Official CBA/Labour Talks Discussion Thread

[from24ft]

You are funny, you have no idea what a debate is.

Whimping out as always. I already explained it to you, this black white stuff is just a rationalization that stupid people make when they dont understand something, nothing is black and white. You threw up this phrase in this debate to show your utter confusion for the subject. It's not a big deal, own up to it.


Yes taxes paid by the corporations in the USA are too low, evidence has been presented. Now **** off! Or debate.

[Courtside]

You are funny, you have no idea what a debate is.

Whimping out as always. I already explained it to you, this black white stuff is just a rationalization that stupid people make when they dont understand something, nothing is black and white. You threw up this phrase in this debate to show your utter confusion for the subject. It's not a big deal, own up to it.

Believe what you like.

Yes taxes by the corporations in the USA are too low, evidence has been presented. Now **** off! Or debate.

I think you're better off finding a youtube post somewhere to reply to, there are plenty of crackpots with time on their hands to verbally masturbate yourself with, but it won't be me.

[from24ft]

The only crackpot in this thread is you.


I hope you are not inferring to the video's i post. Which all come from respectable independent media. Which by the way is thriving nicely thanks to how dumbed down most news is these days.

Thom Hartmann is the leading progressive host right now, with 4 million listeners/viewers. His show is very well respected. Max Keiser, independent market watchdog. MSNBC, The Young Turks, progressive news... all good sources compared to your stupid drivel. What are your sources? (Zilch)

Not to mention a very respected Senator in the US is saying the exact same thing.

[Courtside]

I'm going to clarify this one thing, since it seemed to go entirely over your head.

What I meant was that if you replied to one of your youtube links, that there are any number of people to debate with in there - not the media person in the link. Most people - from either side - who spends hours on end debating youtube (or other in other media feedback) are crackpots. if you want someone to debate with, there are plenty of willing partners for you there.

At this point if you're going to stir things up to goad me into a reply, you're simply trolling.

[Kevin Willis]

Look you both have a big penis. Let's move on...

Any word on the talks today?

[I_Like_Dirt]

It's that real world experience that has taught me that the world is far more complex than "black and white" and anyone who claims that it is, is either simply naive or a dangerous tool.

For what it's worth, I actually agree with this point. I take it a little further, though, and suggest that anybody who doesn't realize just how dangerous those complexities are is either simply naive or a dangerous tool. When things are working in balance, things go incredibly smoothly. They haven't been working in balance for quite some time now, though, and we're only starting to see some of the results. I don't usually get into a lot of debates about this kind of thing, but a lot of people I know who told me that heavy debt loads of industrialized countries wasn't a problem have completely forgotten they ever held those opinions recently. Complexities are a necessity in the world we live in. Blindly accepting them is a very dangerous game.

[Courtside]

For what it's worth, I actually agree with this point. I take it a little further, though, and suggest that anybody who doesn't realize just how dangerous those complexities are is either simply naive or a dangerous tool. When things are working in balance, things go incredibly smoothly. They haven't been working in balance for quite some time now, though, and we're only starting to see some of the results. I don't usually get into a lot of debates about this kind of thing, but a lot of people I know who told me that heavy debt loads of industrialized countries wasn't a problem have completely forgotten they ever held those opinions recently. Complexities are a necessity in the world we live in. Blindly accepting them is a very dangerous game.

I've never said they weren't dangerous or even implied they're working in balance - clearly they're not. I just wasn't able to sit back and allow incomplete information to be passed of as evidence of anything. I can't refute the numbers because none of us can - that's the point. Those numbers can't be used because they are incomplete.

The simplest way to get an overview is that the bigger and more comfortable the middle class, the better the balance. We can all see the middle class is shrinking and under pressure, but simply taking from haves and giving to have-nots only creates more have-nots in the end. The best way is to enable people to move up on their own, rather than enabling them to stay where they are at the expense of others.

[from24ft]

What kind of drivel are you peddling? We can't use numbers that are publically known?


Did you not see the numbers on the S&P500 growing 81% in profits over last year? Are you seriously this dense that you do not understand what that means?

Here in 2 minutes just for you
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTzMqm2TwgE&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]


All we have to do is make taxes fair. You have Warren Buffet telling you that he pays less than his cleaning lady. What don't you get?

You have been using circular logic through this thread, and making others try harder to hammer obvious debate point into your head that you cant seem to grasp. How dare you say we can't use facts and we should not be discussing this?

[LittleOzzy]

from24ft and courtside, take a break and go outside for awhile.

The debate is fine, but stop with the name calling and so on. Warnings have been sent out.

Please continue without the extra stuff like name calling, swearing, and all the talking down to each other.

[from24ft]

Here are some numbers on the USA and their increase of income:


Increase in Income (0-90% of population)
1950-1980 75% ($13,222)
1980-2008 1% ($303)

Increase in Income ( top 0.01% of population)
1950 – 1980 80% ($2,419,070)
1980 – 2008 403% ($21,903,288)


Can you spot where things go wrong? Where did the increase for 0-90 go from 1980+?

US TAX RATES 2007
===============

Income 26,000 (Median Wage)
Income Tax ($6,084)
Share of taxes paid 23.4%

Income $344,590,000 (Average of top 400)
Income Tax ($58,176,761)
Share of taxes paid 16.9%

Again the highest burden is on those who earn the least. Even though these people have less disposable income, and we have already established that there is a boom underway in those earning the most.

CORPORATE Profits Rise as Taxes Fall
===============================
........... Profits Taxes
2000 $1,649.7b 249.9b 15.2%
2008 $1,830.0b 230.1b 12.6%

As you can see from the above corporations pay even less than the people in the top 400. There is a 20 Billion dollar shortfall, even though corps had better results.

[I_Like_Dirt]

I've never said they weren't dangerous or even implied they're working in balance - clearly they're not. I just wasn't able to sit back and allow incomplete information to be passed of as evidence of anything. I can't refute the numbers because none of us can - that's the point. Those numbers can't be used because they are incomplete.

The simplest way to get an overview is that the bigger and more comfortable the middle class, the better the balance. We can all see the middle class is shrinking and under pressure, but simply taking from haves and giving to have-nots only creates more have-nots in the end. The best way is to enable people to move up on their own, rather than enabling them to stay where they are at the expense of others.

My post was more trying to lead in to get this back on topic. This whole topic came up as an offshoot of whether or not the owners of NBA teams were experiencing the kinds of financial hardships they say they are. There is a lot of evidence that suggests they aren't actually experiencing these kinds of financial hardships. If they are losing money on the NBA and still making loads of money at other businesses, the model might be broken, but why on earth would such a smart person who makes so much money in other businesses suddenly invest in a money-losing NBA franchise? They do have other reasons for buying an NBA team like the massive tax writeoffs it affords them for their other businesses and don't get included as profits from owning an NBA team (which does relate to the amount of taxes they're actually paying, and is a big reason why these teams sell for so much in the first place and then get sold again after 10-15 years once that tax writeoff no longer applies to them).

Are the owners experiencing the financial hardships they claim to be? There is a lot of reasons out there not to take them at their word, and you hit on it precisely when you pointed out that nobody could give the exact details. They aren't really doing anything to give us a good reason to believe them this time around, either, and people (senators) are starting to ask questions about similar issues in other industries as well. That's the relevance here. Not trying to haggle over specific details of what's right and wrong.

[Courtside]

Not trying to haggle over specific details of what's right and wrong.

The reply may have been to you, but it was a more general post expanding (clarifying?) my viewpoint on the other thread-jacking that was going on. I felt like I got painted as something I wasn't, based not on what I said but what was being thrown back at me.

In any case, I concede that a portion of NBA teams are likely in the scenario that you are portraying above. Thing is, even teams like Milwaukee, Indiana, etc... are having troubles and they certainly weren't bought recently using borrowed money, etc. If they've had to borrow money to keep things going, then the cost of financing that debt is reasonable to count as an expense.

As for having subsidiaries where one is used to offset the revenues of another, or some variation thereof, there is a reason why legal corporations, LLP, etc exist to separate one entity legally from another - so the owners aren't doing anything illegal. How many are doing these things and disingenuously negotiating with the players union, I don't know, but it's not right to paint the owners in broad strokes and make like they're all crooks looking to rip off the players.

My opinion is that even if revenues were split 50/50, the players would be getting their fair share as partners in the venture. Let them figure out how to split theirs, and the owners theirs. If they lose, they lose. I think good times throughout the 80s and 90s along with expansion made the league agree to an arrangement that really wasn't equitable or sustainable, since ticket and TV revenues were growing along with franchise values - but much like the US housing market - you eventually end up running out of buyers and overvalued properties. I think this is the league's way of trying to avoid a similar meltdown. It may be of their making, but no one else is going to correct it for them - they have to correct it also.

[from24ft]

My opinion is that even if revenues were split 50/50, the players would be getting their fair share as partners in the venture.

That is not how a free market works. I can't set, 50/50 before a product is sold and the demand established. The reason the percentages are the way they are is because there was competition.

The owners are doing everything in their power to make sure that teams can't compete for players. In essence, players are restricted from seeking fair value for their services.

You cant decide what percentages are fair, in a 50/50 way, that my friend is called "CENTRAL PLANNING"

[from24ft]

This is what I would do if I was the PU.

Agree to take 10% of all pay that the players earn for the next 10 years and let it go to a trust.

After 10 years, lockout the owners for 3 years, or until a practical CBA can be established, and use the trust fund to keep members afloat during the lockout. Best way to deal with the greedy is to hurt their pocket books. Starve them till they fold and a new league is established. Based on the free market. If Lakers can spend more, let them spend more.

The players tried to be nice by agreeing to competitive concessions for the good of the sport, but the owners after getting these concessions are tightening the strings on how much the players can earn. They want to cap it. There should be no cap in a free market. The players have given too much.


EDIT: There is obvious disparity between the haves and have nots in this league. It's unfair to use the most uncompetitive teams as the baseline and ensure their profitability at the expense of player salaries. At no point looking at the unequal distribution of revenues amongst the top teams.

Let the areas that each club controls be determined by population DENSITY instead of area. Everything else goes into the collective kitty. Sorry if I think making the league fair is better than bringing about policies that allows Charlotte Bobcats to survive in a market that has already proven to be a disaster. BAD CLUBS SHOULD FAIL (or move). Failure is important to the economy!

The boundaries were changed for Toronto, so the precedent to change them is there, and they should be changed to make the market more competitive. This is how the PU should play the game, make the big clubs like the Lakers and NY sweat it out and wonder WTF were they thinking in getting into these labour negotiations. The boundaries on markets need to be reset!!! I am surprised these nimrods in the PU have not pushed for this. As far as I am concerned, the player union is getting steamrolled and they have no idea how to bargain, and put the pressure back on Stern.

[Haisan]

If the owners are going to insist players have salary caps, I think the players should insist that team management/executives have a cap, too. After all, haven't operational expenses been growing far faster than inflation or player salaries. If the NBA doesn't do something to address soaring expenses, no amount of player rollbacks is going to help for long.

I think it would make a good argument for the players, too, to concentrate on operational expenses. After all, the US economy on the whole is facing huge unemployment and salary rollbacks, even as corporate profits have recovered. People are pissed at Wall Street and big business in general, so an argument that taps into that anger would put management (and Stern) on the defensive.

Of course, all that is what I think the players should do to do well in negotiations. I do not think there is any objectively "right" outcome here ... in general, I would like the players to do well, but we are talking about rich people playing a game (and owning the teams).

[from24ft]

I don't really look at the players as some elite class.


PRO SORTS is the one path in this world that is so transparent that even a kid born in the slums of brazil has shot at if he works hard enough. The money that is paid is only paid to the best in the world, there is no wink wink deals, whereby teams like a players politics or conversational skills at wine and cheese dinners and than pay him the big bucks. All the money the players make is transparent and public and BASED on PERFORMANCE.


In fact, there is incredibly large pyramid that represents the same hard work and ambition of players that have not made it. Making it is hard, and should be rewarded. We can't just look at these guys making too much to play a game, just like we cant look at a rockstar making too much for being the best at what he does. We all can sing, we all can act, but only the best at singing and acting get to earn the monies we see in the media. If you are the best in the world at a skill you should be rewarded. I don't care if your are from the ghetto, if you are the best and there is a demand for your skill, you should be paid as much as the demand can afford.


As for the expense, they need to be checked, but the league is not forthcoming with those figures. Capital expenses should not be the burden of the players. Just as if you are an owner of a building you bought with 20 units for 4Mil, you can't charge every tenant 200K, in rent to get your capital back. You need to take that loss on the 4Mil and amortize it over a few years, to get back your investment. The teams have made incredible Capital Expenditures that increase their overall net worth over a long term. Looking at the players to pay your cost of money for that because it is an expense on your books is incredibly unfair.

[from24ft]

I feel this is worth a watch for those that think the tax system is fair in the US. I also think this is on topic for this thread because it talks about the tax shelters that various companies use, to avoid taxes. This IMO is also relevant to this discussion because it shows the current environment for Corporations and their incredible ability to circumvent various accounting rules.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHd2PMg0inw[/youtube]

I have a lot of respect for Cenk Uygur, he is one of the few reliable news sources on the net. He was being groomed for the prime slot at MSNBC as the future star of the network, he was asked to tone it down on the Obama admin, and refused and lost his job for it. Very few people will tell you like it is in the "established" media, Cenk is equally hard on both parties. He started as a Republican supporter, so his roots are conservative. This guy backed up his opinions with his actions, he could of been prime time honcho on that network. (You can google his take on losing his MSNBC post, for more on this, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrKKkGl3TnY)

[whoknows]

"You trust no one in this, to be honest. You know you trust the players, because we're communicating and negotiating. But you never trust the other side. Because you don't know what they're thinking and they don't know what you're thinking.

Read more: http://basketball.realgm.com/wiretap/21 ... z1Wl35Uw4x

I hope KG is not part of negotiation team...

[Tofubeque]

PRO SORTS is the one path in this world that is so transparent that even a kid born in the slums of brazil has shot at if he works hard enough. The money that is paid is only paid to the best in the world, there is no wink wink deals, whereby teams like a players politics or conversational skills at wine and cheese dinners and than pay him the big bucks. All the money the players make is transparent and public and BASED on PERFORMANCE.

[from24ft]

I guess you can make a case whether he should be making 7.5 Million or 11, but you are still in multi-million range when talking about a 7 footer of his skill and age.