| Share of Adjusted Gross Income, 2008 | Share of Olympic Medals, 2008 | |
|---|---|---|
| Top 5% | 34.73% | 36.22% |
| Top 10% | 45.77% | 53.11% |
| Top 25% | 67.38% | 71.47% |
| Top 50% | 87.25% | 91.03% |
The table above shows a comparison of: a) the shares of Adjusted Gross Income for the top 5%, 10%, 25% and 50% of U.S. taxpayers in 2008 (IRS data here), and the shares of the Summer Olympic Medals for the top 5%, 10%, 25% and 50% of countries that earned at least one medal in 2008 (data here).
Notice the amazing
similarity between the shares of adjusted gross income earned in the U.S. in 2008 and the shares of the 1,918 Olympic medals awarded in 2008, in both cases by the top 5, 10, 25 and 50% of "participants" or "earners."
The
"income inequality" that seems to disturb so many people in the U.S. is very closely matched with an even slightly higher degree of "Olympic medal inequality," and we'll likely get the same unequal distribution of Olympic medals this summer in London. It's almost certain that we'll hear
no objections or concerns over the next few weeks about the inevitable and significant "medal inequality," and that inequality will generate no calls for
"medal taxes" on the top 5% of medal winners (e.g. U.S., China, Russia or the U.K. in 2008) or "medal redistribution" from the U.S. and China to the dozens of countries that will win no medals.
Just imagine for a moment how
"Olympic medal taxes," and especially a "progressive Olympic medal
tax," with subsequent "medal redistribution" at the Final Ceremony to
achieve a more "equal distribution of medals" would quickly destroy the
competitive spirit of the Olympics and reduce the overall level of
athletic performance, especially for the "extreme," world-class athletes
at the top like Michael Phelps. If the final ceremony at the Olympics
included imposing a medal tax on an "extreme athlete" like Michael
Phelps, and redistributing some of his gold medals to countries that
earned "too few" medals by some consensus (or no medals like Bolivia, Pakistan, Uganda and dozens of other countries in 2008), you can imagine what might
happen - he might not show up at the next Olympics, or certainly
wouldn't have the same incentive to train as hard.
We might get the same outcome when we attempt to tax the top, or "extreme income earners" - at some point they'll stop working or won't have the same incentive to work as hard and earn as much taxable income.
Bottom Line: The Olympic medal winners are respected and admired, despite the significant amount of "medal inequality" that results from that intense world-class competition. Instead of always vilifying them, perhaps we should pay the same respect to the world-class winners of the American free enterprise system - the successful "extreme" entrepreneurs at the top of our economic ladder who are represented in the top 1, 5 and 10% by income.
We might get the same outcome when we attempt to tax the top, or "extreme income earners" - at some point they'll stop working or won't have the same incentive to work as hard and earn as much taxable income.
Bottom Line: The Olympic medal winners are respected and admired, despite the significant amount of "medal inequality" that results from that intense world-class competition. Instead of always vilifying them, perhaps we should pay the same respect to the world-class winners of the American free enterprise system - the successful "extreme" entrepreneurs at the top of our economic ladder who are represented in the top 1, 5 and 10% by income.
Well, that is an interesting graphic, no?
ReplyDeleteOf course, when an athlete wins a gold medal, the government deserves most of the credit.
ReplyDeleteAfter all, government builds roads and bridges.
... and the stadiums and sports venues?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteLarry G.,
ReplyDeleteThe point is, gold is worth more than bronze; and even the worst Olympic athlete deserves more credit than all the lazy slugs sitting on the couch watching them.
At the very least, it's a relativistic thing.
well sure but who pays for all the Olympic "infrastructure" the athletes perform in?
ReplyDeletedo we give credit to those who pay for the Olympic infrastructure?
did the athletes "build that"?
:-)
Larry G.,
ReplyDeleteNo, the athletes did not build that.
But I'm a bit more impressed with someone who can win, e.g. a gold medal in the 100 meter freestyle than I am with some grungy construction worker who happened to be working on the Olympic infrastructure.
No one is saying that we should cut government spending down to zero.
But how about cutting federal spending down to 18% of GDP...?
If Obama had his way, Federal spending would be at 50% of GDP
I warned you all !!!! Now Obama the socialist is taxing Olympic gold medals !!!!
ReplyDeleteWe need to write our congressman NO taxes on Olympic medals !
Yes, however, is the following "fair?":
ReplyDelete1st place: $1 billion
2nd place: A new car
3rd place: A toaster
4th place and below: Nothing
Of course, only destroying part of the rewards won't help everyone.
ReplyDeleteYou don't want to kill the goose that lays the golden egg.
That's why Obama's "experiment" failed.
ReplyDeleteUpdated chart of output gap (also, notice the destruction of potential output since 2009):
http://stateofworkingamerica.org/charts/output-gap-real-gdp-compared-to-potential-gdp-2000-11/
Scott Grannis also has an updated output gap chart (July 27, 2012):
ReplyDeletehttp://scottgrannis.blogspot.com/
Highly misleading comparison. The countries winning the most Olympic medals are, for the most part, countries with the most population and/or affluence: China, USA, Russia, Britain, France, Germany, etc. Many large but economically undeveloped countries: India, Indonesia, Egypt, etc. have hardly won any.
ReplyDeleteThe top 5% of income earners shows the degree of concentration of wealth.
While the comparison yields eerily similar numbers, imagine what the statistics would be if governments protected established talent like they protect capital (zoning, licenses, regulation as barrier to entry, subsidy, TBTF, etc.)
ReplyDeletePeak:
ReplyDelete"Yes, however, is the following "fair?":
1st place: $1 billion
2nd place: A new car
3rd place: A toaster
4th place and below: Nothing"
Yes it is. You forgot to mention that there are 100k 2nd place car recipients and 100 million 3rd place toaster recipients, and that what they got depended almost entirely on your own skill and effort.
Would you prefer that everyone got a toaster no matter how well they performed?
If that was the incentive, soon enough the 1st, 2nd and 3rd place performers would lose interest in playing the game, and then even toasters would become scarce.
"Highly misleading comparison. The countries winning the most Olympic medals are, for the most part, countries with the most population and/or affluence: China, USA, Russia, Britain, France, Germany, etc. Many large but economically undeveloped countries: India, Indonesia, Egypt, etc. have hardly won any.
ReplyDeleteThe top 5% of income earners shows the degree of concentration of wealth.
Did you click 'publish' too soon? What was your point?
"... and the stadiums and sports venues?"
ReplyDelete"Who's that trip-tropping on my bridge?" Larry the troll yells out.
"What was your point?"
ReplyDeleteThere is no point. That is the point.
If the medal winners get more food than they can eat and losers get no food, then yes, they should share.
ReplyDeleteIs this a manifestation of power functions such as Zipf's Law? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zipf_distribution
ReplyDeleteWhere would professional sports be if wealth redistribution were applied to player salaries? More exciting or boring? More competitive or indifferent?
ReplyDelete"If the medal winners get more food than they can eat and losers get no food, then yes, they should share."
ReplyDeleteMay I assume you are referring to their natural generosity as human beings and not some forced redistribution? :)
As an example of where this is headed, look at the gymnastics competition from last night, wherein world champion Jordan Wieber was eliminated from the all-around individual competition. Why? Because of a stupid rule under which each country can only have two such competitors, and Jordan came in third in the qualifying round. So while competitors from other countries, with lower scores than Jordan, will compete, Jordan will not. And why? Because it's "not fair" for a few countries to get most of the medals - even if they earn them?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAllen:
ReplyDelete"As an example of where this is headed, look at the gymnastics competition from last night, wherein world champion Jordan Wieber was eliminated from the all-around individual competition. Why? Because of a stupid rule under which each country can only have two such competitors, and Jordan came in third in the qualifying round. So while competitors from other countries, with lower scores than Jordan, will compete, Jordan will not. And why? Because it's "not fair" for a few countries to get most of the medals - even if they earn them?"
Perhaps athletes should compete as individuals without any country affiliation.
Perhaps athletes should compete as individuals without any country affiliation.
ReplyDeleteand athletes (and commercial supporters) would pay for the stadiums and sports venues?
No govt affiliation and no govt financial support... right?
"and athletes (and commercial supporters) would pay for the stadiums and sports venues?
ReplyDeleteNo govt affiliation and no govt financial support... right?"
You should know by now what my opinion is on government financial support. I am not in favor of government spending on much of anything, I certainly don't believe taxpayer money should be spent on something that provides such tremendous benefits to commercial interests.
Voluntary contributions? Fine. Commercial investment? Fine. Ticket sales? fine.
Those who stand to benefit should pay for that benefit.
I don't have a problem with athletes being affiliated with national sports organizations and representing a country, but the problem Allen hates is a result of the necessity of limiting the number of players who finally compete. Otherwise there would be Olympic qualifying rounds at all times between Olympic events.
but the problem Allen hates
ReplyDeleteis the govt doing that?
"is the govt doing that?"
ReplyDeleteDoing what?
is ANY of the medal issues due to Govt policies?
ReplyDeleteWho is actually responsible for the "inequalities"?
Isn't it a non-govt entity?
"is ANY of the medal issues due to Govt policies?
ReplyDeleteWho is actually responsible for the "inequalities"?
Isn't it a non-govt entity?
I'm not sure where you think you're going with this, but if it has anything to do with accusations of holding government and private entities to different standards, I can assure you we are not going there.
As you well know the IOC is a private organization, and as such can set whatever standards and impose whatever requirements it wishes.
Allen's complaint appears to be that an athlete he prefers was eliminated from competition due to his not making the cut during qualifying rounds. I doubt that there is any system that will satisfy everyone.
It's not clear what inequalities you are referring to, but inequalities in sports are almost entirely due to differences in the abilities of the athletes themselves, as it should be.
So, what is your point here?
"the problem Allen hates is a result of the necessity of limiting the number of players who finally compete."
ReplyDeleteI recognize that each Olympic athlete is a representative of their country. But we are now talking not about a team competition, but an individual competition. I don't "prefer" the specific athlete in question here; I am pointing out that her individual scores are higher than those of other nations, but she is not allowed to compete for this individual medal. Yes, the IOC must limit the number of competitors, and as a private organization, they can do so any way they like. I would "prefer" that they establish the cutoff for an individual competition on the basis of individual merit. To do otherwise is just to "spread the wealth around," as someone once famously said to a plumber....
Allen:
ReplyDelete"I would "prefer" that they establish the cutoff for an individual competition on the basis of individual merit. To do otherwise is just to "spread the wealth around," as someone once famously said to a plumber...."
I too would prefer that individual merit be the sole determinant as it is in professional sports. The top performers play, everyone else doesn't. I certainly don't advocate "spreading the wealth around".
Of course in Olympic competition, participation based on merit alone could result in all the competitors in an event being from one country - hardly a crowd pleaser.
I don't know what the answer is. No matter what, not everybody will be pleased.
part of the moral to this story is that this kind of quandary is a condition of any governance not just big G governance.
ReplyDeletesomeone sets up an association.
rules are determined and inevitably oxen are gored... etc....
it's not inherent to majority-rule governance alone.
it's inherent to most all kinds of governance.
Ask Penn State.
"part of the moral to this story is that this kind of quandary is a condition of any governance not just big G governance."
ReplyDeleteYou are absolutely correct. The BIG difference is choice. Everyone is involved voluntarily, and if unhappy can bail out. Not so with big G.
check which nation has scored more gold medals
ReplyDeleteOlympic Medal Table 2012