After Tax Salary Caps

Spazkat

Registered User
Feb 19, 2015
4,362
2,277
This discussion still going?

Agents have said that they have all the tools to make every NHL-contract equally taxed. So, if players are not interested in lower taxes by themselves, it's their loss in some organizations.

But players who do care about their tax planning, and let agents work it out, can have same net money in any NHL location.

/end of discussion.

So who pays the taxes in this scenario? Do you have owners essentially paying their players taxes for them? The whole point of a salary cap is cost certainty - which goes out the window if cash output is variable each year based on state/local taxation rate changes and roster. Owners/BOG will *never* agree to that.

Will there be 'rebate' scenario if said player has a good accountant and actual taxes are less than this formula calculates or is that just free money for the player?
 
  • Like
Reactions: ResilientBeast

Dache

Registered User
Feb 12, 2018
5,248
2,773
I don't believe it is too complicated, they just orchestrated the playoffs in a bubble.
That has way less moving pieces and is completely incomparable. How do you quantify and adjust for the better weather in certain cities making them more desirable? How about crime? How do you make these number so the that all players, teams, owners are happy. This is much more complicated that you are giving credit for
 

AndreRoy

Registered User
Jan 3, 2018
4,466
3,593
Enough of this tax nonsense already. The salary cap is already perfectly fair in that every team in the league is allowed to spend the same amount on its players. How much the government then takes from those players after they get paid is none of the league’s business or concern.

Is local income tax a factor that players might take into consideration when deciding on a destination or a contract? Sure it is. But it’s just one of many, and if you’re going to try to normalize for one such factor in the name of “fairness” then you’re going to have to normalize for all of them - otherwise there’s nothing “fair” about it.

Now if you don’t like the disincentive produced by your local tax rate and want to do something about it, rather than bitch endlessly on a hockey forum you might consider that the negative effects of higher taxes impact ALL workers and businesses, not just those in sports, and choose to elect leaders who will lower those tax rates. Or if you’re about to respond that your higher tax rate is actually a good thing because you support how that money is spent, you might consider that hockey players could very well agree with you, and stop bitching about how nobody will sign with your team because of it.

In short, just stop bitching.
 

AndreRoy

Registered User
Jan 3, 2018
4,466
3,593
I’ll add also that perfect equality has never existed and will never exist in the world, and some of the greatest mistakes mankind has ever made have come in the name of trying to force it into being.

You can never guarantee equal outcomes; all you can guarantee without massively screwing everything up is equality under the law, and that is what the salary cap already does.
 

Spazkat

Registered User
Feb 19, 2015
4,362
2,277
I have a suggestion. Can we merge all of the various income tax threads together and then every time someone starts a new one we can just tack it on at the end?

Alternatively, people could just learn to use the search function before starting new threads about topics that have already been discussed extensively, but that's probably an unrealistic goal
 

Bear of Bad News

"The Worst Guy on the Site" - user feedback
Sep 27, 2005
14,216
29,369
You'll hate it but..
This league exists because of rich teams like the Leafs. Let them have their debates in peace, their opinions matter more than yours.

Meh. It's a lot harder to be a diehard hockey fan in (for instance) Phoenix than in Toronto.

Everyone gets an equal opinion here. No one's opinion "matters more" than others.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ResilientBeast

tucker3434

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Apr 7, 2007
20,294
11,353
Atlanta, GA
Oh I agree, everything needs to be quantified and adjusted at least every 5 years.

And who is paying for this? You? Because if you say the NHL, what you’re asking of them is to spend a bunch of money figuring all this out (and annually after that to adjust any calculations). And in the end the benefit is, they get to spend even more money on salaries. Does this sound like something even large market owners will go for?
 

Jason MacIsaac

Registered User
Jan 13, 2004
22,515
6,707
Halifax, NS
I
And who is paying for this? You? Because if you say the NHL, what you’re asking of them is to spend a bunch of money figuring all this out (and annually after that to adjust any calculations). And in the end the benefit is, they get to spend even more money on salaries. Does this sound like something even large market owners will go for?
Is it more salaries for the poor destinations or less salary for the top end destinations, it is all how you phrase it in the CBA. Set the cap off of Buffalo and work down. (this was obviously an example)
 

DarylO

Registered User
Jun 16, 2011
231
120
Lindsay, ON
It would be too hard to manage with all the different taxes etc. Maybe allow teams to exceed the cap by up to 10% and have that money go into revenue sharing / HRR calc for player salaries.

Alternatively have an annual buyout off the cap? for $x amount which can accrue year over year?
 

tucker3434

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Apr 7, 2007
20,294
11,353
Atlanta, GA
I

Is it more salaries for the poor destinations or less salary for the top end destinations, it is all how you phrase it in the CBA. Set the cap off of Buffalo and work down. (this was obviously an example)

It’s still paying a lot of money to solve a problem the owners don’t actually care about. The CBA, in the end, is all about $$$. Everyone wants more of it. If you’re going to introduce something that will cost some money to implement, it’s either got to be really important or has to increase revenue. I see neither here. If your argument is that it would reduce player salaries, then you’ve got to get that past the PA. What CBA victory would ownership be willing to put back on the table for that? I just can’t see who benefits enough for it to make any sense. Fans don’t get to vote on the CBA.
 

Krewe

Registered User
Mar 12, 2019
1,676
1,917
The only tax adjustment the owners would ever consider is a payroll, etc tax adjustment, where the owners would all be allowed to spend the exact same in terms of real money out of THEIR pocket, rather than paying the same in real money to the PLAYER's pockets.

Also how many big-name UFAs have taken discounts to sign with a new team in a no tax state. Bob, Petro, Stone, Duchene all signed market value
 
  • Like
Reactions: Paranoid Android

Butch 19

Go cart Mozart
May 12, 2006
16,526
2,833
Geographical Oddity
My intention was never to turn this into a pissing contest between States/Countries. It was to create discussion about quantifying the pros and cons of each market to make it even for every team. Winnipeg is not on the same playing field as Vegas or Tampa. I would like to think we can all agree on that.

That was your exact intention.
 

DCRedhawk21

Registered User
May 7, 2011
1,045
107
Northern Virginia
It baffles me that this thread pops up so often. The idea to adjust the salary cap based on state taxes is:

Impractical - many of the "remedies" ignore the fact that the cap is there to implement cost certainty, and this complaint also ignores the fact that the players are taxes are impacted by travel

Ignoring economics, doesn't really even do anything to help competitive balance given the locations with higher taxes (opportunities for sponsorship, quality of life considerations, etc.)

Ignores reality - none of these guys or their financial advisers let them pay the statutory rates. This has been openly acknowledge by some agents as referenced in other posts.

Of all the things to complain about in the NHL, the fact these unimpactful intricacies of US state taxes sticks so much with some people is just mind blowing.
 

Lazlo Hollyfeld

The jersey ad still sucks
Sponsor
Mar 4, 2004
29,757
29,444
It baffles me that this thread pops up so often. The idea to adjust the salary cap based on state taxes is:

Impractical - many of the "remedies" ignore the fact that the cap is there to implement cost certainty, and this complaint also ignores the fact that the players are taxes are impacted by travel

Ignoring economics, doesn't really even do anything to help competitive balance given the locations with higher taxes (opportunities for sponsorship, quality of life considerations, etc.)

Ignores reality - none of these guys or their financial advisers let them pay the statutory rates. This has been openly acknowledge by some agents as referenced in other posts.

Of all the things to complain about in the NHL, the fact these unimpactful intricacies of US state taxes sticks so much with some people is just mind blowing.
Exactly.

If only the Maple Leafs could manage to sign a big time free agent instead of them all going to play for the Florida Panthers.
 

CaptBrannigan

Registered User
Apr 5, 2006
4,300
1,630
Tampa
What else do you normalize for? Real estate tax? School quality? Weather? Crime rate? Competitiveness of team? Average travel length?

I think you can see how ridiculous this would be.

Also, to the guy claiming “some opinions matter more”, congrats on making the worst and most absurd post I’ve seen on here in my 15 years.
 

pbgoalie

Registered User
Aug 8, 2010
5,989
3,574
What else do you normalize for? Real estate tax? School quality? Weather? Crime rate? Competitiveness of team? Average travel length?

I think you can see how ridiculous this would be.

Also, to the guy claiming “some opinions matter more”, congrats on making the worst and most absurd post I’ve seen on here in my 15 years.

ok now let’s not get nasty
Worst post ever has a deep and impressive roster
 

Bertuzzzi44

Registered User
Jun 26, 2018
4,187
4,014
5% Cap Buffer should probably be given to the 10 highest states/provinces with the highest income tax burdens.

US Most:
New York
California
Minnesota
New Jersey

US Least:
Arizona
Nevada
Texas
Florida

Canada (most to least):
  1. Quebec (Montreal)
  2. BC (Vancouver)
  3. Ontario (Toronto, Ottawa)
  4. Alberta (Calgary, Edmonton)
  5. Manitoba (Winnipeg)
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad