An idea to remove the cap advantage for no tax states

[HuGort]

I think this topic comes up at least once a month. The easiest solution is to simply make the salary cap a post-tax cap. Just remove it from the equation. It doesn't matter what you pay player X before tax.

Makes level playing field

 

[x Tame Impala]

Anywhere from 10-20%. Which is huge in a parity league.

How would you level things out for the disparities in: Cost of living, quality of life, endorsement opportunities, etc... Are those not also tremendous advantages?

 

[Chet Manley]

After seeing the disparity between markets in the '90s this stuff seems pretty overstated. Even the ltir abuse is small potatoes really. Teams spending to the cap are all in a position close enough to compete.

 

[Finlandia WOAT]

Panthers were garbage for nearly 20 years, the lack of a state income tax didn't change that

 

[TanguaySauce]

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

I propose the opposite: a flat tax rate across all states/provinces for athletes. 30-40% seems like a good range

 

[TheNumber4]

How would you level things out for the disparities in: Cost of living, quality of life, endorsement opportunities, etc... Are those not also tremendous advantages?

Those are advantages too. But none of those can be objectively measured, and calculated to be used in contract negotiations to reduce AAV. The benefits of no tax are much more tangible and translates more easily to cheaper contracts.

You can’t convince a free agent to take less on the off chance he hits it out of the park and someone wants to reward him with endorsements. Quality of life which includes costs of living are subjective too, they may or may not affect a free agent choosing. But what’s universal is Money. Cash is king and no tax teams have more of it to spend than everyone else.

 

[WhiskeyYerTheDevils]

Those are advantages too. But none of those can be objectively measured, and calculated to be used in contract negotiations to reduce AAV. The benefits of no tax are much more tangible and translates more easily to cheaper contracts.

You can’t convince a free agent to take less on the off chance he hits it out of the park and someone wants to reward him with endorsements. Quality of life which includes costs of living are subjective too, they may or may not affect a free agent choosing. But what’s universal is Money. Cash is king and no tax teams have more of it to spend than everyone else.

The tax benefit also can't be measured because it varies significantly from player to player.

 

[FiveTacos]

How would you level things out for the disparities in: Cost of living, quality of life, endorsement opportunities, etc... Are those not also tremendous advantages?

Simple, all players must remain single and childless, and live out of generic NHL dormitory rooms at strategic central locations for distribution by Amazon Prime same day delivery. Endorsement money will only go to teams that the particular players are on. No social lives allowed, thus eliminating any benefit of weather or city life, or influence from bored WAGs ... players will wake up, eat at the dorm cafeteria, go to practice, return for lunch and then team meetings, have dinner, play the game, then return to the dorm at which time curfew will be enforced.

Suntans will be punished severely, with offenders being banished to the back of the cafeteria line. Only for regularly scheduled promotional events are players allowed to leave their rooms otherwise.

During the off-season players will be placed into cryogenic stasis until services are required again.

When a player has outlived his usefulness he will be turned into Soylent Green and consumed, thus transferring his power into the next generation of hockey players. Escapees will be hunted down and made an example of by being forced to star in crappy Slap Shot sequels. Another escape attempt will land you the lead in Cutting Edge 5.

 

[tucker3434]

The tax benefit also can't be measured because it varies significantly from player to player.

That people can’t figure this part out tells me that all of the people that want tax adjustments for the cap have never even done their own taxes.

 

[Beukeboom Fan]

Once we've solved the tax crisis, we'll have to immediately solve how to make some destinations more attractive. We need to make sure Sunrise, Tampa Bay, Columbus, Detroit and Calgary are all equally appealing.

Import more cute puck bunnies?

Anywhere from 10-20%. Which is huge in a parity league.

From just the "no-state" tax perspective - you're off by a ridiculous amount. Let me know if it's worthwhile to post the example to show why. (Some folks would rather just not know, which is fine for them if that's that way they want it).

 

[Howboutthempanthers]

These same conditions were here 10 years ago and before, and nobody said a peep. When Florida was getting their head kicked in by all of the high tax teams for years. If it was such an advantage why wasn't Florida winning until recently? Or signing anyone for cheap?

 

[TheNumber4]

The tax benefit also can't be measured because it varies significantly from player to player.

At the time of negotiating a contract is can be measured. And that’s all that matters for the tax advantage to translate into contract discounts and the huge cap advantage that the 4 out of last 5 Cup winners used to win.

 

[Maple Leaf]

Tax advantage for sure

 

[Commander Clueless]

Make cap hits equal the contract's annual after tax value.

It'll make fan math stupid, but there ya go.

 

[x Tame Impala]

Those are advantages too. But none of those can be objectively measured, and calculated to be used in contract negotiations to reduce AAV. The benefits of no tax are much more tangible and translates more easily to cheaper contracts.

You can’t convince a free agent to take less on the off chance he hits it out of the park and someone wants to reward him with endorsements. Quality of life which includes costs of living are subjective too, they may or may not affect a free agent choosing. But what’s universal is Money. Cash is king and no tax teams have more of it to spend than everyone else.

Cost of living can absolutely be calculated and compared between any two cities a hockey team resides in. Endorsement opportunities not being mentioned in contract negotiations would be a huge surprise for me, especially since these opportunities directly involve the team more often than not. It's not an "off chance" they get endorsements, it's negotiated beforehand.

Quality of life, while not necessarily objectively measurable, is certainly a factor and it's something a city like Toronto has in spades over a place like Columbus or Arizona. Toronto, Vancouver, Montreal...these are all badass cities to live in where a guy in the 27-35 age range would have a ton of fun spending their money and being around a lot of attractive opportunities. So yes you'll pay more in taxes living in Chicago, LA, NY, Toronto, Seattle, etc...but you also get to live in a world-class city with millions of dollars and enjoy these benefits other cities may not be able to offer. Point being, it's a factor, it's an advantage some markets have over others. I

 

[Golden_Jet]

Make cap hits equal the contract's annual after tax value.

It'll make fan math stupid, but there ya go.

How does the 50/50 split work then with owners and players.
That would hurt the leafs, as AM pays amongst the lowest percentage in tax in the league.

 

[TheNumber4]

Cost of living can absolutely be calculated and compared between any two cities a hockey team resides in. Endorsement opportunities not being mentioned in contract negotiations would be a huge surprise for me, especially since these opportunities directly involve the team more often than not. It's not an "off chance" they get endorsements, it's negotiated beforehand.

Quality of life, while not necessarily objectively measurable, is certainly a factor and it's something a city like Toronto has in spades over a place like Columbus or Arizona. Toronto, Vancouver, Montreal...these are all badass cities to live in where a guy in the 27-35 age range would have a ton of fun spending their money and being around a lot of attractive opportunities. So yes you'll pay more in taxes living in Chicago, LA, NY, Toronto, Seattle, etc...but you also get to live in a world-class city with millions of dollars and enjoy these benefits other cities may not be able to offer. Point being, it's a factor, it's an advantage some markets have over others. I

Cost of living usually just reflects the quality of life. So it's a wash. You got players paying more to play in cities that they are attracted to playing in. The effects of this are minimal when it comes to the actual Cap hit.

Whereas the tax ADVANTAGE is just that. A bonafide, concrete, measurable, and universal way to reduce cap hits for any players that are going to sign.

 

[FiveTacos]

Those are advantages too. But none of those can be objectively measured,

CPI exists you know.

Housing costs are one of the easiest things to measure, just go look at what a decent sized home costs in various places on Zillow. You wanna talk about a disadvantage, see what a decent house in a nice neighborhood costs for a player around SJ compared to one in Cbus. And if you fear for your sanity don't even look at NYC.

Cost of food is pretty dramatically different too ... I remember when I moved to NYC years ago and found that the cost of a fast food burger alone was more than the already high price of the *whole meal* in California (where it ain't cheap either). Thank God for Gray's Papaya.

So yeah, there should be a big cost of living adjustment as well if you're really interested in being "fair".

 

[TheNumber4]

CPI exists you know.

Housing costs are one of the easiest things to measure, just go look at what a decent sized home costs in various places on Zillow. You wanna talk about a disadvantage, see what a decent house in a nice neighborhood costs for a player around SJ compared to one in Cbus. And if you fear for your sanity don't even look at NYC.

Cost of food is pretty dramatically different too ... I remember when I moved to NYC years ago and found that the cost of a fast food burger alone was more than the already high price of the *whole meal* in California (where it ain't cheap either). Thank God for Gray's Papaya.

So yeah, there should be a big cost of living adjustment as well if you're really interested in being "fair".

A lot of this stuff is relevant to your middle class schlub. Less relevant for millionaires. The effects are overstated as well.

Housing prices are just market values. You pay more, you get more when you sell.

Cost of food? Close to irrelevent for Nhlers.

 

[Golden_Jet]

Cost of living usually just reflects the quality of life. So it's a wash. You got players paying more to play in cities that they are attracted to playing in. The effects of this are minimal when it comes to the actual Cap hit.

Whereas the tax ADVANTAGE is just that. A bonafide, concrete, measurable, and universal way to reduce cap hits for any players that are going to sign.

Not like it’s easy to calculate, when players pay taxes in about 20 different jurisdictions over the year.

 

[WhiskeyYerTheDevils]

At the time of negotiating a contract is can be measured.

No it cannot. Your lack of understanding here is pretty revealing.

And that’s all that matters for the tax advantage to translate into contract discounts and the huge cap advantage that the 4 out of last 5 Cup winners used to win.

And what about the 15 years before that? Oh yeah, teams in high tax areas won tons of cups.

 

[FiveTacos]

Cost of living usually just reflects the quality of life.

No, it does not. They actually measure what it costs to live to the same approximate standard in different places. There's a reason why making 90k in some places makes you extremely well off, and in other places you can barely scrape by.

 

[Beukeboom Fan]

Cost of living usually just reflects the quality of life. So it's a wash. You got players paying more to play in cities that they are attracted to playing in. The effects of this are minimal when it comes to the actual Cap hit.

Whereas the tax ADVANTAGE is just that. A bonafide, concrete, measurable, and universal way to reduce cap hits for any players that are going to sign.

That no-state tax advantage is probably in the 3-5% range. And the Leafs are already taking advantage of that situation with Matthews signing bonus being technically taxed in AZ (with no state tax).

A lot of this stuff is relevant to your middle class schlub. Less relevant for millionaires. The effects are overstated as well.

Housing prices are just market values. You pay more, you get more when you sell.

Cost of food? Close to irrelevent for Nhlers.

The bolded is really rich coming from you.

 

[Hobble]

Nothing more Winnipeg than the Jets getting a BOGO* deal on their players.

*Buy ONE (1) Winnipeg Jets player, and get ONE (1) more Winnipeg Jets player of equal or lesser price FREE!

 

[TheNumber4]

No it cannot. Your lack of understanding here is pretty revealing.


And what about the 15 years before that? Oh yeah, teams in high tax areas won tons of cups.

Sure it can. The teams accountants the players accountants can figure that out. And they do just that.

I hate using Cups as the only marker of success. But the 4 cups in last 5 is a telling stat. A better analysis would be win percentages of no tax teams vs the rest. Let’s see that and we can see the no tax effect at work.

No, it does not. They actually measure what it costs to live to the same approximate standard in different places. There's a reason why making 90k in some places makes you extremely well off, and in other places you can barely scrape by.

Yes it does. In general higher cost of living reflects a higher demand to be in that market, the higher demand reflects quality of life in that market. Quality of life can mean different things to different people though, it means a lot different for NHLers compared to your average Joe.