An actual breakdown on taxes per team

[Golden_Jet]

This is wrong. You cannot trade for cap.


That is entirely different. You cannot under any circumstances trade for cap. Because of parity.

You can trade for
Players
Players rights.
Draft picks

And associated contracts (dollars and hits). If you could. You could just trade for more cap.

This is not at all what Toronto or Tampa did. They never traded for cap.

You can trade for a player. Then retain and retrade the player and associated (lesser) contract.

You cannot. Under any circumstances trade for cap.

It’s strictly prohibited to enforce parity

Sure you can, another example.

Toronto wants player X at 6 million AAV

Toronto doesn’t enough cap room for X.

So Chicago goes OK, we’ll take on 50% of the players cap hit on our books,
3 million for player X on Toronto
3 million for player X on Chicago.

And if you want a third party can come in and help Toronto with another 25%

 

[Legion34]

Sure you can, another example.

Toronto wants player X at 6 million AAV

Toronto doesn’t enough cap room for X.

So Chicago goes OK, we’ll take on 50% of the players cap hit on our books,
3 million for player X on Toronto
3 million for player X on Chicago.

that’s not trading for cap.

That is a team retaining salary in a trade.

That’s entirely different.

Again. If you could buy cap. Why not do it directly.

Hey Chicago I will buy 3 million of cap for 4th round pick. Instead of forcing Chicago to actually pay the money. The whole reason for all these Stupid deals is because it’s not allowed.

You can’t honestly think that’s the same?

 

[Golden_Jet]

Again. If you could buy cap. Why not do it directly.

Why would they allow that directly, that just adds adds more escrow into system.

The players already take more than 50/50 of the pie, because too many teams are at the 115% level of the cap, and not balanced out by a lot of 85% spending.

Buying cap from the 85% teams just adds onto the escrow in the system.

Read the CBA and MOU, familiarize yourself with how the present system works,

Posters have been really trying to educate you, and have been civil, amongst the frustrations.

 

[Legion34]

Why would they allow that directly, that just adds adds more escrow into system.

The players already take more than 50/50 of the pie, because too many teams are at the 115% level of the cap, and not balanced out by a lot of 85% spending.

Buying cap from the 85% teams just adds onto the escrow in the system.

Read the CBA and MOU, at least you’d know how the present system works,

What? That’s not true at all. If a player had an existing 6 million dollar contract. It Already is getting paid. Whether Toronto pays all 6, or Chicago pays 3 and Toronto pays 3. It’s the exact same. You aren’t “creating cap” or adding escrow. It’s the same total money. This is nuts.

1.) you cannot buy cap. You can pay teams to retain cap. that is not buying cap

2.) as long as player salaries don’t exceed 2.816 billion it’s the same (32 x 88 million).

 

[Golden_Jet]

What? That’s not true at all. If a player had an existing 6 million dollar contract. It Already is getting paid. Whether Toronto pays all 6, or Chicago pays 3 and Toronto pays 3. It’s the exact same. You aren’t “creating cap” or adding escrow. It’s the same total money. This is nuts.

1.) you cannot buy cap. You can pay teams to retain cap. that is not buying cap

What lol that was from a previous post, in which you said doesn’t count, so I said OK

2.) as long as player salaries don’t exceed 2.816 billion it’s the same (32 x 88 million).

Did you read what I said in the post you quoted about the 115% and 85%, obviously not, or didn’t understand it.
Re: the comment on reading the CBA and MOU.
and a few days ago how the cap is calculated, and escrow?

But to answer your question on 32 x 88 million.
Since the 115/85 wasn’t working.

88 million = 115% of cap midpoint
76.5 million = 100%
65 million = 85% of cap midpoint

You’re adding 15% x 88 million x 32 teams to escrow.
The 50/50 split is calculated at the midpoint. Any money over that becomes escrow.

It’s a little more complicated than that though, with a few other factors determining the 50/50 split and the final calculation to determine the cap,
Ie benefits being one example.

Now it’s based on the current season revenues and the previous season, and then there’s the MOU to consider.

The bottom line is, with what want you want, it is adding to escrow to the system as explained above.

 

[Legion34]

What lol that was from a previous post, in which you said doesn’t count, so I said OK


Did you read what I said in the post you quoted about the 115% and 85%, obviously not, or didn’t understand it.
Re: the comment on reading the CBA and MOU.
and a few days ago how the cap is calculated, and escrow?

But to answer your question on 32 x 88 million.
Since the 115/85 wasn’t working.

88 million = 115% of cap midpoint
76.5 million = 100%
65 million = 85% of cap midpoint

You’re adding 15% x 88 million x 32 teams to escrow.
The 50/50 split is calculated at the midpoint. Any money over that becomes escrow.

It’s a little more complicated than that though, with a few other factors determining the 50/50 split and the final calculation to determine the cap,
Ie benefits being one example.

Now it’s based on the current season revenues and the previous season, and then there’s the MOU to consider.

The bottom line is, with what want you want, it is adding to escrow to the system as explained above.

1.) you are not allowed to buy cap. You are allowed to retain and flip. Those are completely different things.

2.) in your example. The money is already paid out. That does not add to escrow.
That’s silly. It’s literally 6 or two 3s

3.) in a different example that is NOT what you said. Ok. Sure you could be thinking that some owners/players don’t want all 32 teams to spend to the cap. Ok.
But again. All 32 teams CAN spend to the cap. They are allowed too. So if you split up the allowed money. It doesn’t matter who spends it. It’s still the same total.

Would you be ok with Canadian teams being allowed to spend to the cap. And the no state teams not. To keep escrow down?

If parity doesn’t matter. Then that shouldn’t matter right?

 

[Legion34]

Bro, you keep changing your story thinking it will somehow work out in your favor. The cap was done to protect franchises & create a certain economic model. I remember it quite well. The Pens just came out of bankruptcy & other teams would’ve done similar had things not changed. The owners wanted (& still do) a hard cap. It’s not that hard.

I remember it quite well too. I’m not sure what you think we are disagreeing on

They achieved cost certainty by linking player salaries to HRR. They chose to make all these cap rules for parity.

There is literally an article I posted quoting Mario and how the implementation of the cap allows for parity.

I don’t see us being inconsistent?

 

[edog37]

I remember it quite well too. I’m not sure what you think we are disagreeing on

They achieved cost certainty by linking player salaries to HRR. They chose to make all these cap rules for parity.

There is literally an article I posted quoting Mario and how the implementation of the cap allows for parity.

I don’t see us being inconsistent?

You were the one disagreeing in the first place. You kept whining about different tax structures in different markets as if that was a sudden realization. Then you tried to argue the cap was brought about to create parity. Then I showed you rather thoroughly it was done for cost certainty. Now you try to gaslight everyone by saying this was your position all along. Is that clear enough?

 

[DistantThunderRep]

 

[Legion34]

You were the one disagreeing in the first place. You kept whining about different tax structures in different markets as if that was a sudden realization. Then you tried to argue the cap was brought about to create parity. Then I showed you rather thoroughly it was done for cost certainty. Now you try to gaslight everyone by saying this was your position all along. Is that clear enough?

Ya. I think you need to re read. This has been going on for years.

NHL agents gms. Players and accountants have all said that it is a massive advantage and has been for years. People have been denying it for years.
On this forum. It is not being denied in the NHL.

Linkage and “the cap” are different.
There is no “the cap” there are multiple permutations of a cap system.

The way the NHL has chosen to implement this current cap. Is made with parity. That’s the point. This has been proven jn countless interviews and media appearances and is well known and indisputable

I posted 4 articles. There are probably. 50.

Heck the last guys article even says it

“Cost certainty AND conservative cap”And goes
On about the forced parity.

There is no such thing as “the” reason in a billion dollar business. Saying they needed cost certainty AND forcibly induced parity is not incorrect. This is known and indisputable and repeated over and over again by bettman

 

[Legion34]

View attachment 882074

Imagine spending years being so wrong and having zero points and resorting to posting a baby on the internet.

I guess it’s better than talking about basketball, denying reality and trying to explain how teams can trade for cap

 

[Golden_Jet]

1.) you are not allowed to buy cap. You are allowed to retain and flip. Those are completely different things.

2.) in your example. The money is already paid out. That does not add to escrow.
That’s silly. It’s literally 6 or two 3s

3.) in a different example that is NOT what you said. Ok. Sure you could be thinking that some owners/players don’t want all 32 teams to spend to the cap. Ok.
But again. All 32 teams CAN spend to the cap. They are allowed too. So if you split up the allowed money. It doesn’t matter who spends it. It’s still the same total.

Would you be ok with Canadian teams being allowed to spend to the cap. And the no state teams not. To keep escrow down?

If parity doesn’t matter. Then that shouldn’t matter right?

You don’t read or understand what I wrote.
It adds escrow buying cap.

It’s literally hopeless, trying to explain it.

Let’s try this way we can do baby steps
Explain what is wrong here

88 million = 115% of cap midpoint
76.5 million = 100%
65 million = 85% of cap midpoint

You’re adding 15% x 88 million x 32 teams to escrow.
The 50/50 split is calculated at the midpoint.

 

[CDN24]

Games are paid based on where you play. 41 games a year you'll be paying your home state income tax. The other 41 will be based on where game ins played. So I did a calculation on what that actually ammounts to. For example, Dallas players (no state tax) would still pay tax based on away games.

	Tax %	2 Million	5 Million	10 Million	15 Million
Dallas	2.79%	$55,800	$139,500	$279,000	$418,500
Nashville	2.79%	$55,800	$139,500	$279,000	$418,500
Florida	3.18%	$63,600	$159,000	$318,000	$477,000
Tampa Bay	3.18%	$63,600	$159,000	$318,000	$477,000
Vegas	3.50%	$70,000	$175,000	$350,000	$525,000
Philadelphia	4.33%	$86,600	$216,500	$433,000	$649,500
Pittsburgh	4.33%	$86,600	$216,500	$433,000	$649,500
Colorado	4.59%	$91,800	$229,500	$459,000	$688,500
Utah	4.69%	$93,800	$234,500	$469,000	$703,500
St.Louis	4.72%	$94,400	$236,000	$472,000	$708,000
Chicago	4.82%	$96,400	$241,000	$482,000	$723,000
Carolina	4.92%	$98,400	$246,000	$492,000	$738,000
Detroit	4.92%	$98,400	$246,000	$492,000	$738,000
Columbus	5.51%	$110,200	$275,500	$551,000	$826,500
Seattle	6.37%	$127,400	$318,500	$637,000	$955,500
Minnesota	6.83%	$136,600	$341,500	$683,000	$1,024,500
Boston	6.87%	$137,400	$343,500	$687,000	$1,030,500
Ottawa	6.94%	$138,800	$347,000	$694,000	$1,041,000
Toronto	6.94%	$138,800	$347,000	$694,000	$1,041,000
New Jersey	7.48%	$149,600	$374,000	$748,000	$1,122,000
New York I	7.54%	$150,800	$377,000	$754,000	$1,131,000
New York R	7.54%	$150,800	$377,000	$754,000	$1,131,000
Washington	7.54%	$150,800	$377,000	$754,000	$1,131,000
Buffalo	7.65%	$153,000	$382,500	$765,000	$1,147,500
Calgary	8.01%	$160,200	$400,500	$801,000	$1,201,500
Edmonton	8.01%	$160,200	$400,500	$801,000	$1,201,500
Winnipeg	8.28%	$165,600	$414,000	$828,000	$1,242,000
Anaheim	8.95%	$179,000	$447,500	$895,000	$1,342,500
Los Angeles	8.95%	$179,000	$447,500	$895,000	$1,342,500
San Jose	8.95%	$179,000	$447,500	$895,000	$1,342,500
Vancouver	10.26%	$205,200	$513,000	$1,026,000	$1,539,000
Montreal	12.10%	$242,000	$605,000	$1,210,000	$1,815,000

Note:
USA federal tax is 37%, where as in Canada it's 33%. For this reason, I lowered the Canadian teams taxes by 4% to make up the difference. Keep in mind the table below is just State taxes, so players still need to pay way more taxes than that - but this is a half-decent representation of the difference from one team to another, as federal is across the board.

Below is the full table if you want to see the more in-depth numbers. I added some more notes under it as well.

Home (41) Division (13) In-Conf (12) Out-Conf (16) Average 2 Million 5 Million 10 Million 15 Million Anaheim 13.30% 10.68% 7.96% 7.20% 8.95% $179,000 $447,500 $895,000 $1,342,500 Boston 9.00% 8.03% 7.20% 7.96% 6.87% $137,400 $343,500 $687,000 $1,030,500 Buffalo 10.90% 8.03% 7.20% 7.96% 7.65% $153,000 $382,500 $765,000 $1,147,500 Calgary 11.00% 10.68% 7.96% 7.20% 8.01% $160,200 $400,500 $801,000 $1,201,500 Carolina 4.50% 7.20% 7.20% 7.96% 4.92% $98,400 $246,000 $492,000 $738,000 Chicago 4.95% 5.24% 7.96% 7.20% 4.82% $96,400 $241,000 $482,000 $723,000 Colorado 4.40% 5.24% 7.96% 7.20% 4.59% $91,800 $229,500 $459,000 $688,500 Columbus 3.50% 7.20% 7.20% 7.96% 5.51% $110,200 $275,500 $551,000 $826,500 Dallas 0.00% 5.24% 7.96% 7.20% 2.79% $55,800 $139,500 $279,000 $418,500 Detroit 4.25% 8.03% 7.20% 7.96% 4.92% $98,400 $246,000 $492,000 $738,000 Edmonton 11.00% 10.68% 7.96% 7.20% 8.01% $160,200 $400,500 $801,000 $1,201,500 Florida 0.00% 8.03% 7.20% 7.96% 3.18% $63,600 $159,000 $318,000 $477,000 Los Angeles 13.30% 10.68% 7.96% 7.20% 8.95% $179,000 $447,500 $895,000 $1,342,500 Minnesota 9.85% 5.24% 7.96% 7.20% 6.83% $136,600 $341,500 $683,000 $1,024,500 Montreal 21.75% 8.03% 7.20% 7.96% 12.10% $242,000 $605,000 $1,210,000 $1,815,000 Nashville 0.00% 5.24% 7.96% 7.20% 2.79% $55,800 $139,500 $279,000 $418,500 New Jersey 10.75% 7.20% 7.20% 7.96% 7.48% $149,600 $374,000 $748,000 $1,122,000 New York I 10.90% 7.20% 7.20% 7.96% 7.54% $150,800 $377,000 $754,000 $1,131,000 New York R 10.90% 7.20% 7.20% 7.96% 7.54% $150,800 $377,000 $754,000 $1,131,000 Ottawa 9.16% 8.03% 7.20% 7.96% 6.94% $138,800 $347,000 $694,000 $1,041,000 Philadelphia 3.07% 7.20% 7.20% 7.96% 4.33% $86,600 $216,500 $433,000 $649,500 Pittsburgh 3.07% 7.20% 7.20% 7.96% 4.33% $86,600 $216,500 $433,000 $649,500 San Jose 13.30% 10.68% 7.96% 7.20% 8.95% $179,000 $447,500 $895,000 $1,342,500 Seattle 7.00% 10.68% 7.96% 7.20% 6.37% $127,400 $318,500 $637,000 $955,500 St.Louis 4.70% 5.24% 7.96% 7.20% 4.72% $94,400 $236,000 $472,000 $708,000 Tampa Bay 0.00% 8.03% 7.20% 7.96% 3.18% $63,600 $159,000 $318,000 $477,000 Toronto 9.16% 8.03% 7.20% 7.96% 6.94% $138,800 $347,000 $694,000 $1,041,000 Utah 4.65% 5.24% 7.96% 7.20% 4.69% $93,800 $234,500 $469,000 $703,500 Vancouver 16.50% 10.68% 7.96% 7.20% 10.26% $205,200 $513,000 $1,026,000 $1,539,000 Vegas 0.00% 10.68% 7.96% 7.20% 3.50% $70,000 $175,000 $350,000 $525,000 Washington 10.90% 7.20% 7.20% 7.96% 7.54% $150,800 $377,000 $754,000 $1,131,000 Winnipeg 13.40% 5.24% 7.96% 7.20% 8.28% $165,600 $414,000 $828,000 $1,242,000 Some notes: - Home tax numbers taken from Turbotax. - I realise this isn't perfect. For example, single people pay a different rate vs married with children. That and this is based on their entire income, but the first ~200k is often in a lower bracket. It's just a rough guide. - Schedules are based on 41 home games, 13 divisional games, 12 inner-conference games, and 16 outer-conference games. The 'average' tax column is based on this (41xHome + 13xDiv + 12xIn + 16xOut) - Other average such as 'Division' is just an average of every team in that category.

Your Numbers for Montreal are off. Both Ontario and BC have a slightly higher top combined(fed/prov) tax rate than Quebec. The difference relates to the refundable Quebec abatement. Back in the 1960s the federal gov't gave all provinces the option of receiving some Federal funding either in cash or by way of a reduced tax federal tax rate. I.e federal tax rate is lower but provincial tax rate is higher. Quebec was the only province to choose this option. The impact is that the feds send less healthcare money to Qc per capita than other provinces but Qc increases its tax rate to collect it from taxpayers and a quebec taxpayer pays a lower federal tax rate. The amount is 16.5% of the federal tax payable. So using your number of 33% federal tax in Canda, in Qc it is only 83.5% of 33% or 27.56%. In that case you adjustment to provincial taxes to normalize needs to be higher in Qc 9.44%(37-27.56) instead of 4%, (37-33)

To be comparable you would need to reduce your Qc number an additional 5.44% so 12.10-5.44 or 6.66% which brings you slightly under the 2 Ontario teams.

Its not easy to compare as provinces have added surcharges on real high salaries too of which most player salaries are.

 

[Legion34]

You don’t read or understand what I wrote.
It adds escrow buying cap.

It’s literally hopeless, trying to explain it.

Let’s try this way we can do baby steps
Explain what is wrong here

Not if the money is the same. This is ridiculous. You aren’t creating cap. You are shifting allotments. This isn’t a luxury tax where some teams spend over 88 and the rest spend 88. The selling team would lower their cap by the same amount.

If we both have a 6 slice pizza and I sell you 2 pieces. There isn’t more pizza

Every single team is allowed to spend 88 million. Yes or no? 6 plus 6 and 8 plus for are both 12.

We are equally certain how many slices of pizza there are

As long as every team combined is allowed to spend the same total. Half could spend 98. The rest could spend 78.

the rules are the rules. If the league is planning on lowering escrow. They could easily have the cap floor/ceiling be less of a variance. Or allow some teams to spend to the 15% and some not.

The cap doesn’t impose parity right? So therefore unequal caps that create cost certainty are equally valid

 

[DistantThunderRep]

Imagine spending years being so wrong and having zero points and resorting to posting a baby on the internet.

I guess it’s better than talking about basketball, denying reality and trying to explain how teams can trade for cap

I've literally posted articles from Betteman, journalists, accountants, agents...all saying the same thing. But here you are in your Leafs Pjs crying like baby that everyone else is wrong and you are the sole righteous person. How f***ing full of yourself are you? Seriously, the pompous, self absorbed, arrogant, ignorant, selfish behaviour captures every single thing wrong, and hated about extreme Leaf fandom.

There is zero reasoning with you. People are agreeing that parity came to be after over a decade of the cap. But it was never the primary goal. You are literally like a crying baby or child that demands to right when people point out where you're wrong. I legitimately feel sorry for everyone in your life that they have to deal with someone like you.

 

[Legion34]

I've literally posted articles from Betteman, journalists, accountants, agents...all saying the same thing. But here you are in your Leafs Pjs crying like baby that everyone else is wrong and you are the sole righteous person. How f***ing full of yourself are you? Seriously, the pompous, self absorbed, arrogant, ignorant, selfish behaviour captures every single thing wrong, and hated about extreme Leaf fandom.

There is zero reasoning with you. People are agreeing that parity came to be after over a decade of the cap. But it was never the primary goal. You are literally like a crying baby or child that demands to right when people point out where you're wrong. I legitimately feel sorry for everyone in your life that they have to deal with someone like you.

No. you have not. You have

1.) first denied the differences in taxes exist/result in players taking less in aav with the same take home.
2.) said ok it exists. But not as bad as people say it is. When the. People who say it are agents gms players and wealth specialists who publish names and specific articles/figures
3.) you said there was some super secret tax guy from florida who knew the cap friendly calculator was wrong and the guy flipped and said he couldn’t find anything wrong.
4.) you started talking about RCAs and how rich people don’t pay taxes and how Tavares was going to use loopholes. Now he is in court
5.) now teams can trade caps and there is nothing to do with parity or competitive balance. When it’s clearly what was said and an important factor in the way the cap was implemented
6.) now you are just being silly and childish name calling.


Edit. Here is a may 2004 article quoting and referencing gms and league officials citing parity/competitive balance as an important goal of designing and implementing the cap

team presidents of Arizona and Tampa openly talk about it. But you know better

This is pre lockout

NHL conference finalists win big on little bucks

The three low-budget teams still alive in the Stanley Cup playoffs poke holes in the league's contention they can't compete.

www.espn.com

 

[KevinRedkey]

Your Numbers for Montreal are off. Both Ontario and BC have a slightly higher top combined(fed/prov) tax rate than Quebec. The difference relates to the refundable Quebec abatement. Back in the 1960s the federal gov't gave all provinces the option of receiving some Federal funding either in cash or by way of a reduced tax federal tax rate. I.e federal tax rate is lower but provincial tax rate is higher. Quebec was the only province to choose this option. The impact is that the feds send less healthcare money to Qc per capita than other provinces but Qc increases its tax rate to collect it from taxpayers and a quebec taxpayer pays a lower federal tax rate. The amount is 16.5% of the federal tax payable. So using your number of 33% federal tax in Canda, in Qc it is only 83.5% of 33% or 27.56%. In that case you adjustment to provincial taxes to normalize needs to be higher in Qc 9.44%(37-27.56) instead of 4%, (37-33)

To be comparable you would need to reduce your Qc number an additional 5.44% so 12.10-5.44 or 6.66% which brings you slightly under the 2 Ontario teams.

Its not easy to compare as provinces have added surcharges on real high salaries too of which most player salaries are.

I'll refrain from editing the data sheet as I don't want to skew the discussion after the fact, but I'll edit the post to include your reply.

Appreciate the time you took to explain this clearly. Really great info.

 

[Golden_Jet]

Not if the money is the same. This is ridiculous. You aren’t creating cap. You are shifting allotments. This isn’t a luxury tax where some teams spend over 88 and the rest spend 88. The selling team would lower their cap by the same amount.

If we both have a 6 slice pizza and I sell you 2 pieces. There isn’t more pizza

Every single team is allowed to spend 88 million. Yes or no? 6 plus 6 and 8 plus for are both 12.

We are equally certain how many slices of pizza there are

As long as every team combined is allowed to spend the same total. Half could spend 98. The rest could spend 78.

the rules are the rules. If the league is planning on lowering escrow. They could easily have the cap floor/ceiling be less of a variance. Or allow some teams to spend to the 15% and some not.

The cap doesn’t impose parity right? So therefore unequal caps that create cost certainty are equally valid

LMAO, quote my post, but delete the part,
Where I ask explain what is wrong, or you agree. Let’s try it a second time.
Teams are spendings to the 115% (88 million) lol.

R e a d S l o w l y

88 million = 115% of cap midpoint
76.5 million = 100%
65 million = 85% of cap midpoint

You’re adding 15% x 88 million x 32 teams to escrow.
The 50/50 split is calculated at the midpoint.

I’ll wait for you to respond when recess is over.
Pages and pages and pages of being wrong, don’t read posts, totally ignore them, stop embarrassing yourself.
Posters are writing and and giving examples of the CBA,
But you basically come back with the CBA is wrong.

 

[Legion34]

LMAO, quote my post, but delete the part,
Where I ask explain what is wrong, or you agree. Let’s try it a second time.
Teams are spendings to the 115% (88 million) lol.

R e a d S l o w l y

88 million = 115% of cap midpoint
76.5 million = 100%
65 million = 85% of cap midpoint

You’re adding 15% x 88 million x 32 teams to escrow.
The 50/50 split is calculated at the midpoint.

????? Are all 32 team or are they not all equally allowed to spend 88 million?

Yes or no?

Nothing is being added

 

[Golden_Jet]

????? Are all 32 team or are they not all equally allowed to spend 88 million?

Yes or no?

Nothing is being added

Answer the question, first
You refuse to answer because you’re wrong
It’s been 3 times now, you even deleted the question in one quote lol

Stop deking, did you change your name from dekes for days.

88 million = 115% of cap midpoint
76.5 million = 100%
65 million = 85% of cap midpoint

You’re adding 15% x 88 million x 32 teams to escrow.
The 50/50 split is calculated at the midpoint.

 

[CDN24]

Forgive me if this gets long, there is a solution that would solve the tax inequities across jurisdictions and have everyone pay the same tax. It would probably require changes to the Canadian Income Tax Act, US tax code and tax treaty so not likely to occur but it would work.

Its based on how the various Canadian provinces currently tax self employed professional services income. Assume I am a partner in a Canadian law firm with Offices in Ottawa, Toronto, Vancouver, Winnipeg, Edm, Calgary and Montreal. I am a partner in the Ottawa Office. I am taxed on my share of the firms profits. I work in Ottawa, on Ottawa based clients only but provincially I pay taxes in every province we have an office despite not working there or on any of their clients. Assume My share of the profits is $100,000. 25% of firms revenues come from Ontario, 30% in Alberta, and 15% each in BC, Manitoba and Quebec. I am taxed on 25% of my 100K in Ontario or 25,000. 15% or 15,000 in Qc and so on.

This model could be adapted to the NHL or any pro spots league. Players salaries would be paid by the team to a Master players salary partnership (this becomes the partnerships revenue) The partnership in turn pays the players. The players are taxed based on where the partnership earns its revenue from. Lets say total salaries are 2.5 billion, close to 80M per team. Lets say Toronto is at 85M and Ottawa is at 75M. Both Fla teams are at 85M and so on. Every player would be taxed the same. Every player in the league would pay taxes on 6.4% (85+75)/2500 of their salary in Ontario, and 6.8% or (85+85)/2500 in Fla. Player total taxes would be independent of what team they played on, and each jurisdiction would be collecting taxes from every player that total the salary base of the teams in their jurisdiction.

This could even make escrow easier as that money could stay in the partnership.

 

[DuklaNation]

In 2003-04, Detroit had a payroll of $77.8M while Nashville had $21.9M. That was a huge disparity and was corrected through a hard cap. Regardless, this streamlined approach has ignored other disparities including after tax incomes for the players.

 

[tucker3434]

Forgive me if this gets long, there is a solution that would solve the tax inequities across jurisdictions and have everyone pay the same tax. It would probably require changes to the Canadian Income Tax Act, US tax code and tax treaty so not likely to occur but it would work.

Its based on how the various Canadian provinces currently tax self employed professional services income. Assume I am a partner in a Canadian law firm with Offices in Ottawa, Toronto, Vancouver, Winnipeg, Edm, Calgary and Montreal. I am a partner in the Ottawa Office. I am taxed on my share of the firms profits. I work in Ottawa, on Ottawa based clients only but provincially I pay taxes in every province we have an office despite not working there or on any of their clients. Assume My share of the profits is $100,000. 25% of firms revenues come from Ontario, 30% in Alberta, and 15% each in BC, Manitoba and Quebec. I am taxed on 25% of my 100K in Ontario or 25,000. 15% or 15,000 in Qc and so on.

This model could be adapted to the NHL or any pro spots league. Players salaries would be paid by the team to a Master players salary partnership (this becomes the partnerships revenue) The partnership in turn pays the players. The players are taxed based on where the partnership earns its revenue from. Lets say total salaries are 2.5 billion, close to 80M per team. Lets say Toronto is at 85M and Ottawa is at 75M. Both Fla teams are at 85M and so on. Every player would be taxed the same. Every player in the league would pay taxes on 6.4% (85+75)/2500 of their salary in Ontario, and 6.8% or (85+85)/2500 in Fla. Player total taxes would be independent of what team they played on, and each jurisdiction would be collecting taxes from every player that total the salary base of the teams in their jurisdiction.

This could even make escrow easier as that money could stay in the partnership.

Or we could just skip all that and have a luxury tax.

I appreciate the time and effort you put into your post, but it proves the difficulty of it. Why do we have to attack this from the complex side? Why not go for the cheap and easy fix (if anyone in power actually wants a fix)?

 

[kook10]

Or we could just skip all that and have a luxury tax.

I appreciate the time and effort you put into your post, but it proves the difficulty of it. Why do we have to attack this from the complex side? Why not go for the cheap and easy fix (if anyone in power actually wants a fix)?

Exactly. At the end of the day, if it ever happens it will be a negotiation. It has too many moving parts to do anything but provide a basis for an argument which can be countered with other methods.

 

[tucker3434]

Exactly. At the end of the day, if it ever happens it will be a negotiation. It has too many moving parts to do anything but provide a basis for an argument which can be countered with other methods.

I think what needs to be remembered about the negotiation is that you need buy in from teams outside of Toronto, Montreal, NYC and LA. Most of these complex proposals will result in additional expense with zero benefit to 80% of teams. It’s an easy no for them.