there is just cruel. Sure keep paying the millionaire players, but everyone else is just a temp employee, so screw them.



You didn't throw insults, but what you said there is much worse.

From my perspective, this has nothing to do with profit or how well off someone is. To be abundantly clear, my position is that I cannot dictate to another person how to spend their money. I can only control what I do, not what others do - I most certainly cannot decree/dictate what other's "should" do in the name of humanity, decency morality or whatever. Complaining about what other people do with their money is pointless, in my opinion. Donate $5 or go through you pantry and donate what you don't need to a food bank (which will probably see increased demand because of this emergency) - you will feel better about yourself in comparison to complaining about what others have and what they should do with what they have.

 

[chico1]

From my perspective, this has nothing to do with profit or how well off someone is. To be abundantly clear, my position is that I cannot dictate to another person how to spend their money. I can only control what I do, not what others do - I most certainly cannot decree/dictate what other's "should" do in the name of humanity, decency morality or whatever. Complaining about what other people do with their money is pointless, in my opinion. Donate $5 or go through you pantry and donate what you don't need to a food bank (which will probably see increased demand because of this emergency) - you will feel better about yourself in comparison to complaining about what others have and what they should do with what they have.

Thank you Mr Aquilini. Your position is noted. :smash:

 

[chico1]

If you believe short term loans are "charity", so be it. When I give to charities, I don't expect nor do I make it a condition on the charitable organization that they pay me back. Sometimes charity takes the form of money, but just because it's money doesn't make it charity - it's probably best you keep that in mind.

No one was talking about "charity" until you started it.

So giving free loans to rich and banks from taxpayers money is OK. Also keep paying NHL players is OK, but keep paying arena workers is "charity".

So sure bail out banks, wall street and NHL players, that is OK. But god forbid to bail out arena workers in a similar way. That is a terrible sin. Unspeakable of.

 

[appleomac]

No one was talking about "charity" until you started it.

So giving free loans to rich and banks from taxpayers money is OK. Also keep paying NHL players is OK, but keep paying arena workers is "charity".

So sure bail out banks, wall street and NHL players, that is OK. But god forbid to bail out arena workers in a similar way. That is a terrible sin. Unspeakable of.

A "free loan" (granted I don't know what you mean by that) is still a loan that needs to be paid back. Now, if you believe a zero-interest loan is free money, so be it - you still fail to understand that free money need not be paid back, a low interest or zero-interest loan still needs to be paid back. If you hate the US fed's injection, write your senators and congress persons. My only advice, and this is a HUGE assumption on my part, assuming you are Canadian, a US politician will probably give zero pucks about a tersely written letter from a non-constituent - but what do I know.

And to point out; I have never advocated that during this emergency that "this" group should be paid and "that" group should not be paid. And if you are still under that erroneous assumption, please quote my posts in this thread where I stated such a position. Again, to state my position as clearly as possible, it is not possible for me (or you for that matter) to make someone spend their money the way you or I would like them to. Ergo, it's a pointless exercise (in my opinion) to continually complain about how/what others should do with their money.

 

[appleomac]

No one was talking about "charity" until you started it.

So giving free loans to rich and banks from taxpayers money is OK. Also keep paying NHL players is OK, but keep paying arena workers is "charity".

So sure bail out banks, wall street and NHL players, that is OK. But god forbid to bail out arena workers in a similar way. That is a terrible sin. Unspeakable of.

Perhaps your bias against those who are well off are doing absolutely nothing about arena staff doesn't allow you to see the good that is happening during this emergency (as it relates to arena staff).

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/sports/nh...ff-during-postponement/ar-BB119MNT?li=AAggXBR

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/othe...porting-arena-staff-during-hiatus/ar-BB11agN6

 

[steverino]

I think those who take care of the staff in these times get a far greater payback than those who keep a few more bucks in their own pockets while the staff faces the greater challenge. Mark Cuban will earn the gratitude of his staff and respect from the community. That will lead to much greater happiness for him than having the money he could have saved from not paying staff.

 

[chico1]

This is how it is done in civilized countries. Subsidies for everyone. Not just the richest 1% i.e. Wall Street, banks, HNL players, ...

https://business.financialpost.com/...hit-firms-get-state-aid-to-pay-75-of-salaries

 

[chico1]

Perhaps your bias against those who are well off are doing absolutely nothing about arena staff doesn't allow you to see the good that is happening during this emergency (as it relates to arena staff).

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/sports/nh...ff-during-postponement/ar-BB119MNT?li=AAggXBR

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/othe...porting-arena-staff-during-hiatus/ar-BB11agN6

It should not be up to individual players. And IT IS NOT A CHARITY. Stop that silly misconception. You are wrong.

Your bias against 99% of the people who are not Wall Street or NHL players is honestly disturbing. You still didn't answer why NHL players and Wall Street deserve bailout, but not the rest of the affected people.

 

[appleomac]

This is how it is done in civilized countries. Subsidies for everyone. Not just the richest 1% i.e. Wall Street, banks, HNHL players, ...

https://business.financialpost.com/...hit-firms-get-state-aid-to-pay-75-of-salaries

My folks never had a house with a pool in the backyard, but they always wanted one. Unfortunately, my parents were of modest means. Having said all that, if my parents could've convinced the neighbour's to cover the cost of a swimming pool, most definitely they would've had one. Translation, it's always easier to spend other peoples money! Speaking of Denmark, the average income tax in Denmark is somewhere north of 60% (I can say this fairly confidently as my cousin married a Danish man and lives in Denmark). In any event, for those that complain about "we should be more like Denmark", I suspect that you would be complaining out of the other side of your mouth about having to pay in excess of 60% income tax on average. LOL

 

[chico1]

My folks never had a house with a pool in the backyard, but they always wanted one. Unfortunately, my parents were of modest means. Having said all that, if my parents could've convinced the neighbour's to cover the cost of a swimming pool, most definitely they would've had one. Translation, it's always easier to spend other peoples money! Speaking of Denmark, the average income tax in Denmark is somewhere north of 60% (I can say this fairly confidently as my cousin married a Danish man and lives in Denmark). In any event, for those that complain about "we should be more like Denmark", I suspect that you would be complaining out of the other side of your mouth about having to pay in excess of 60% income tax on average. LOL

You are completely off the mark. We are talking about something completely different here. A deadly disease is not your parents pool. :smash:

And 60% is not true. Another common lie often perpetrated here. It is a marginal tax rate on the income above certain level, not "on average". I don't know exact tax brackets there but probably someone making high 6, or 7 digits. I would not mind paying 60% on my income over say 500k or 1 M. Even over say 250k. Nothing wrong about that, if it means we can all live like in Denmark.

But sure, spending 1.5 Trillion on bailing out rich banks with my tax money is OK with you? (well speaking figuratively i.e. someone who is my equivalent with similar job and income in US). So easy for Wall Street to spend my money, I agree.

 

[appleomac]

You are completely off the mark. We are talking about something completely different here. A deadly disease is not your parents pool. :smash:

And 60% is not true. Another common lie often perpetrated here. It is a marginal tax rate on the income above certain level, not "on average". I don't know exact tax brackets there but probably someone making high 6, or 7 digits. I would not mind paying 60% on my income over say 500k or 1 M. Even over say 250k. Nothing wrong about that, if it means we can all live like in Denmark.

But sure, spending 1.5 Trillion on bailing out rich banks with my tax money is OK with you? (well speaking figuratively i.e. someone who is my equivalent with similar job and income in US). So easy for Wall Street to spend my money, I agree.

You can live in Denmark - move there! LOL Yes Denmark has a progressive tax system. That said, last time I spoke with my cousin that lives in Denmark, she makes the equivalent of $75k Canadian - and she's already into the 52% tax bracket. Needless to say, 75k is nowhere near 6 figures. But yes, their citizens get free University tuition - so there's that.

Did you like our Government bailing out GMC? I mean, that's not Bay Street, those are blue collar workers in a factory, right? What about various levels of Government bailing out Bombardier? Are you okay with that, Bombardier is also not Bay Street? It might behoove you to learn that Governments bail-out industries/companies for a very simple reason. It's because doing so (as far as the government is concerned) is preferable to not doing so. Translation, they believe it would be worse if they did nothing. That's it, merely a political decision.

Now, as you keep harping on what the US Fed is doing, and I know you believe it's a bailout, it really isn't. I can't give you a crash course on macroeconomics, money supply and monetary policy. But I'll get you started...

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/a...-reserve-trying-stop-financial-crisis/607987/

 

[apl16]

Obviously, my experience is different but similar in a way.

Years ago I ran a small contruction crew. They made me money and I provided them with an income.
I remember a period when we had a dry spell. Just no work to be found.
I did my best to help them out. I ended up supplying them with about 30% of their normal income.
This was far from charity. It was good business sense. I found them a short gigs to help out and managed to keep my good friend team together and in time we all prospered.
They were very loyal and I was very grateful as it would have been extremely difficult to find more good workers if they would have had to move on.
I'm out of the industry now but we are all good friends to this day.

Just my personal experience.

 

[appleomac]

Obviously, my experience is different but similar in a way.

Years ago I ran a small contruction crew. They made me money and I provided them with an income.
I remember a period when we had a dry spell. Just no work to be found.
I did my best to help them out. I ended up supplying them with about 30% of their normal income.
This was far from charity. It was good business sense. I found them a short gigs to help out and managed to keep my good friend team together and in time we all prospered.
They were very loyal and I was very grateful as it would have been extremely difficult to find more good workers if they would have had to move on.
I'm out of the industry now but we are all good friends to this day.

Just my personal experience.

Why can't it be both charity and a sound business decision? Why is charity such a taboo word? If you help someone without having the actual obligatory requirement to help said someone - I think this is charity. The reason for helping said someone is irrelevant (i.e. makes you feel good, you want good PR, you got shamed into doing it, employee retention considerations, etc.). If you provide assistance when you are not required to, that's completely charity - and it's not a bad or taboo word. I get some people are "proud" and perhaps you don't want to make your employees feel like you're giving them a "hand-out", but in the realm of anonymous forums, why is it so hard to label what you did as charity? So odd.

 

[chico1]

My folks never had a house with a pool in the backyard, but they always wanted one. Unfortunately, my parents were of modest means. Having said all that, if my parents could've convinced the neighbour's to cover the cost of a swimming pool, most definitely they would've had one. Translation, it's always easier to spend other peoples money! Speaking of Denmark, the average income tax in Denmark is somewhere north of 60% (I can say this fairly confidently as my cousin married a Danish man and lives in Denmark). In any event, for those that complain about "we should be more like Denmark", I suspect that you would be complaining out of the other side of your mouth about having to pay in excess of 60% income tax on average. LOL

You can live in Denmark - move there! LOL Yes Denmark has a progressive tax system. That said, last time I spoke with my cousin that lives in Denmark, she makes the equivalent of $75k Canadian - and she's already into the 52% tax bracket. Needless to say, 75k is nowhere near 6 figures. But yes, their citizens get free University tuition - so there's that.

Did you like our Government bailing out GMC? I mean, that's not Bay Street, those are blue collar workers in a factory, right? What about various levels of Government bailing out Bombardier? Are you okay with that, Bombardier is also not Bay Street? It might behoove you to learn that Governments bail-out industries/companies for a very simple reason. It's because doing so (as far as the government is concerned) is preferable to not doing so. Translation, they believe it would be worse if they did nothing. That's it, merely a political decision.

Now, as you keep harping on what the US Fed is doing, and I know you believe it's a bailout, it really isn't. I can't give you a crash course on macroeconomics, money supply and monetary policy. But I'll get you started...

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/a...-reserve-trying-stop-financial-crisis/607987/

Please make up your mind. Is it "north of 60% on average" or "52% marginal rate"? Or even better, please stop trying to pull fake numbers. Or at least be consistent about it.

You think can give anyone a crash course with all this nonsense you are trying to pull? Please don't.

 

[chico1]

Why can't it be both charity and a sound business decision? Why is charity such a taboo word? If you help someone without having the actual obligatory requirement to help said someone - I think this is charity. The reason for helping said someone is irrelevant (i.e. makes you feel good, you want good PR, you got shamed into doing it, employee retention considerations, etc.). If you provide assistance when you are not required to, that's completely charity - and it's not a bad or taboo word. I get some people are "proud" and perhaps you don't want to make your employees feel like you're giving them a "hand-out", but in the realm of anonymous forums, why is it so hard to label what you did as charity? So odd.

"Why can't it be both charity and a sound business decision? " Grasping fro straws? Sorry but you are in trouble. Nothing you can say to make it reasonable anymore.

 

[appleomac]

Loool "Why can't it be both charity and a sound business decision? " Grasping fro straws? You are in trouble. Nothing you can say to make it reasonable anymore.

Huh? Seriously mate, you need to learn to cope/calm down. Charity as a definition (in my opinion): assisting those in times of need. Employer paying employees even though there is no work, sounds like assisting people in times of need, no? Reasons for providing that assistance: employee retention and loyalty. The reason does not invalidate the definition (i.e. both statements can be true) and technically not even related. Lots of corporations make flashy charitable donations with big novelty cheques for the publicity: both charity and sound business decision (to the extent one believes in good PR). You laugh at the concept; but again, it's clear an act can be both charity and sound business decision - and it does not contradict anything I have said (since you seem to want to revel in the erroneous assumption that I am somehow contradicted myself???).

 

[chico1]

Huh? Seriously mate, you need to learn to cope/calm down. Charity as a definition (in my opinion): assisting those in times of need. Employer paying employees even though there is no work, sounds like assisting people in times of need, no? Reasons for providing that assistance: employee retention and loyalty. The reason does not invalidate the definition (i.e. both statements can be true) and technically not even related. Lots of corporations make flashy charitable donations with big novelty cheques for the publicity: both charity and sound business decision (to the extent one believes in good PR). You laugh at the concept; but again, it's clear an act can be both charity and sound business decision - and it does not contradict anything I have said (since you seem to want to revel in the erroneous assumption that I am somehow contradicted myself???).

You need to calm down, and sorry to say stop laying (60 average or 52 marginal?), and also talking nonsense. Your posts contradict themselves.

And no I don't laugh at the concept. It is me who is for it, while you are against it from the beginning - i.e. you are for 1.5 T wall street bailout and paying NHL players, but against paying everyone else. Only to twist that when proven wrong.

So please stop this charade, take your loses, and leave us alone.

The point of this thread is - it is wrong to bail out only NHL players and Wall street and ignore everyone else and you have given us nothing to disprove that, despite trying really hard. Byeeee. No more time to waste on you.

 

[appleomac]

You need to calm down, and sorry to say stop laying (60 average or 52 marginal?), and also talking nonsense. Your posts contradict themselves.

And no I don't laugh at the concept. It is me who is for it, while you are against it from the beginning - i.e. you are for 1.5 T wall street bailout and paying NHL players, but against paying everyone else. Only to twist that when proven wrong.

So please stop this charade, take your loses, and leave us alone.

The point of this thread is - it is wrong to bail out only NHL players and Wall street and ignore everyone else and you have given us nothing to disprove that, despite trying really hard. Byeeee. No more time to waste on you.

I can admit to not being a expert on Danish Tax Laws, and I admittedly stated what someone else told me about their experience living and working in Denmark. If my information is incorrect so be it.

But can you do the same? NHL players have not received a bailout. The NHLPA has a high degree of negotiating power vis a vis the NHL. Therefore if they can arrange an agreement with the NHL to be fully paid so be it. I am neither in favour or opposed to it. It is two private entities negotiating and coming to an agreement - I am not a party to their agreement so I do not espouse support or opposition to it.

And Wall Street is not getting a bail out, as hard as that may be to comprehend. Giving a bank $100 when the bank in turn gives the Fed $100 worth of US T-bills on the condition that said bank buys back the T-bill at a predetermined date in the future is not handing out money. The taxpayer is not losing anything, it's merely a Repurchase Order (otherwise known as a REPO). Happens more frequently then you might realize, in Canada and the US, it's merely a mechanism for the Government to inject liquidity into the market, that's it. It's not free money and it doesn't cost us taxpayers anything.

Now, if you are opposed to bail-outs in general, so be it. But at least you should try to understand if there is actually a bail-out occurring in the first place. I do not believe you can see that there is in fact no bail-out occurring: not for NHL players and not for Wall Street.