Post

The deserving and understanding sentiment has been about since the Poor Law. A horrible and insidiously awful distinction. What makes one more or less deserving than another - social mores of the day is far more likelier than objective measurements.

Besides, the free market cannot be trusted. As Red pretty much states, it favours the the religion of celebrity or sociopathic tendencies over most forms of meaningful impact. Which is why top tier nurses or teachers, or whoever are paid a pittance relative to LeBron's top tier sporting income.

Then the idea of what we value - namely the power of philanthropy. Sure, it is swell and does, I am sure, make a great impact. The question however comes down to several points worth considering. 1. Why was so much wealth ever to be allowed to be made by one person? 2. Why isn't there a progressive tax system to ensure wealth inequality is reduced (especially when most of the evidence views this as an barrier to justice, health inequality, etc etc)? 3. What gives the person giving away vast sums the training and expertise to direct the cash to best possible use? Government is guilty of all three either for letting it happen or wasting billions on junk policy (but it is elected)!

Besides, sports personality is massively emplimentic of the injustices in society. An ever popular example of this lies within the sociology of sport, where underrepresented groups such as people of colour outperform their white counterparts, due to it being one of the very few ways in which decent cash can be made. Or in Europe, the same holds for white working class men. This is a side note but a fairly important one on what and how value can be viewed and one of those consequences it brings. Instead of inspiration and a hope for change, it actually cements the status quo on how we view society.

What, quite frankly we need, is a basic universal income. It is well evidenced (on the whole). Remove as many barriers as we can see fit and do it in a quick and meaninful way. Top tier sports personalities will remain rich, but a lorry driver does not have to work an extra long shift to make ends meet and ensure the roads are safer. How can it be done? Proper progressive taxation. We are never going to end the endless debate on why X is paid more than Y unless we remove the free market in its entirely, but we can at least say as a society that everyone's contribution matter, as well as their potiential and ability to make good on their potential. Everyone is deserving. Free market excess is curtailed. Everyone's valued and makes the best choices for themselves. And inequality is reduced.