M-13 - Should police officers and fire fighters get paid more than actors/actresses?

[Jackie Malfoy]

I had read somewhere that it said that actors and actesses get more money then policeman and Fireman. Now all actesses and actors do is acted in movies which is good and all.
But don't u think that cops and fireman should get more money then they do? I mean they are out there everyday saving people's lifes and keeping out streets free of crime!

What do you guys think about this! Fair or unfair?

[MollyWeasley22]

Yes, I think they should be paid more than those spoiled little actors and actress'. Okay, hold on not all of them are spoiled but many of them are ignorant and spoiled.
But I think if police officers were paid more we would have fewer bad apples pulling us over:angry: . I mean they get paid what is it.. down here I think its like, $28,000? Not much, and they work shifts of 12 hours sometimes so thats a lot for so little and the fact that they risk their lives doesn't help with the stress.

[Weatherby]

Yes they should get paid more but that would mean higher taxes so it won't happen.
The same goes for public school teachers and police officers.
Actresses are paid by the studios who are owned independently.

[::Revolutionary::]

Lol...A policeman making 12000000$ per job...

[WaffenSS]

I say that Actors and Actresses should be taxed, and have the money from the Tax go to Firemen and Policemen.

[Weatherby]

Not all actors make a lot of money.
Tom Cruise and Julia Roberts are very wealthy but they aren't the norm. Most actors belong to SAG and work in commercials and tv episodes. They pay fees and have a work ethic. Then there's theatre actors who can make only $40 a week.
I don't see why they should be taxed extra because one deems their job not as important.

Yes they are overvalued but taxing someone because of the nature of their job isn't going to solve this problem.
There are certain professions where the highest in the chain are grotty wealthy but it's never the normal amount of money one earns.

[Crystal]

If I were to go into acting on the stage I'd need a second job as work there is poorly paid and irregular. Obviously the best known tv and film stars get paid much more and footballers get even more than that! I think there should be an upper limit to what stars can earn.

[NuttyNiffler]

Should Fireman and Policeman get more money then Actors and Actess?
Ummm YES! Actor's and Actress' do nothing and make the big bucks. Firefighters and Cops are always putting their life on the line.

I say that Actors and Actresses should be taxed, and have the money from the Tax go to Firemen and Policemen.
Best idea I have ever heard. :D

[Fuchsia]

Actors do not do nothing. And a lot of them are waitresses just to put food on the table. I would not want to live my life without art. It's not nothing to me. Movies got me through the toughest parts of my life. I would hate to lose that.

And like Weatherby said, it is the government that funds firemen and policeman and teachers and such. Actors don't earn their money from that.
Perhaps you should stop going to the movies starring Julia Roberts and Tom Cruise so they will stop being paid that much when their films don't sell as many tickets. Boycott Vin Diesel and Ahnuld.
Same goes for the baseball teams who go on strike when they aren't paid "enough".

That said, Roberts films *do* take in millions and millions of dollars and she is a part of why they do. That is why they make that much money. They aren't being paid out of nowhere. They make money for the studios.

Do you want to pay huge taxes for the salaries of firemen to be higher?

[DsX Phoenix]

Well, see, the problem is, firemen, policemen, and teachers are all paid by the government. With everything the government runs, they don't have enough money to really pay government workers much. I mean, the President makes about $250,000 a year...not much at all compared to these big time movie stars.

But actors and actresses get paid by studios who earn millions of dollars off of the movies these actors and actresses star in. And, in this sense, actors and actresses get paid what they're worth. How would you feel if your boss earned say...$87 million because of you, and you still only got paid minimum wage?

As for the taxes, the wealthy already have large taxes placed on them, simply from how the tax system works: you earn more money, you pay more taxes. But again, how would you feel if the government made fast food workers pay an extremely large tax compared to anyone else, simply because your job isn't really beneficial to anyone?

[Crystal]

Should politiciuons be paid less so we can pay public sector workers more?
I think yes!

[EmilyRose]

How about sports stars?

Heck, if you get a manager's position at Wal-Mart, you're making more than a starting police officer in some places. More than a well-established one in others. That's... sad.

And if you're going to discuss underpaid public servants... Shouldn't teachers be making more as well?

[syphon]

in my opinion the ppl who work as firemen and policemen know wat they r going to get and so should not complain about their pay like the firemen have. they no wat they will be paid and so should not strike. i like they should amke it law that foremen cannot strike like with policemen and paramedics.

[Cat]

There should be a limit to how much an actor can be paid for one film, as should there be a limit to how much sports stars are paid for one game (are they paid by the game? I don't even know).

If the payment to an actor is limited, then they can only become absurdly wealthy by starring in a lot of films, which is perfectly fair.

[PrtVeela]

I agree with you Cat, who honestly needs 20 million per film, that's a bit absurd. I can't even fathom that kind of money.

And sports stars also get obscene amounts of money for the games that they play in. TV actors are getting pretty pricy to now or days.

Most of the government gets paid millions less than actors, the president I believe makes around 400,000 a year, That's plenty I was just showing you in repsect to how much actors get paid.

[DsX Phoenix]

Well, let's say there was a limit of $2 million per movie for an actor, and the movie he stars in rakes in over $100 million from the theatres. So, the star only gets $2 million, and all of the supporting actors' salaries don't even total $1 million. That's $98 million dollars left. Who gets it? The producer? The owner of the studio? Either way, someone will be getting that money, so there will still be a multimillionaire from this one movie. In fact, more so of one than when the stars gets paid $20 million for a movie. The only reason athletes and movie stars make so much is because we pay so much to watch them. We provide all $20 million dollars for that actor to appear in a movie. Simply, actors get paid millions because they bring in millions more.

As for government workers, yes, they should be paid more. But again, who pays them? We do. The more money made from taxes, the more money they would get. But, out of all of you that pay taxes, how many of you want to pay even more taxes? That's what I thought. Politicians always promise to reduce taxes. Why? Because that's what we, the taxpayers, want.

[Fuchsia]

If policemen and firemen started commanding huge salaries how many of them do you think there are going to be left? Most of them would be laid off.
Then having your life saved becomes a luxury only for the select few. Diamonds cost more because we don't *have* to have it. Bread cannot be overcharged because we need it.
Do you see where I'm going with this?

[Joanna]

Yes, I agree but here's the catch. Anyone can bee a fireman/policeman while only a very select few can become actors/actresses. Money is based on talent, not on the importance of a job (in most cases).

[Fuchsia]

Money isn't based on talent. Money is based on who the public wants to see.
Completely untalented people make millions while some talented actors don't.

I don't want to sound like I'm switching to the other side (I'm not) but not anyone could become a policemen or a firemen.
It's not based on the worth of the person who has the job but on what the *public* pays for the service since like all jobs
they get paid for providing a service.
We pay for Julia Roberts by buying tickets to her movies.

We need policemen. They can't cost too much because we need it. If we have to pay too much for them we won't have enough policemen like I said before. Public schools were started so everyone could get an education. The money is going to come from somewhere to up the salaries.
It won't be available to everyone if it costs too much. We *choose* to see movies and pay for actors. Not everyone can for policemen. Is anyone going to say "Well, water is worth more to us than doritos. Why don't we charge more for water?!" Think about it. Upping their salaries *is* charging for it.

It's called economics. *sighs*

Actors pay taxes too. Don't forget about that.

[GSiriusIG]

I don't have any trouble with Actors/Actresses making whatever they can. Policemen/firemen/Mail carriers/garbagemen/teachers all work for the good of society and don't make as much as some think they should, but who's going to pay them? Not me, and I'm a teacher. If anyone is really upset by the money stars are making, stop supporting them by watching their movies or going to the games. The people in a society determine the rules with the money they spend.

[Amadeus]

They should be. But the sad truth is, they never will be. Otherside, the government would be bankrupt. Life is unfair...

[Muggle]

Yes. They should spend much less on the military and much more on police, fire fighters, teachers, etc.

[j_thunders]

I just think that somewhere along the way, our priorities got really screwed up, and now we place more importance on entertainment than safety.

But what can we do about it? Nothing, really. So look at it from a wealthy actor's point of view. You have your personal space invaded every day by crazed fans and paparazzi, you can't even sit down at a restaurant and eat a meal without being interrupted for autographs and photos, you have your every move misinterpreted and put in the gossip columns next day, and the business you're in can make you or break you--depending on how they're feeling that day. One wrong move, and you're history. Next thing you know, they're moving on to the next young, beautiful person who they can mold into being America's Sweetheart and take advantage of however they please. And then enters drugs...

[DsX Phoenix]

I think the reason policemen and firefights get shafted is really because, at some level, we do have our priorities straight. I mean, the services that these people provide are necessary, so they have to be free. Since entertainment is purely not necessary, it has to be paid for and bought.

So, given the fact that policeofficers do not bring in any money, they have no money to be paid better, while entertainers have tons of money to get, because they brought in tons of money.

As for what Joanna said, people have just as much of an ability to be an entertainor as they do to be a policeman or firefighter. The latter two have to train and go to school to do what they do, and to survive, they have to be pretty good. The former, people can learn from going to school, but you have to be pretty good in order to make the money.

As weatherby said, it has nothing to do with talent. It has everything to do with the revenue being made by each business.

[Agent Jamon]

OMG how biased is this thread! Seriously...there are two points I'd like to make. First of all, when people thing ator/actress they think MONEY, this is not the case, the actors we hear of and see on movies are the tip of the iceberg of acting community, there are so many actors that are barely scraping through life as it is. and second of all....acting isnt a job which has little responsibility, these people affect many lives in the course of there career...emotionally especially. But in saying all of this, fireman police etc should get payed more...and actors should get paid less, there has to be a middle ground people.

Lataz
Jamon

[Aranel]

I don't know about in America, but here in Australia, the country areas rely totally on volunteer fire fighters.
People who give up their weekends to go train, or take a day off work, and give up their pay to go fight a fire. These people are recognised within our community because of all the fantastic work they do and the lives and property they help to save.
The problem here is not with money for the actual volunteers, its about getting funding for the equipment that is absolute necessity, stuff that is really needed, like pumps, hoses, and protective gear.
This means that the volunteers have to spend extra time going out and asking for donations to keep their brigade running.
Now, it worries me when I see some of those people at the top getting paid millions for a film, when people are stuggling to get money together for life saving equipment.

[Magi]

I agree with the sentiments here.

But just keep in mind, most actors aren't paid a lot. There are a small percentage of professional actors, who command $Millions per film, which is just ridiculous.

Here in Australia, our police services are so short on funding, that in many cases, officers can't be paid for overtime work. Not to mention cutbacks in training and equipment.

[Hagrid442]

Absolutely, police and fire fighters should be paid more than they are. It would probably cut down on corruption since more police would be content with their job. Might cut down on cost in the long run, with self-enforcement not as big an issue. I also wish the elite entertainers (actors and athletes weren't paid as much). It would be fair if they had a reasonable limit placed on them, still big money sure, because it would lower the price of viewing. C'mon... $35 for a seat at a baseball game? The problem, at least in America, is that people are so afraid to pay taxes. There is a movement that wants to do away with them as much as possible. They want to "shrink governments to the point where it can be drowned in a bath tub." Never mind that taxes are needed to actually build and maintain the infrastructure, as well help out people in rough times. However, people would much rather blow $600 (as an example) on a DVD player, and a great surround sound stereo to watch the new Arnold Schwarzengroper film, than have that same $600 go to roads, police, Social Security, unemployment, schools, health care, etc.

Like I said, this is what it's like in America. I have no idea how it is in other countries. There's a misinterpretation that taxes are bad in this country, and this view is sending us to Banana Republic ruination. (wasteful defense spending, $1 TRILLION unaccounted for by the Pentagon, and unnecessary wars do not help) However, taxes are kind of like membership dues. In order to live in this great country, with all its benefits, you need to help pay for it. As for why the rich should be taxed more, they get more of the benefits! An example is that police protection isn't distributed equally. An actor living in Beverly Hills gets much more protection than someone in South Central LA.

[chow mein]

I definitely think fire fighters and police officers should get paid more than actors and actresses. They make sure we're safe 24/7, there's no reason they shouldn't be paid more.

Actually, the only reason I think that fire fighters and officers don't get paid much is because it's our tax dollars and government money that pay them, and the only way they'd get paid more than any actor or actress is if taxes were jacked up - which I don't think people would respond well to (I know I wouldn't).

[Katze]

There a basic issue of economics here that needs to be understood.

Actors, actresses, athletes, and entertainers are paid millions of dollars because you buy their products. If no one bought their products (movies, DVD's, CD's, Books, tickets to a game, etc), they would not earn the millions that you are complaining about.

[Jill]

I think actors and actresses should get far less than the fire and police. I mean the fire and police support save lifes while at the same time put there own life at risk. I don't see actors or actresses putting there lifes at risk do you, it just riddiculous that they get paid so much for just one film or TV show.

[FreyaCrescent]

There a basic issue of economics here that needs to be understood.

Actors, actresses, athletes, and entertainers are paid millions of dollars because you buy their products. If no one bought their products (movies, DVD's, CD's, Books, tickets to a game, etc), they would not earn the millions that you are complaining about.
That's absolutely right. Taking an example, look at David Beckham. A lot of his money comes from lucrative deals with sports companies, advertising products, autobiographies, and other related paraphenalia, on top of football wages.

I think everyone would agree that firemen, police officers, nurses, doctors, teachers and the like all deserve to have higher wages. But people aren't prepared to accept the tax increase that this would mean. Political parties wouldn't suggest increasing taxes to pay public sector workers either - it just isn't a winning policy.

[hesdead-dealwithit]

Should police officers make more money? Well, they do more for our society than celebrities. But will they? Ever? Of course not. It's called economics, as everyone has said. It's not fair, but life isn't fair.

[Angora]

Word to everything Weatherby and DsX Phoenix said.

I find this an odd debate because there's no connection between what these groups get paid. If the movie industry can afford to pay people that, whose business is it but theirs?

That said, it's a lot of money, but it's not as much as you would think. It's a lump sum for months of work, junkets, required attendence at events, crazy hours, overtime, etc, etc. Then the taxes come out of it. And because of the wacky tax system, rich people have to pay a higher percentage than poor people. So, if you really want a connection, there's one. Rich actors are paying for the police through their high taxes.

[Katze]

I really don't understand why many of think there should be cap on how much entertainers make.

The government has NO place in determining how much people should make in the private sector - otherwise we head down the path to communism - which has been proven time and time again that it doesn't work. Just because you think they get paid too much doesn't mean they shouldn't get paid that much.

The best thing to do is to not buy their products. Don't go see the movies, don't go the games, don't buy the DVDs, don't buy themusic CDs. If you can managed to make the general population lower their consumption of these products, you'll see that the entertainers salaries will decrease.

I think it's fruitless being envious of these people's earnings. They earn what the market is willing to bear.

If you want teachers and firemen and policement to be paid more, the best options is to privatize those sectors. Have the government give incentives to companies who are willing to be the business part of these services. The better the services, the higher the tax break for the company.

[Alexia]

I think things are fine the way they are, and I see no reason why police officers or firemen ought to be paid by the media.

1. If the entertainment business has the ability and the funding to pay actors/actresses large sums of money, thats their business. Its just like saying that Person A ought to get a higher allowance than Person B because B does more chores. Its really no ones business.

2. But furthermore, I would prefer that police officers/firemen be paid lower sums of money. This gives me the assurance that they aren't doing their job for money but because they enjoy helping those in need. If those professions were paid as much as entertainment, people would become police officers just to get paid more which would really hurt our society. Because that is when the intentions shift from helping people to monotary gains.

3. But last, those that chose the route of police officers/firemen have the ability to choose another profession if they don't like the pay. They are obviously fine with it if they are still staying in that particular occupation, so why should we complain?

[NYCwitch920]

Of course firemen and police officers should be paid more! Most of them put their lives in danger for the protection of the people! I know there are actors in the world who don't get paid as well as Julia Roberts but they shouldn't be paid more. All they have to do is memorize lines and act as best as they can. Firefighters and police officers save lives! I also feel that this is the same situation with sports stars. Why should a basketball player get more than a firefighter?

[Katze]

Why should a basketball player get more than a firefighter?

Because people continue to pay $60 for a ticket to the game.

You folks really need to understand the difference between privatized business (athletics and entertainement) and government funded services (fire and police).

If there was a basic understanding of economics, it would be seen that government funded services and privatized business simply can't be compared. They are two different animals and comparing the two is absolutely fruitless.

[tabby]

The government has NO place in determining how much people should make in the private sector - otherwise we head down the path to communism - which has been proven time and time again that it doesn't work.

Given that there has been no true communist state I'm curious as to how it has been "proven" that it doesn't work?

(Since someone is bound to mention it, please don't bring up the USSR or China. Neither were genuinely communist and to point to them as an example of the failure of communism simply shows political ignorance.)

I do agree with you on putting caps on wages though. The money is being made. Taking it off the actors via use of wage caps won't give it to the cops. It'll give it to the company, who will give it to their execs.

[Katze]

seeing as how this thread isn't meant to be a discussion for different types of political systems, we should continue the communisim discussion here (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=13574) or here (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=3615).

[Potterhead21]

In a perfect society, everyone could do their job and be paid equally. No one would ahve more or less. We wouldn't admire people purely for being glamorous and wealthy. Unfortunately, that soceity would be communist and we all know that politic system doesn't work.

[Tane]

I do think it is a bit disgraceful that people who put their lives on the line get paid less than actors and actresses. I think people in the film industry get paid too much anyway and their wages could help towards funding for a better police or fire fighting service.

[Wab]

Of course they should. But it ain't gonna happen.

Who's the blame?

The audience.

[thinkpink38]

Yeah, I think they should get more money, because, unlike the actors and actresses, they actually do something benefical towards society and most of all helpful. They rescue people, they protect people from danger, I think the question here is why do the actors make more money than the police officers? (police officers put their life on the line).
Exactly, the audience.

[SilverStar]

yeah I think they should get paid more because they are risking their lives and saving others'.

But the reason actors and actresses get paid so much money is because of the number of people that go see the film............. (as Wab said.)

[rotsiepots]

Yeah, I think they should get more money, because, unlike the actors and actresses, they actually do something benefical towards society and most of all helpful. They rescue people, they protect people from danger, I think the question here is why do the actors make more money than the police officers? (police officers put their life on the line).
Exactly, the audience.

Some would say that individuals in the entertainment industry offer a public service too. We all like to escape, don't we?

Unless everyone is willing to pay higher taxes (ha!), in the wise words of Wab, "it ain't gonna happen".

[hesdead-dealwithit]

I don't think they should get more money than movie and sports stars. They "should" get what the market gives them; giving them more money than that will bring down the economy.

[daniel4hp]

Yeah, I think they should get more money, because, unlike the actors and actresses, they actually do something benefical towards society and most of all helpful. They rescue people, they protect people from danger, I think the question here is why do the actors make more money than the police officers? (police officers put their life on the line).
Exactly, the audience.
I strongly feel that actors and actresses (and others in the entertainment industry) bennefit society. Without the arts -- whether it be films, the stage, paintings, or literature -- our life would be pretty boring, and I feel that especially in darker times, it is important to have enjoyable pasttimes brought to us by, among others, actors and actresses.

That said, should they get more? Well, technically, I don't think so -- although what they do is important, the work of police officers and fire fighters is obviously essential, and they should be rewarded for putting their lives on the line. However, in a capitalistic (or even socialistic) society, that isn't going to happen, because the entertainment industry generates so much money.

Also, I should note that not all actors and actresses make fortunes. The famous ones do, but many minor actors and actresses don't make very much. There are plenty of people in the entertainment industry who are struggling to make a living, even as there are those who make millions a year.

The only way to fix this problem would be to have a drastically accellerated tax system, where those making millions a year would be taxed somewhere in the area of 75%. Although I firmly agree that the rich should be taxed more heavilly than the poor, I don't think that taking away most of the money a person earns is fair. Its one thing to tax them more than people with less money; its another to take away most of what they earn.

So in short, as long as we live in a capitalistic/socialistic world, it isn't going to happen. Sure, it would be nice if police officers and fire fighters were payed more -- they deserve it -- but there really isn't much that can be done about it.

[Bee]

I don't think actors and singers should be making 20 million a movie. I don't think Oprah Winfrey should be a billionaire. I don't think firefighters, policemen and teachers should be making $28,000 a year (I think they should make more). You know, I don't care that Oprah worked hard for her money (the billions of dollars she has). I don't care that Madonna was a struggling dance student (and now has anything she wants). I don't care that Shania Twain doesn't actually WANT the money (and that's the truth, because I love Shania). Guess what... the governments in America and Canada should cap what people make in a year. Anything anyone makes over that amount should be put directly in a fund for underprivileged families. Yeah, Britney Spears, I know you don't need the money. THEN WHY DO YOU KEEP IT? That's what I thought...

[DsX Phoenix]

Except, if the government were to do that, movie companies would simply pay actors less, and keep more for themselves.

[Wab]

I don't think actors and singers should be making 20 million a movie. I don't think Oprah Winfrey should be a billionaire.

What about Jk Rowling?

It must be remembered, though, that the average actor doesn't earn a great deal over a year if they are only picking up a few jobs at scale.

[rotsiepots]

^ Exactly. The number of actors earning big money is miniscule compared to the actual number of actors out there.

If people object to the amount of money earned by individuals in the entertainment industry then there is a simple solution: don't see the films, don't buy the merchandise, don't buy the DVD/CD/ whatever.

It's really societies fault, when you think about it. We created these monsters!

[Picko]

This is a fairly simple economics issue: actors generate heaps of income for a lot of people, whether it be those involved in the movie, cinemas, stores etc. When you generate that much then it only naturally follows that you will be rewarded with increased renumeration. How for instance can you not warrant giving the lead actor in a movie $20m when the movie goes on to make $600m worldwide in the cinemas and much more on DVD/Video and television rights.

With the knowledge that you can't possibly warrant docking actors payments - and if you could the movie studios know perfectly well that essentially they only ever pay actors a fraction of their worth anyway - then you must increase the incomes of police officers and fire fighters. Is anyone aware of the inflation that would cause? It'd be crazy and everyone who isn't a police officer and fire fighter would be far worse off.

At the end of the day when police officers and fire fighters start generating billions of dollars to the community then they will get their financial rewards until that point in time comes along then regardless of their worth they'll be paid less.

[Wab]

How for instance can you not warrant giving the lead actor in a movie $20m when the movie goes on to make $600m worldwide in the cinemas and much more on DVD/Video and television rights.

I'd rather they spent the money on more decent scripts.