Being told "professional poker doesn't contribute to society."

[Tien]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

when you consider taxes and spending habits and the velocity of money yadda yadda economic efficiency blah blah social stability poopoop it just comes down to an economic argument, but the bottom line is that you're doing nothing to increase society's total wealth. you consume without producing. you're a leech on society.

the effect you achieve by paying "extra" tax (and i put it in quotes because it could be that more tax would be paid if the money was spent in some other way) is basically an effective increase of the tax rate. it doesn't "contribute" in any way.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you just dodged the entire statement.


If Lyric makes 200 000$ a year paying poker and paid 100 000$ last year in taxes, that 100 000$ he paid in taxes is money the US government would have never seen ever again if he or some other pro didn't win the money.

That 100 000$ was used to pay for 3 police officer's salaries.

Without these online poker "professionals" paying taxes, all that online money would never return to the United States ever again.

This argument about contribution is old and really really subjective to argue.


But really, 99.99% of the people working aren't doing it to "contribute" to society, they are merely working jobs so that they can make money and feed their kids.

It's human nature you have a problem about if you are arguing over "contribution". How many people out there would quit working their 9-5 "contributing" jobs if they suddenly were given the skill to make 150-200K a year playing poker?

Humans are greedy animals and "contribution to society" is often times at the bottom of the priority list when it comes to making money.

[/ QUOTE ]
The flaw in your argument is that the fish would spend the money somewhere else, giving additional people things to do, and then those additional people would pay taxes.

No amount of hand waving is going to get around the fact that if you don't produce something when you earn money, then your job is not productive. Paying taxes doesn't make you productive. Spending money in any way doesn't make you productive. Giving poker dealers jobs doesn't make you productive. Generating something of net benefit to society is what makes you productive, and professionals gamblers do nothing of that sort.

If it bothers you, then do some soul searching. However, don't had wave your way into an economically flawed argument.

[/ QUOTE ]


The flaw to this entire argument all together is people's definitions of what "contribution" really is.

YOUR definition of contribution is different than someone else's definition of contribution.


If Lyric paid 100 000$ in taxes as well as spent a whole bunch of the remaining money buying tangibles and helping fueling the economy by spending the money, than to me, he contributes to the economy. He earns a lot and spends a lot. The more you inject liquidity into the economy, the more it is stimulated.


If you want to group "contributions" in terms of adding some sort of advancement to human kind than fine, poker players don't "contribute", and neither do hundreds if not thousands of other job descriptions out there.


Do Tabacco companies contribute?
Do Alcohol companies contribute?
Does people who own gambling institutions contribute?




If your definition of contribution meaning producing something to help society or the advancement of society. There are PLENTY of jobs out there that don't produce diddly squat that aren't at the center of attack of all this "contribution to society" bull [censored].


Let's erase all these jobs in society that don't produce anything nor make these people productive in any way and you will suddenly find yourself with millions of unemployed people.