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

[donkeykong2]

i wouldnt try to argue when im clearly wrong, the statement is obviously true and anyone who doubts this here is lying to himself. the consequences of it are a different thing.

[stinkypete]

[ QUOTE ]

I think you just dodged the entire statement.


[/ QUOTE ]

not at all

[ QUOTE ]

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.

[/ QUOTE ]

i'm not gonna try to explain why this is entirely wrong beyond what i said in the last post, but i'll say that you should study economics a bit before you try to make that argument.

[ QUOTE ]


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.



[/ QUOTE ]

well if your definition of society/the economy is "the united states" your point is valid, but i prefer to consider the whole world.

you're wrong when you say "all that online money would never return to the United States ever again". a lot of the sites have american owners, etc.

and we're not just talking about online pros here.

[ QUOTE ]

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 ]

you're right, but that's not what this discussion is about.

[FatRed]

[ QUOTE ]
The rest go to bombing people in other societies, but that's okay because the bombs help them live better lives, in freedom!

[/ QUOTE ]


I almost fell out of my chair laughing.



[ QUOTE ]
I didn't sign the social contract.

[/ QUOTE ]


This is the whole point. Since when do you have to justify what you do for a living in the context of "what it contributes to society?" It's an honest job and you pay taxes on your income - 'nuff said!

[JoeDimaggio]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think playing poker and doing nothing but use the money on yourself contributes nothing (although it puts money back in the economy when you spend it)

However, I think when you get to a level where you make enough money to invest a decent amount of it or donate it you are contributing as much as anybody else. I think as long as a very low percentage of the population tries to play professional poker it is not that harmful to society overall.

If you go to a casino every day, win or lose money, buy nothing but a few things for yourself here and there aside from essentials, you would be contributing nothing.

But if that's contributing nothing to society, what's the difference when you talk about actors or musicians? Isn't that close to the same as a poker player who for instance makes a lot of TV final tables?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you are on TV you're an entertainer like an actor. What if you just sit at home all day playing on the interwebnets?

[/ QUOTE ]

Right... that was my point I don't understand why if people consider TV poker players (professionals) unproductive to society, they don't make the same arguement with professional actors. It is basically the same thing.

[Jack Ruby]

What do actors or actresses contribute?

When Demi Moore got paid $20,000,000 to pretend she would spread her legs for $1,000,000 who did that really help?

Poker pros offer the public entertainment just like casinos, artists, etc.

Does Kobe Bryant really contribute anything to society? How does the Lakers losing a basketball game help anybody?

You could make the case all professions are market dictated.

[curtains]

[ QUOTE ]
Even people who do not object to gambling because of moral or spiritual beliefs often come up with this one. Anyone have a good answer? Shouldn't you quit poker now and run off to become a doctor so that you can "contribute to society?"

Greenstein has obviously decided he doesn't contribute and has decided to give to charity, but I think pro poker contributes by itself -- it's just a little difficult to explain.

Give it a shot.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just do something else in the rest of your time to "contribute to society".

[borisp]

Here is my take on why there is value in being a professional poker player...it is essentially an elaboration on how pros provide entertainment.

In general, there is value created when human beings choose to cooperate with one another. Cooperation allows us to live longer and healthier lives. Anything that tends to initiate cooperation, regardless of its direct rationality, productivity, etc., is therefore valuable. Poker is a social game that can spark or strengthen relationships among the people playing, which can lead to increased cooperation down the road. The value of this future cooperation is speculative, but it is no doubt very real. Most entertaining activities fall under this heading.

Now, the average citizen may choose one of many things on any particular day to socialize, cooperate, what have you. It is important for a complex society to have many available choices, as the availability of variety strengthens the overall willingness of its citizens to persist as cooperative individuals. Average Joe goes out drinking one night, he sees a movie another night, and he goes to the casino (or plays on the internet) on yet another night. In order to do all of this, Joe shows up to work every day.

Casinos and professional gamblers have struck a symbiotic relationship: those who gamble every day show up so that there is always a game, and in exchange, the casino pays the bills and lets them hang out to make profit. On any given day, perhaps half of the players are taken from that tiny fraction of the overall population that is "pro," but the other half is taken from a much larger sample of recreational players who are enjoying the benefits of the society that they have helped create. Servers/bartenders have a similar relationship with restaurants/bars.

The fact that one can make money playing poker is only a side effect of the fact that it is socially valuable, and is irrelevant, since there are plenty of worthwhile activities that are not monetarily profitable. The tax argument is also irrelevant, as it is a side effect of one being able to make money.

And all of the people spouting crap like "if you can't justify your own profession then it is because there is no justification" need to realize that the failure of one's intellect is not an insight into the nature of reality.

[Dima2000123]

[ 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.

[illguitar]

[ QUOTE ]
i wouldnt try to argue when im clearly wrong, the statement is obviously true and anyone who doubts this here is lying to himself. the consequences of it are a different thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT

[Dima2000123]

[ QUOTE ]
What do actors or actresses contribute?

[/ QUOTE ]
They help create entertainment. TV poker players can be lumped with actors, online pros in their underwear cannot be. If anything, they're taking from society by making online games less fun with their 12-tabling nitting.