An idea to remove the cap advantage for no tax states

[Face Of Bear]

stopped reading after "an idea to remove the cap..."

do it

 

[FiveTacos]

They don't *have* to live in the most expensive areas, do they? There are expenses that a person simply cannot avoid, but you're talking about people who make very high six figures or more. They can make choices that either save or cost them more money. There shouldn't be cap relief just because a player wants to live in a $4m home in an area where everything is more expensive because everyone around is rich. That's absurd.

A good sized family home in a place like Edmonton or Winnipeg is very affordable on an NHL salary. I easily found some pretty sweet 3000+ sf homes that were affordable. Took the same price to SJ and did some searches .... there is no way on earth an NHL player is convincing his wife to go live in a 1100sf fixer upper in a generic neighborhood. Or go to a nice area closer to the beach and squeeze into a 500sf shack. 2.5m+ starts you at the bottom rung of something comparable in SJ to what you can get for 800k elsewhere.

Put it this way, my childhood home in SoCal was in a pretty so so suburban neighborhood, a swath of houses with minimal yards, no privacy in any direction, you could literally have a conversation with the neighbors from your window. It was only just big enough for my parents and me, when we had my relatives in town it was always cramped as hell. It's fine, but no way on earth Id ever expect any pro athlete to live there. It's now estimated at just under $1.5m.

So no, they don't have to live somewhere expensive, but that's kind of the point ... they'd have to willingly choose to live in a far smaller, crappier house in those markets for the same money they could be living in a mini mansion elsewhere. Or to live nicely in those markets, they're going to have to spend a boatload. And to win the house bid in those markets, it's gonna take cash.

What's absurd is arguing that it's not a disadvantage for teams in those areas. If higher income taxes is a disadvantage, so is having to spend a ton more just to live in a remotely comparable home.

 

[JPT]

A good sized family home in a place like Edmonton or Winnipeg is very affordable on an NHL salary. I easily found some pretty sweet 3000+ sf homes that were affordable. Took the same price to SJ and did some searches .... there is no way on earth an NHL player is convincing his wife to go live in a 1100sf fixer upper in a generic neighborhood. Or go to a nice area closer to the beach and squeeze into a 500sf shack. 2.5m+ starts you at the bottom rung of something comparable in SJ to what you can get for 800k elsewhere.

Put it this way, my childhood home in SoCal was in a pretty so so suburban neighborhood, a swath of houses with minimal yards, no privacy in any direction, you could literally have a conversation with the neighbors from your window. It was only just big enough for my parents and me, when we had my relatives in town it was always cramped as hell. It's fine, but no way on earth Id ever expect any pro athlete to live there. It's now estimated at just under $1.5m.

So no, they don't have to live somewhere expensive, but that's kind of the point ... they'd have to willingly choose to live in a far smaller, crappier house in those markets for the same money they could be living in a mini mansion elsewhere. Or to live nicely in those markets, they're going to have to spend a boatload. And to win the house bid in those markets, it's gonna take cash.

What's absurd is arguing that it's not a disadvantage for teams in those areas. If higher income taxes is a disadvantage, so is having to spend a ton more just to live in a remotely comparable home.

I never argued it isn't a disadvantage. I have consistently argued that it isn't something that can be or should be addressed by adjusting the cap. The tax thing is bad enough, but adjusting the cap for teams because players want the finest things in life is ridiculous. That's their choice. Teams shouldn't be given extra cap space to offset their boujee players' financial decisions.

 

[Golden_Jet]

Cost of living would be no more difficult than adjusting for taxes. It's money out of players' pockets that they have to use on expenses and don't have the opportunity to save/invest/whatever. It should receive equal consideration here, but doesn't. Because the cost of living in Canada is generally cheaper than major US cities by every metric I can find, likely a result of the current exchange rate. Players are paid in USD. Advantage, Canada.

Fixed for you. Disadvantage Canada.
Canadian teams revenue is CDN dollars, salaries paid in US dollars.

 

[FiveTacos]

I never argued it isn't a disadvantage. I have consistently argued that it isn't something that can be or should be addressed by adjusting the cap.

It can be. I don't think it should be any more than income tax. They're just factors in a decision like any other.

The tax thing is bad enough, but adjusting the cap for teams because players want the finest things in life is ridiculous. That's their choice. Teams shouldn't be given extra cap space to offset their boujee players' financial decisions.

They're multimillionaire celebs ... what the hell do you expect? You sound more jealous or classist than anything else.

In California they face both high living expenses AND high taxation. But the teams I'm sure just emphasize what's good about living there when courting FAs. Henrique now going to Edmonton is probably going to get a major house upgrade despite a salary cut. It is what it is.

 

[JPT]

It can be. I don't think it should be any more than income tax. They're just factors in a decision like any other.



They're multimillionaire celebs ... what the hell do you expect? You sound more jealous or classist than anything else.

In California they face both high living expenses AND high taxation. But the teams I'm sure just emphasize what's good about living there when courting FAs. Henrique now going to Edmonton is probably going to get a major house upgrade despite a salary cut. It is what it is.

Lol I sound jealous or "classist" because I realize that it isn't necessary to buy the most expensive things? I'm done talking to you now because that's just stupid. Enjoy arguing for giving teams extra money to spend because rich people want to have status symbols, though. I'm sure that would go over well in owners' meetings.

 

[oconnor9sean]

Kinda funny how no one cared when Fla was losing 50 games a year for 30 years. Lightning have mostly been good for the 30 years but they had a few down years too and how many notable free agents turned down the rest of the league to sign in either of these places

Dallas had a decade-long period where their best FA pickup was like Sheldon f'ing Souray or 40-yo Ray Whitney. Not a lot of complaints at that point...

Then they hire Jim Nill, who completely overhauled the culture of the entire organization, and almost immediately began attracting loads of higher-end UFAs.

There's so much more to this than just income tax (especially because Texas' property and sales taxes are very high). It seems like an attempted OD on Copium by fans of teams who probably need to look introspectively at how their organization is run or why they don't attract the UFAs that they would like.

 

[Beukeboom Fan]

I never argued it isn't a disadvantage. I have consistently argued that it isn't something that can be or should be addressed by adjusting the cap. The tax thing is bad enough, but adjusting the cap for teams because players want the finest things in life is ridiculous. That's their choice. Teams shouldn't be given extra cap space to offset their boujee players' financial decisions.

This is 100% my position. Just because there is a potential cap impact and you CAN do something does not mean you SHOULD do something.

Important factors to consider:
1) Have high cost of living markets EVER been disadvantaged in signing/resigning UFA's? If it doesn't stop players from signing there - what are we talking about? This seems to be HF posters just campaigning for something that would benefit "their" team.
2) Does anyone think that the goal of the salary cap was to ensure 100% parity with regard to the markets? If so - can you please provide some evidence to support? My point is that the cap was to guarantee financial viability for all markets, and make the players save the owners from their most aggressive/stupid brethren. My evidence that 100% parity was not the goal was team's ability to be +/- ~20% of the salary midpoint, and teams being allowed to spend whatever they want on coaching, scouting, training staff, travel, etc. For people who didn't live through the pre-cap days, it wasn't unusual for some teams to have TRIPLE the salary of their opponents, and half the markets being essentially being guaranteed to lose their UFA's at 31 YO. Both parties looked at where they ended up with the cap and said "close enough" from a competitive balance perspective.
3) There are A TON of reasons why players sign where they do, and what is important to one player another player might not care about at all. Trying to be "overly precise" is IMO going to create far more problems than it's worth.
4) To do any sort of "tax equalization", it would require a change in the salary structure to limit or not allow signing bonuses. As this negatively impacts the players, I think they'd fight this change tooth and nail. I would expect that overall the NHL owners would not care about this situation enough to want that smoke for something that I believe they would consider a minor issue.

 

[FiveTacos]

Lol I sound jealous or "classist" because I realize that it isn't necessary to buy the most expensive things?

Terms like "boujee" (sic) aren't classist? But yeah, expecting these guys to live on the exact same budget regardless of where they are, that does sound that way.

I'm done talking to you now because that's just stupid. Enjoy arguing for giving teams extra money to spend because rich people want to have status symbols, though. I'm sure that would go over well in owners' meetings.

Sorry, wanting your wife and kids to live in a nice home in a nice area is not a "status symbol" thing, it's a taking care of your family thing.

And no, I do not argue for giving teams extra money. For any reason. Just that it's hypocritical for some to argue that income tax matters but cost of living doesn't.

 

[Lacaar]

So, because players put teams like Toronto on their NMC/NTC lists the NHL should do something about the media in those areas?

I haven't said a thing about NHL doing anything about it. Heck my message is accept it or stop watching. The only way the NHL will do anything about it is if the fans stop watching.

All I've said is it's a factor in teams ability to have success.

When you consider some organizations really only have access to a smaller percentage of the player pool via trade due to NTC/NMC and FA due to Non Destination. Especially when you consider it's the good players with those clauses and multiple FA decisions. Then to me it's obvious why they have a hard time competing year over year in the league.

 

[JPT]

Terms like "boujee" (sic) aren't classist? But yeah, expecting these guys to live on the exact same budget regardless of where they are, that does sound that way.



Sorry, wanting your wife and kids to live in a nice home in a nice area is not a "status symbol" thing, it's a taking care of your family thing.

And no, I do not argue for giving teams extra money. For any reason. Just that it's hypocritical for some to argue that income tax matters but cost of living doesn't.

No hockey player has enough money for me to be classist against them. I save that for the billionaires who exploit people for their own benefit, not multi-millionaire athletes.

It's also absurd to imply that spending more money means you're taking care of your family better than someone who can't spend that kind of money. Most people with families take care of them just fine on tens of thousands per year rather than hundreds of thousands or millions.

If you're not advocating for some cap manipulation to make up for how much hockey players spend on their homes and cars and private schools, my apologies. I know plenty of us who are saying income tax isn't such big of a deal as to create a cap fix have also pointed to cost of living as an advantage to some but something that doesn't need a fix.

 

[VivaLasVegas]

36 pages later and still no evidence that the owners or players even consider this a problem.

 

[hangman005]

36 pages later and still no evidence that the owners or players even consider this a problem.

Welcome to HF Boards.

 

[Figgy44]

36 pages later and still no evidence that the owners or players even consider this a problem.

There's been a few examples. But agreed that none that seem to imply it is a "material" problem requiring a solution.

 

[beowulf]

Just pass laws at the state/provincial level that says athletes are exempt from state income taxes.

YA no...

 

[Craig Ludwig]

A good sized family home in a place like Edmonton or Winnipeg is very affordable on an NHL salary. I easily found some pretty sweet 3000+ sf homes that were affordable. Took the same price to SJ and did some searches .... there is no way on earth an NHL player is convincing his wife to go live in a 1100sf fixer upper in a generic neighborhood. Or go to a nice area closer to the beach and squeeze into a 500sf shack. 2.5m+ starts you at the bottom rung of something comparable in SJ to what you can get for 800k elsewhere.

Put it this way, my childhood home in SoCal was in a pretty so so suburban neighborhood, a swath of houses with minimal yards, no privacy in any direction, you could literally have a conversation with the neighbors from your window. It was only just big enough for my parents and me, when we had my relatives in town it was always cramped as hell. It's fine, but no way on earth Id ever expect any pro athlete to live there. It's now estimated at just under $1.5m.

So no, they don't have to live somewhere expensive, but that's kind of the point ... they'd have to willingly choose to live in a far smaller, crappier house in those markets for the same money they could be living in a mini mansion elsewhere. Or to live nicely in those markets, they're going to have to spend a boatload. And to win the house bid in those markets, it's gonna take cash.

What's absurd is arguing that it's not a disadvantage for teams in those areas. If higher income taxes is a disadvantage, so is having to spend a ton more just to live in a remotely comparable home.

What you are saying doesn't matter. The attractive players are all signing $30 Million+ contracts. If you buy a $1 Million home in Edmonton, or a $4 Million home in San Jose, the Edmonton home doesn't go up in value much when it comes time to sell, whereas the San Jose home likely goes up big time. A home is an investment.

 

[Craig Ludwig]

36 pages later and still no evidence that the owners or players even consider this a problem.

Of course the Vegas fan thinks there's no problem with it...The problem is that it is SO obvious, Mr. Vegas imagine you were worth a $50 Million Dollar Contract, and 10 teams are lining up to sign you. You narrow it down to Dallas, Miami and Vancouver. Then you look at how much tax you will pay over those 5 years of the contract, and you see that (being extremely conservative) you will pay 10% more in Vancouver, a little 10 percent. Simple math, 10% of $50 Million is $5 Million, you will make $5 Million more dollars if you sign with Dallas or Florida. How does that affect your decision?

Come on, let's be realistic about this. Forget the weather, politics, price of housing (because that is an investment that goes up in value), and other petty little payments, this is about big time cash coming out of your pocket. And with an incredibly rigid salary cap where teams cannot exceed a paltry $90 Million, it's a huge detriment to certain teams.

 

[JPT]

Of course the Vegas fan thinks there's no problem with it...The problem is that it is SO obvious, Mr. Vegas imagine you were worth a $50 Million Dollar Contract, and 10 teams are lining up to sign you. You narrow it down to Dallas, Miami and Vancouver. Then you look at how much tax you will pay over those 5 years of the contract, and you see that (being extremely conservative) you will pay 10% more in Vancouver, a little 10 percent. Simple math, 10% of $50 Million is $5 Million, you will make $5 Million more dollars if you sign with Dallas or Florida. How does that affect your decision?

Come on, let's be realistic about this. Forget the weather, politics, price of housing (because that is an investment that goes up in value), and other petty little payments, this is about big time cash coming out of your pocket. And with an incredibly rigid salary cap where teams cannot exceed a paltry $90 Million, it's a huge detriment to certain teams.

I don't think anyone is saying it doesn't exist as an advantage, but just because it exists as an advantage doesn't mean it's a problem worth the effort to address.

 

[FiveTacos]

No hockey player has enough money for me to be classist against them. I save that for the billionaires who exploit people for their own benefit, not multi-millionaire athletes.

Fair enough, apologies.

It's also absurd to imply that spending more money means you're taking care of your family better than someone who can't spend that kind of money. Most people with families take care of them just fine on tens of thousands per year rather than hundreds of thousands or millions.

But by that reasoning a player in a high tax market like Canada could equalize vs. no tax areas by living cheaply in a slum. There's obviously a certain standard of living that these guys should reasonably expect. The problem is, in some places even that reasonable level is exceedingly expensive.

If you're not advocating for some cap manipulation to make up for how much hockey players spend on their homes and cars and private schools, my apologies. I know plenty of us who are saying income tax isn't such big of a deal as to create a cap fix have also pointed to cost of living as an advantage to some but something that doesn't need a fix.

Personally I think it's a selling point for the Canadian markets. You can live extremely well there for a lot less. Hell after doing some searches *I* might be happy to cash out my home in California and move my family there.

What you are saying doesn't matter. The attractive players are all signing $30 Million+ contracts. If you buy a $1 Million home in Edmonton, or a $4 Million home in San Jose, the Edmonton home doesn't go up in value much when it comes time to sell, whereas the San Jose home likely goes up big time. A home is an investment.

You don't get property tax or insurance payments back. Hell, things like earthquake and flood insurance isn't even covered under regular insurance, it's a whole additional expense, and none of it is cheap. Cost of utilities in southern areas can be extreme ... We just went through a heat wave and even with solar my electric bill was hefty, and that's another thing you don't get back. You don't get back higher costs on feeding your family or medical costs. And the player in SJ is also getting taxed at one of the highest rates in the country on top of all that.

And unlike some places where you can put a down payment and finance, in a competitive market you may have to plonk that money down in cash. That's a good chunk of your signing bonus right there.

In a lot of ways those teams are more disadvantaged than say Edmonton or Winnipeg. But like any other place they have their pluses.

 

[tucker3434]

Fixed for you. Disadvantage Canada.
Canadian teams revenue is CDN dollars, salaries paid in US dollars.

For purchasing power from a player’s perspective, it’s an advantage. That’s what these threads are about. Nobody cares about the owners, which is dumb. They’re the ones that vote.

 

[x Tame Impala]

Why shouldn't cost of living be addressed? It's quantifiable, and to a certain degree more quantifiable than income tax, as regardless of funny income tax shenanigans (like Matthews) players presumably live in the market they play in. And they ain't living in the cheap neighborhoods.

If the argument is that players will choose no income tax markets because it results in them banking more money, that exact same argument applies to places where it can cost much more to live, since having to spend several times more on housing has a direct impact on a player's finances as well.

If you're arguing to fix one while dismissing the other then you're not really interested in fairness. Or you're completely unaware of just how expensive it is to live in some of these places.

No man I'm arguing to dismiss all of these factors because there are so many and there isn't an objective weighing system you can apply to all of them to equalize across the league. Cost of living for instance, it's higher in NY, LA, CHI, or Toronto for instance because those are f***ing spectacular cities to live in that offer so many amenities. The cost of living is 23% lower in Columbus, Ohio than it is in Chicago. So attempting to equalize that just hurts the Columbus Bluejackets even more as it offsets one of their advantages.

NONE of these issues need to be addressed and none of them can be fixed anyway.

That's certainly an opinion that betrays your position. Others disagree so any factor that might help balance things and can be addressed is the point of this discussion, not whether other factors can also come into play.

Income tax is not the only advantageous factor in play when comparing any two cities with one another. You're acting like it's singularly important enough, or influential enough, to be equalized. It isn't. No single factor can be equalized because there are so many in play here and you can't possibly equalize them all.

Income tax is just front and center because it's the most superficial. This thread and the 3 dozen like it the last 8 years have demonstrated time and time again how 1) it's not as big of a factor as it's portrayed by talking heads in Canada and 2) it is not the only form of taxation that would need to be accounted for.

 

[FiveTacos]

No man I'm arguing to dismiss all of these factors because there are so many and there isn't an objective weighing system you can apply to all of them to equalize across the league.

Yeah, I'm in agreement, I was pointing out how focusing on income tax alone was silly, but I can see how my post could be read a different way.

 

[sxvnert]

It's extremely simple regardless of what that asshat fridge tells people. Calculate what each player pays in taxes + calculate what avg cost of living is in each state + factor in advantage of being paid in American dollars in Canada. Add any more that are relevant and come up with a yearly changing calculation.

The problem is Gary wants this advantage to grow the game in southern US. Canada and northern US are already maxed out growth wise.

 

[admiralcadillac]

No man I'm arguing to dismiss all of these factors because there are so many and there isn't an objective weighing system you can apply to all of them to equalize across the league. Cost of living for instance, it's higher in NY, LA, CHI, or Toronto for instance because those are f***ing spectacular cities to live in that offer so many amenities. The cost of living is 23% lower in Columbus, Ohio than it is in Chicago. So attempting to equalize that just hurts the Columbus Bluejackets even more as it offsets one of their advantages.

NONE of these issues need to be addressed and none of them can be fixed anyway.

Income tax is not the only advantageous factor in play when comparing any two cities with one another. You're acting like it's singularly important enough, or influential enough, to be equalized. It isn't. No single factor can be equalized because there are so many in play here and you can't possibly equalize them all.

Income tax is just front and center because it's the most superficial. This thread and the 3 dozen like it the last 8 years have demonstrated time and time again how 1) it's not as big of a factor as it's portrayed by talking heads in Canada and 2) it is not the only form of taxation that would need to be accounted for.

That’s cool, I’ll take the word of GM’s over yours though

 

[JPT]

It's extremely simple regardless of what that asshat fridge tells people. Calculate what each player pays in taxes + calculate what avg cost of living is in each state + factor in advantage of being paid in American dollars in Canada. Add any more that are relevant and come up with a yearly changing calculation.

The problem is Gary wants this advantage to grow the game in southern US. Canada and northern US are already maxed out growth wise.

How are you going to calculate what each player pays in taxes?