An idea to remove the cap advantage for no tax states

[WhiskeyYerTheDevils]

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

They cannot do that because they don't know the future.

I hate using Cups as the only marker of success.

It's the metric you brought up.

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.

Okay, go for it. Check the win loss records in the cap era and get back to me.

 

[RANDOMH3RO]

I’m sure owners are chomping at the bit to put it in writing that they should be allowed to pay the players more money if they get taxed more.

 

[Pablo El Perro]

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

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

I'm sure the owners will love that. Will they rework that revenue split or lower the cap to make this a possibility?

 

[TheNumber4]

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).

The bolded is really rich coming from you.

Former GM, agent, analyst worked it out with a prominent agent and it came out to be about 10%. I’ve heard higher by other analyses done. Where’s your 3% come from?

 

[TheNumber4]

They cannot do that because they don't know the future.

It's the metric you brought up.


Okay, go for it. Check the win loss records in the cap era and get back to me.

They have a good enough idea about the future to make that call. But most of the calculation doesn’t even require the future to be known, only assumed. And when you signing with a team, it’s assumed you’ll be there for awhile. Is it 100% known? No. But it’s known enough to translate into cap savings on the currently negotiated contract.

I’m not trying to figure if the tax advantage is real or not. I already know that it is, so does many other smart hockey analysts who have talked about this subject. Why should I waste time confirming what I already know. You want to dispute what I, Burke, and the majority of hockey analysts say, you put in the work and show them.

 

[Pablo El Perro]

Former GM, agent, analyst worked it out with a prominent agent and it came out to be about 10%. I’ve heard higher by other analyses done. Where’s your 3% come from?

It depends on the structure of each contract, and state tax laws regarding signing bonuses and residency, as those laws aren't uniform.

 

[WhiskeyYerTheDevils]

They have a good enough idea about the future to make that call. But most of the calculation doesn’t even require the future to be known, only assumed. And when you signing with a team, it’s assumed you’ll be there for awhile. Is it 100% known? No. But it’s known enough to translate into cap savings on the currently negotiated contract.

You're the one claiming it can be precisely quantified.

I’m not trying to figure if the tax advantage is real or not. I already know that it is, so does many other smart hockey analysts who have talked about this subject.

Then prove it.

Why should I waste time confirming what I already know.

Because you are the one making unsubstantiated claims.

 

[Golden_Jet]

Former GM, agent, analyst worked it out with a prominent agent and it came out to be about 10%. I’ve heard higher by other analyses done. Where’s your 3% come from?

Definitely not 10%
And you still haven’t answered the question how it’s calculated when teams play in 20 different jurisdictions, so that brings down the number.
That doesn’t even count signing bonuses which are taxed less.

In fact, the states with the highest tax in the U.S. in 2021 are:

• California (13.3%)
• Hawaii (11%)
• New Jersey (10.75%)
• Oregon (9.9%)
• Minnesota (9.85%)
• District of Columbia (8.95%)
• New York (8.82%)
• Vermont (8.75%)
• Iowa (8.53%)
• Wisconsin (7.65%)

 

[TheNumber4]

It depends on the structure of each contract, and state tax laws regarding signing bonuses and residency, as those laws aren't uniform.

Sure. All things that can be figured out by teams of agents and NHL management staff when negotiating contracts. And they do just that.

 

[Oblivion Beckons]

These sorts of posts are why I continue to enjoy Canadian teams failing to win the cup year after year after year.

 

[TheNumber4]

Definitely not 10%
And you still haven’t answered the question how it’s calculated when teams play in 20 different jurisdictions, so that brings down the number.
That doesn’t even count signing bonuses which are taxed less.

In fact, the states with the highest tax in the U.S. in 2021 are:

• California (13.3%)
• Hawaii (11%)
• New Jersey (10.75%)
• Oregon (9.9%)
• Minnesota (9.85%)
• District of Columbia (8.95%)
• New York (8.82%)
• Vermont (8.75%)
• Iowa (8.53%)
• Wisconsin (7.65%)

Burke says different.

That’s actually irrelevent. Cause all NHL players play in 20 or whatever different jurisdictions at an amount that averages out to be the same. The differences that MATTER are local and state taxes.

Signing bonus variances are part of the negotiation and can be figured out at the time of negotiation.

 

[Pablo El Perro]

Sure. All things that can be figured out by teams of agents and NHL management staff when negotiating contracts. And they do just that.

Yes, but the difference would vary between tax provinces/states, so a 10% or 3% average doesn't tell you much. Particularly regarding the op's new idea.

And with the top earners, signing bonuses are most of the contract. So it matters more than fans think.

 

[JPT]

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.

Texas, a no-income-tax state, has the sixth highest property tax rate in the country. What happens to control for that? Tennessee has the second highest sales tax in the country. What are we doing to address this disparity once the income tax "problem" is solved?

 

[TheNumber4]

You're the one claiming it can be precisely quantified.

Then prove it.



Because you are the one making unsubstantiated claims.

It can be quantified on a level high enough to affect contract values and it does.

The no taxes exist. That does not need to be proven or not proven. The contract values and therefore effects on winning can also be seen quite easily with just a cursory look at who’s winning in this league. Can be dug into further if you want to look into win percentages. I don’t care enough to look into something I already know exists. If you want to disprove my claim, which you do, then go ahead and disprove it.

 

[Sabresruletheschool]

So to get this straight, people want thier government to tax the crap out of the athletes, but then want the NHL to penalize the states that don't. You want the NHL to subsidize for governments who are over taxing the people. How about vote for a different government if they're taxing to much? Hmmm

 

[Commander Clueless]

I'm sure the owners will love that. Will they rework that revenue split or lower the cap to make this a possibility?

Why not both?

 

[TheNumber4]

Texas, a no-income-tax state, has the sixth highest property tax rate in the country. What happens to control for that? Tennessee has the second highest sales tax in the country. What are we doing to address this disparity once the income tax "problem" is solved?

Yeh property taxes and sales tax differences are insignificant compared to income tax differences. Every market will have its pros and cons, no as large as the effects that no taxes has on take home pay and therefore contract values in this League.

 

[Pablo El Perro]

Why not both?

They'd have to negotiate it with the NHLPA. And a simple or doesn't imply you can't get both.

 

[JPT]

Yeh property taxes and sales tax differences are insignificant compared to income tax differences. Every market will have its pros and cons, no as large as the effects that no taxes has on take home pay and therefore contract values in this League.

Pros and cons like whether or not there is a state income tax?

 

[Golden_Jet]

Love all these posters that think they know how taxes work. When they don’t even understand how the league works , let alone taxes.

 

[GeeoffBrown]

there should be a weather cap too. It's not fair that it gets to -30c in Winnipeg, Calgary and Edmonton in January

 

[Drake1588]

Whether it's in this thread or the similar NMC thread this past week, the posts have all basically boiled down to whinging about unfairness and then waxing poetic about a world with more fairness in it. Just... BRANG! we live in a fairer world now.

That's not how change happens.

So... how are you going to get there? How are you going to get the votes? It's one team, one vote at the NHL governors level, and a major decision like this probably needs 2/3 and not a mere majority. Once the league gets its ducks in a row, and I am far from convinced the majority of teams want this change (much less 2/3), then the league would have to go to the negotiating table with the NHLPA.

There's little appetite for a lockout, so that would mean the league needs to find compromise with the union to hammer out the next CBA with such provisions in it. What does the league give up? The salary cap? UFA at a much earlier age? To budge, the PA is going to want concessions. Big ones. The people arguing for weaker NTC/NMC protections and/or tax multipliers would not like the sorts of concessions that would be needed to get it done.

This kind of change isn't going to be imposed by fiat.

 

[Nothingbutglass]

nerds should develop expected quality of life index to make it fair

 

[TheNumber4]

Didn’t realize HF boards had so many tax experts. I’m definitely not one. But in lieu of expertise, I will take the word of real experts. So why don’t all the tax experts in here, please explain to someone like Alan
Pogroszewski, the founder, president and CEO of AFP Consulting LLC, which specializes in the tax preparation and consulting for pro athletes, that he is wrong when he says “There is a distinct advantage for those teams that are in states with no tax — always,” said Alan Pogroszewski, who has studied and worked with players on tax matters for more than a decade. “There will always be an advantage.”

Someone tell Former Player Agent and GM Brian Burke the same thing.

Someone tell current NHL GM Mike Grier the same thing who also realizes the No tax advantage is a thing.

NHL free agency shows advantage teams in states with no income tax have

www.sportsnet.ca

 

[Nothingbutglass]

biggest obstacle is owners dont give a shit. its mostly whiny fans from specific markets