An actual breakdown on taxes per team

[tarheelhockey]

That's exactly what you wrote.

No, it’s not. Try again.

 

[Statto]

They don’t.

I’m sure these players are all registered corporations, and most of their money goes right into index funds. They probably take a salary out of that, to the tune of however many hundreds of thousands of dollars, and the rest of the time their money is earning 15-20% doing nothing.

All the states with no state tax also offer things like weather and anonymity, which are often far more important to players than an extra few hundred grand here or there that will be made up in interest within a decade.

So some of the places with tax don’t have weather? That explains why they might struggle to get FA’s.

 

[MadLuke]

- Let’s say the player owns a $1.5M home and annual sales tax eligible expenses of $500K.

That part feel a bit dishonest, if we say that their biggest spending after tax (or before tax even) is equal, then obviously...

Danault house in montreal asked price was 1.35m in canadian dollars:

https://www.tvasports.ca/2021/07/20/la-spectaculaire-maison-de-phillip-danault-mise-en-vente-1

In San Josee, how much in USD ?

Danault Los Angeles house was bought 5.95 millions, nice spot, nice looking house:

616 12th St · 616 12th St, Manhattan Beach, CA 90266, USA

Gebäude

www.google.com

House like that in a nice Dallas spot, does it cost much more than 2.5 millions ?

 

[tarheelhockey]

That part feel a bit dishonest, if we say that their biggest spending after tax (or before tax even) is equal, then obviously...

Danault house in montreal asked price was 1.35m in canadian dollars:

https://www.tvasports.ca/2021/07/20/la-spectaculaire-maison-de-phillip-danault-mise-en-vente-1

In San Josee, how much in USD ?

Danault Los Angeles house was bought 5.95 millions, nice spot, nice looking house:

616 12th St · 616 12th St, Manhattan Beach, CA 90266, USA

Gebäude

www.google.com

House like that in a nice Dallas spot, does it cost much more than 2.5 millions ?

Again though, this is inherent in living in a more desirable place. Markets are going to behave this way because people want houses in Beverly Hills more than they want houses in Gary Indiana. If a player wants to play in Chicago but live in Gary, that’s entirely his personal choice.

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

Not even media driven. It’s fanbase nonsense to make excuses why there team lost to another in stick puck

And usually fanbases whose players got too much money and now they're using "unfair tax advantages" to complain about why they don't have cap space leftover to build a winner.

 

[MadLuke]

So some of the places with tax don’t have weather? That explains why they might struggle to get FA’s.

New York maybe has high tax, high house price, with average weather, but bring a lot of "else". As a general rules, you cannot have high cost of living without some reason people are ready to pay a lot to live there, those reason can be irrelevant to the player and pure inconvenience obviously, but will tend not to.

Again though, this is inherent in living in a more desirable place. Markets are going to behave this way because people want houses in Beverly Hills more than they want houses in Gary Indiana. If a player wants to play in Chicago but live in Gary, that’s entirely his personal choice.

Obviously but this is such a strange back and forth, there is a factual question, does some place are cheaper to live in or not, does the rebate big enough to matter, how-why some place cost more. It is not a reason to not clearly has we can reasonably count cost of living difference if we try to do so, even if place have good reason to cost more that a different subject.

Success in both the nfl and nhl of lower tax places could be real thing:
On average the Ravens posted a better record by more than 1 game per season following the move, even winning the Super Bowl in 2001. In fact, over the entire sample period from 1994-2016, teams in high-tax states on average won 0.23 fewer games for each percentage point of tax differential, according to the report.

But still would not mean they should start to do anything about it, has of one it is small, team in the nhl can spend a fortune on coaching teams, giant staff, installation and other avenue that does not count on the cap already, jock tax already in place and cut the problem in half already, would be really hard to come up with any fix and not all players have non trade clauses, many have ego and do not want to make less than some others even if it would mean more money in their pockets, agents don't care and obviously many expensive place do not have issue attracting FA and the cheaper place (Winnipeg, Arizona/ would still be ?) do not have that easy of a time attracting people.

 

[tarheelhockey]

New York maybe has high tax, high house price, with average weather, but bring a lot of "else". As a general rules, you cannot have high cost of living without some reason people are ready to pay a lot to live there, those reason can be irrelevant to the player and pure inconvenience obviously, but will tend not to.


Obviously but this is such a strange back and forth, there is a factual question, does some place are cheaper to live in or not, does the rebate big enough to matter, how-why some place cost more. It is not a reason to not clearly has we can reasonably count cost of living difference if we try to do so, even if place have good reason to cost more that a different subject.

Success in both the nfl and nhl of lower tax places could be real thing:
On average the Ravens posted a better record by more than 1 game per season following the move, even winning the Super Bowl in 2001. In fact, over the entire sample period from 1994-2016, teams in high-tax states on average won 0.23 fewer games for each percentage point of tax differential, according to the report.

But still would not mean they should start to do anything about it, has of one it is small, team in the nhl can spend a fortune on coaching teams, giant staff, installation and other avenue that does not count on the cap already, jock tax already in place and cut the problem in half already, would be really hard to come up with any fix and not all players have non trade clauses, many have ego and do not want to make less than some others even if it would mean more money in their pockets, agents don't care and obviously many expensive place do not have issue attracting FA and the cheaper place (Winnipeg, Arizona/ would still be ?) do not have that easy of a time attracting people.

I think we’re “agreeing violently” on the cost of living issue. It costs a lot more to live in some places, but that’s because some places are far more desirable than others. If players want to live somewhere with high housing costs, they are free to do so. It’s not a fairness issue, it’s just a choice of lifestyle. It doesn’t seem to bother the many players who have chosen to play in NYC or LA or Toronto (and that goes back to before the salary cap, when those teams loaded up on big-name players every summer).

The tax issue, on the other hand, is being portrayed as unfair. And that is probably true in some very marginal ways, but people who don’t understand the system are acting like it is some huge factor that tilts the balance of power… it really doesn’t.

To address the underlying issue behind all of this, nobody was talking about this topic before we entered a run of years where Tampa, Dallas, Vegas and now Florida got really good. Nobody was shouting about Pittsburgh or Detroit during their dynasty — those states have much lower income tax rates than NY or CA… or for that matter Arizona, which has over twice the income tax rate of Pennsylvania. Not a word was said about this back then. But when the names at the top of the standings shuffled towards newer teams, it suddenly became a big issue of “fairness”

 

[josra33]

What about when Florida teams were really bad? Were state taxes higher back then?

 

[Legion34]

What about when Florida teams were really bad? Were state taxes higher back then?

Pre last CBA there were massive long term cheater contracts that nullified the tax advantage by tacking on extra years

The landscape of 15 year deals to 45 cannot be compared to this one.

But then. The California teams. Anaheim. SJ. LA were power house teams. But none of their stars took discounts.high tax markets. I

I dont think anyone would suggest that 10 years ago people would want to live in Florida over California. But that weather/success/prestige did not lead to discounts.

Why not?

 

[Legion34]

I think we’re “agreeing violently” on the cost of living issue. It costs a lot more to live in some places, but that’s because some places are far more desirable than others. If players want to live somewhere with high housing costs, they are free to do so. It’s not a fairness issue, it’s just a choice of lifestyle. It doesn’t seem to bother the many players who have chosen to play in NYC or LA or Toronto (and that goes back to before the salary cap, when those teams loaded up on big-name players every summer).

The tax issue, on the other hand, is being portrayed as unfair. And that is probably true in some very marginal ways, but people who don’t understand the system are acting like it is some huge factor that tilts the balance of power… it really doesn’t.

To address the underlying issue behind all of this, nobody was talking about this topic before we entered a run of years where Tampa, Dallas, Vegas and now Florida got really good. Nobody was shouting about Pittsburgh or Detroit during their dynasty — those states have much lower income tax rates than NY or CA… or for that matter Arizona, which has over twice the income tax rate of Pennsylvania. Not a word was said about this back then. But when the names at the top of the standings shuffled towards newer teams, it suddenly became a big issue of “fairness”

Again. Those were entirely different times and different systems. No cap. 15 year cheater deals etc.

2. There are 6 of 32 teams with the lowest tax brackets. 5 of those 6 have made the finals. I’m pretty sure 69% of finalists have been Vegas/nash/tampa/florida/dallas.

Since 2017 there has been a no state tax finalist every year except 2019.

You just saying things are marginal doesn’t make it true.

Also. That would still make it unfair and need to be corrected.

If a team was 4 dollars over the cap they would still forfeit.

Toronto got fined for flying out early at the players request and letting players use their practice facilities in the summer. I think 3 hrs of sleep or a skate in July would be marginal.

But it still was punished and corrected

 

[Salsero1]

Threads like this make me embarrassed to be a hockey fan.

If you want your team to have all the advantages while others have none, then just say it and admit you're a whiny bitch that puts way too much of their self worth onto the success of their hockey team.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Again. Those were entirely different times and different systems. No cap. 15 year cheater deals etc.

2. There are 6 of 32 teams with the lowest tax brackets. 5 of those 6 have made the finals. I’m pretty sure 69% of finalists have been Vegas/nash/tampa/florida/dallas.

Since 2017 there has been a no state tax finalist every year except 2019.

Correlation does not equal causation. Remember when Florida ruined their cap structure with the worst goalie contract in the league? Remember when they gave away a sustainable top-10 scorer for a guy who only had one big season? Nobody was complaining about cap advantages when they were a terrible team making dumb mistakes. It turns out they identified the right guys and committed to them, when anyone else could have done the same. Florida’s not winning because of cap exploits, they’re winning because they made smarter moves than the other teams. Same with Vegas, who got clowned for their moves until people figured out they were the smartest team in the room (juxtaposed against no-income-tax Seattle, who nobody complains about). Same with Dallas, same with Tampa. Those are smarter, better run organizations than the teams who throw 40% of their cap at guys who can’t carry the water. Look to that for your explanations as to why they’re in the Finals year after year.

You just saying things are marginal doesn’t make it true.

Also. That would still make it unfair and need to be corrected.

If a team was 4 dollars over the cap they would still forfeit.

Toronto got fined for flying out early at the players request and letting players use their practice facilities in the summer. I think 3 hrs of sleep or a skate in July would be marginal.

But it still was punished and corrected

Sorry, you are confusing the general unfairness of life with actual legal unfairness. You don’t get to dictate “corrections” to things that aren’t against the rules, just because they’re inconvenient to your home team.

It’s unfair that Toronto has 10 times more resources than Columbus. It’s unfair that San Jose is a far more attractive place to live than Edmonton. It’s unfair that NYC offers more perks to pro athletes than Raleigh. It’s unfair that Florida has less taxes than Montreal.

That’s life. Every market has its advantages and disadvantages. If you want lower taxes, that’s on your government, not the NHL. At least you get a vote in one of these.

 

[Saskatoon]

Something to consider too is the quality of advice these guys are getting are not always equal.

I've seen Financial Planning guys talk about reviewing pro athletes portfolios and how many of them are getting taken advantage of

 

[Golden_Jet]

People didn't want to sign in Florida until they got good, management got better, and ownership was stable. Same with Tampa, no one wanted to sign in their shit show until Koules and Barrie were out the door. I am just saying, there are a bunch of morons who just think "HERPA A DERPA DOOOOO, IT MUST BE THE TAXES!!!!!" All because they believed some stupid ass talking heads on TSN and Sportsnet.

Its absolutely baffling that no one else but idiots on TSN and Sportsnet in Canada whine and bitch about taxes, when NO OTHER professional league in North America complains. Hell the NBA found Canadian RCA's such a tax advantage, they barred Toronto (And the Grizz when they were around) from offering it to players as a way to entice them.


Allan Walsh has publicly said that the Tax talk is completely overblown. Also why do you think not a single other professional league cries as much as pathetic canadian hockey fans (I live in Vancouver, so I am exposed to the crying a lot) about Taxes? You would think the Yankees would be bitching about the Marlins, Rangers, Rays, Mariners, etc... having an advantage?

The other 3 leagues have a total of 2 teams in Canada, not close to the same.

 

[Salsero1]

The other 3 leagues have a total of 2 teams in Canada, not close to the same.

The Canadian teams are playing by the same rules as all the other teams, or are you suggesting Canadian teams are special and should have the decks stacked in their favor?

There's no way to achieve this "fairness" that keeps being brought up. It doesn't exist.

 

[Golden_Jet]

The Canadian teams are playing by the same rules as all the other teams, or are you suggesting Canadian teams are special and should have the decks stacked in their favor?

There's no way to achieve this "fairness" that keeps being brought up. It doesn't exist.

No idea what that has to do with the post I responded too, about other leagues playing in Canada.

 

[JianYang]

Correlation does not equal causation. Remember when Florida ruined their cap structure with the worst goalie contract in the league? Remember when they gave away a sustainable top-10 scorer for a guy who only had one big season? Nobody was complaining about cap advantages when they were a terrible team making dumb mistakes. It turns out they identified the right guys and committed to them, when anyone else could have done the same. Florida’s not winning because of cap exploits, they’re winning because they made smarter moves than the other teams. Same with Vegas, who got clowned for their moves until people figured out they were the smartest team in the room (juxtaposed against no-income-tax Seattle, who nobody complains about). Same with Dallas, same with Tampa. Those are smarter, better run organizations than the teams who throw 40% of their cap at guys who can’t carry the water. Look to that for your explanations as to why they’re in the Finals year after year.




Sorry, you are confusing the general unfairness of life with actual legal unfairness. You don’t get to dictate “corrections” to things that aren’t against the rules, just because they’re inconvenient to your home team.

It’s unfair that Toronto has 10 times more resources than Columbus. It’s unfair that San Jose is a far more attractive place to live than Edmonton. It’s unfair that NYC offers more perks to pro athletes than Raleigh. It’s unfair that Florida has less taxes than Montreal.

That’s life. Every market has its advantages and disadvantages. If you want lower taxes, that’s on your government, not the NHL. At least you get a vote in one of these.

There's always something to complain about. At the end of the day, I think a team's long term competitiveness is built through the draft, no matter where that team resides.

I think alot of Canadian organizations feel the heat more or are too impatient to see things through and commit to a long term plan where there would be pain in the process.

You take these two teams currently in the finals. They both have tales of being caught in a long term spell of nothingness for the 2000s and 2010s, but the draft is the great "equalizer" especially when you are bad in just the right year.... or multiple years in this case. I mean, let's face it, mcdavid is never going to Edmonton in a system where he would have had free will from the get go, and no draft was obligating him to report somewhere.

You take the pros of being a professional sports team with the cons but sometimes, we want to pretend there are no pros with the system. Regardless, it's possible for anyone to have their turn at the top with a a sound management, and drafting outcomes.

I'd even argue from a financial equalization standpoint, smaller teams whether they are low or high tax are better off trying to compete from a financial standpoint today than the climate of the 90s particularly with respect to most Canadian teams. Compare what a stars/Oilers playoff matchup in the 90s felt like compared to 2024. It was a completely different storyline.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Its absolutely baffling that no one else but idiots on TSN and Sportsnet in Canada whine and bitch about taxes,

If we’re brutally honest here, the entire topic is a pre-emptive excuse in case Edmonton loses this series. It’s not enough that they have arguably the two best players in the NHL, it was really an inability to sign Marc Methot that tipped the balance against them.

I may be misremembering, but I don’t remember this topic having any traction until the Tampa/Montreal finals matchup, when cap cheating was on everyone’s mind. All of a sudden everyone got really interested in reasons why there need to be a special dispensation for Canadian teams.

 

[triggrman]

Since the last CBA was signed in 2013 8 times since then the winner is from a state income tax state, correct?
The only ones that have won from a no sales tax state are Tampa and Vegas.

Also what changed in the 2013 CBA that has some of you thinking it made it more advantageous for no state income tax teams? The cap has been around for 18 years now.

 

[JianYang]

If we’re brutally honest here, the entire topic is a pre-emptive excuse in case Edmonton loses this series. It’s not enough that they have arguably the two best players in the NHL, it was really an inability to sign Marc Methot that tipped the balance against them.

I may be misremembering, but I don’t remember this topic having any traction until the Tampa/Montreal finals matchup, when cap cheating was on everyone’s mind. All of a sudden everyone got really interested in reasons why there need to be a special dispensation for Canadian teams.

I do recall alot of talk about manipulation of the IR, and Vegas has carried that torch through to today. "Tax equalization" is typically a drum I only hear beaten online especially here.

Again though, Tampa goes back to my original point. It started through the draft. Stamkos went first, hedman went 2nd, and there were many other later picks that they hit gold on like point kucherov, palat etc.

Its also funny how vancouver seems like a desirable destination again for players. Did the taxes just change all of a sudden?

Actually, they did but not for the better :p

 

[Ragamuffin Gunner]

There are no tax issues from team to team for these guys. Fans of poorly managed teams just want an excuse.

 

[oconnor9sean]

State Income Taxes arent the only tax... Texans pay more in overall taxes than multiple NHL states that do have state income taxes.

North Carolina, Utah, DC and Colorado all pay state income tax, but have a lower tax index due to much lower property and sales taxes than TX.

Here is a link to a chart that shows that this "no income tax advantage" argument is dumb

Also, building a set-in-stone NHL CBA around changeable political policies would be incredibly dumb.

 

[x Tame Impala]

If we’re brutally honest here, the entire topic is a pre-emptive excuse in case Edmonton loses this series. It’s not enough that they have arguably the two best players in the NHL, it was really an inability to sign Marc Methot that tipped the balance against them.

I may be misremembering, but I don’t remember this topic having any traction until the Tampa/Montreal finals matchup, when cap cheating was on everyone’s mind. All of a sudden everyone got really interested in reasons why there need to be a special dispensation for Canadian teams.

I remember this discussion back in 2017 or so on these boards and it was just as dumb then as it is now. You're doing a great job here btw, thank you. It's the same tired argument and people not accounting for...

-cost of living in various cities
-property taxes
-weather
-market/work & personal life balance

They assume the only factor here is income tax rate because it's the easiest discrepancy for some casual hockey forum member to look up and argue for and think they know what they're talking about. It's ignorant and laughably transparent.

 

[Salsero1]

I remember this discussion back in 2017 or so on these boards and it was just as dumb then as it is now. You're doing a great job here btw, thank you. It's the same tired argument and people not accounting for...

-cost of living in various cities
-property taxes
-weather
-market/work & personal life balance

They assume the only factor here is income tax rate because it's the easiest discrepancy for some casual hockey forum member to look up and argue for and think they know what they're talking about. It's ignorant and laughably transparent.

I remember first hearing about it when Stamkos chose to re-up in Tampa, as if taxes are the only reason he would stay there and not go home.

 

[Tim Calhoun]

State Income Taxes arent the only tax... Texans pay more in overall taxes than multiple NHL states that do have state income taxes.

North Carolina, Utah, DC and Colorado all pay state income tax, but have a lower tax index due to much lower property and sales taxes than TX.

Here is a link to a chart that shows that this "no income tax advantage" argument is dumb

Also, building a set-in-stone NHL CBA around changeable political policies would be incredibly dumb.

Millionaires (like hockey players) consume a lower % of their income which makes a higher sales tax less relevant. Also, higher property sales tend to be linked to lower housing costs which turns into a wash.