Skip to main content

Uncle Sam Strips Boston Marathon Champions of Their Winnings

As the elite competitors of the 2018 Boston Marathon endure bone-chilling rain and stifling winds, the U.S. government sits idly by, comfortably prepared indoors and removed from the elements, awaiting their share of the winnings.



It is disturbing to think that the men and women who effectively place their health at risk, who compete under the most dire of circumstances, who press the limits of the human spirit, would finish only to be identified by the federal government as debtors to the state.

That government bears no interest in any other part of the athlete's heart-wrenching odyssey, yet it is there all the while waiting to assume its part in his crowning achievement, not to extend any congratulations, but rather to deliver the bill.

For what?

For being the best. For adding value. For winning.

Incredibly, this government effectively interprets the athlete's achievement as equivalent to the windfall attending the gambler's roll of the dice.

While both of these endeavors always assume a great measure of risk, as the individual assumes at least every participation cost with no guarantee of success, there is at least a potential moral distinction to be proposed in regulating the gambler's activities.

The gambler is often the victim of his own addiction, and his fortune is the function of chance.

As such, the taxes can be formally placed on an activity which is labeled destructive and merely speculative, where there is nothing more than a value-add from entertainment or pastime.

While there are surely a great number of gambling activities which require aptitude, skill and thoughtful strategy, the whole industry tends to be dismissed at the behest of that previous description.

Now, the talking heads within government cannot stake those same claims for the athlete who commits himself tirelessly to physical training, refining his skills and strength to win on the day of competition.

His performance is not as much the product of luck or fortune, but rather that of consistent training and high-level preparation.

What's more, his occupation and winnings exact upon the community no identifiable externalities; on the contrary, the incidental benefit of his performance is visible through the smiling faces which grace the sidewalks, the inspired children who aspire to emulate him, the advancement of the known physiological possibilities, and the followers from home who pledge to undertake their own personal fitness regimen. 

The many incidental benefits are purely far too numerous to possibly enumerate, as they stretch far too wide and their reach is far too abstract to capture.

Moreover, the monetary winnings in this space fall far short of compensating for the hours of exhaustive training and the level of painstaking personal investment required to compete on that stage.

Ironically, when comparing monetary returns with the average number of hours committed to this sport by the elite athlete, the mathematical outcome shows a figure which would puzzle the standard statistician, behavioral economist and psychologist.

In fact, many of those tax collectors would be surprised to learn that so many of these athletes are employed at a rate even well below the federal minimum wage.

Indeed, a great many athletes merely scrape by for years at a time to afford themselves a chance at competing at the highest levels and maybe one day bringing home the big check.

As it turns out, most of these athletes compete toward a near-zero rate of return on the investment, meaning that the sum total of their spending either matches or exceeds their eventual winnings.

Of course, most of them will never achieve much more than a medal, so the average expected return across all participants is positively negative.

For these reasons and for the purposes of liberty, it makes sense only to permit the athlete to retain every penny of his winnings.

After all, he is the one who actually earned it.

The government officials merely sat on frothy philosophical claims which suppose that they, or their constituents, deserve their fair share.

It is a great pity that we must resolve this problem, as it brings us back to a very fundamental set of questions:

Do we own ourselves? 

And if so, do we own the product of our labor?

If the reader's answers prove to vary across those two questions, neither can be absolutely true, as we must necessarily own ourselves to own the product of our labor, and we must necessarily own the product of our labor to own ourselves.


An affirmation for each of these questions proves a necessary condition for liberty, yet only their combined satisfaction warrants the sufficient case.

We surely live under a great tyranny when sheer competition, athletic achievement, and harmless exchanges are routinely subjected to the thievery of ornately-dressed men and women hundreds of miles away.

Though the men and women who accept these prizes will seldom say anything publicly about this, it is indisputably a great disservice to those who train year round, who test the thresholds of endurance and survivability, and who all the while inspire cities and communities, children and aspirers, and the achiever within all of us.

Among these comfortable and well-insulated chatterboxes in skirts and suits, only a limited few will ever develop an appreciation for the remarkable sacrifice, the unyielding determination and the inimitable pride which attends such an undertaking.

Because those few mark such a minority, one cannot reasonably expect any change to be made without a fight or a clamor from those among us who truly understand and appreciate such an event, such a pure demonstration of the human will to triumph, and such an epitomization of the unbridled human spirit.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Into the Wild: An Economics Lesson

The Keynesian mantra, in its implications, has its roots in destruction rather than truth: “In the long run, we’re all dead.” If this is your guiding principle, we are destined to differ on matters of principle and timeline. While it is true that our fates intersect in death, that does not mean that we ought to condemn our heirs to that view: the view that our work on this planet ought only to serve ourselves, and that we ought only to bear in mind the consequences within our own lifetimes.  The Keynesians, of course, prefer their outlook, as it serves their interests; it has the further benefit of appealing to other selfish people who have little interest in the future to which they'll ultimately condemn their heirs. After all, they'll be long gone by then. So, in the Keynesian view, the longterm prospects for the common currency, social stability, and personal liberty are not just irrelevant but inconvenient. In their view, regardless of the consequences, those in charge tod

America's Civil War: Not "Civil" and Not About Slavery

Virtually the entirety of South and Central America, as well as European powers Britain, Spain and France, peacefully abolished slavery — without war — in the first sixty years of the nineteenth century.  Why, then, did the United States enter into a bloody war that cost over half of the nation’s wealth, at least 800,000 lives and many hundreds of thousands more in casualties?  The answer: the War Between the States was not about slavery.  It was a war of invasion to further empower the central government and to reject state sovereignty, nullification of unconstitutional laws, and the states’ rights to secession.  It was a war that would cripple the South and witness the federal debt skyrocket from $65 million in 1860 to $2.7 billion in 1865, whose annual interest alone would prove twice as expensive as the entire federal budget from 1860. It was a war whose total cost, including pensions and the burial of veterans, was an estimated $12 billion. Likewise, it was a war that would

There's Always Another Tax: The Tragedy of the Public Park

In the San Francisco Bay Area, many residents work tirelessly throughout the year to pay tens of thousands of dollars in annual property taxes. In addition to this, they are charged an extra 10 percent on all expenses through local sales taxes. It doesn't stop there. In addition to their massive federal tax bill, the busy state of California capitalizes on the opportunity to seize another 10 percent through their own sizable state income taxes. But guess what! It doesn't stop there. No, no, no, no.  In California, there's always another tax. After all of these taxes, which have all the while been reported to cover every nook and cranny of the utopian vision, the Bay Area resident is left to face yet an additional tax at the grocery store, this time on soda. The visionaries within government, and those who champion its warmhearted intentions, label this one the "soda tax," which unbelievably includes Gatorade, the preferred beverage of athletes