An idea to remove the cap advantage for no tax states

[PhysicalGraffiti]

What a terrible idea.

People should leave, as many are, to places with lower taxes. High taxation is brutal and it's politicians and city leaders who should change something, not the league.

 

[Derailed75]

Why not both?

IT IS BOTH! IT IS BOTH!

 

[Pablo El Perro]

IT IS BOTH! IT IS BOTH!

So lower cap, yet money for the players. Still not seeing the owners going for that.

It's not easy to fix. Nor did I say it was. But let's not pretend the advantage doesn't exist.

Nobody is pretending it's not an advantage, among other advantages.

 

[Number8]

A lot of talk lately about certain teams without income tax having an unfair advantage with the salary cap as they're able to sign players at a discount. Not much talk about how to fix it but I have one fairly simple idea (in theory). Fans of these teams won't like it but how about no tax teams don't get the cap increase that is going to be taking place over the next few seasons? It's expected to go past $100 million in 3 seasons or so, well how about no tax teams stay at $88 million or at least have a reduced cap increase compared to every other team.

Eventually the league settles on a certain percentage, whether it's 15-25% less than other teams - at least this advantage will be taken away from them. It might be complicated to have two different salary caps but perhaps its worth a try. Thoughts?

Too complicated.

Just don't allow players in low/no tax states to wear sunscreen, ever.

About as workable and much funnier. Dermatologists will get extra business as well. Win Win.

 

[Pablo El Perro]

Too complicated.

Just don't allow players in low/no tax states to wear sunscreen, ever.

About as workable and much funnier. Dermatologists will get extra business as well. Win Win.

Now we're shilling for dermatologists? Just when I thought this thread had jumped the shark.

 

[TheNumber4]

That's not true. How many cups did no tax teams win from 2006-2019?

No kidding.

Again. Cups are a bad sample, winning percentage would be better if you care to dispute the advantage that experts KNOW exists.

 

[Viqsi]

I’m not trying to figure if the tax advantage is real or not. I already know that it is

Your logical fallacy is burden of proof

You said that the burden of proof lies not with the person making the claim, but with someone else to disprove.

yourlogicalfallacyis.com

 

[Derailed75]

So lower cap, yet money for the players. Still not seeing the owners going for that.


Nobody is pretending it's not an advantage, among other advantages.

Thats from a Miller light commercial
, I personally think this whole thread is a dumb idea.

 

[Pablo El Perro]

Your logical fallacy is burden of proof

You said that the burden of proof lies not with the person making the claim, but with someone else to disprove.

yourlogicalfallacyis.com

Yeah, but if you use CAPS it cancels the fallacy. Rule 138.

 

[Commander Clueless]

So lower cap, yet money for the players. Still not seeing the owners going for that.

Perhaps, but aren't they already seeing that they have to pay more than other teams to have competitive offers, except as it is the entire contract counts against the cap?

If not, then what's the advantage?

It's a complex calculation but a fairly simple solution conceptually to even the playing field...in theory anyway?

It would allow higher tax teams to spend more (owners dislike) but be more competitive in theory than they are now (owners like?).

 

[Viqsi]

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

Your logical fallacy is appeal to authority

You said that because an authority thinks something, it must therefore be true.

yourlogicalfallacyis.com

 

[TheNumber4]

There are a whole pile of reasons why players will pick one market over another. It isn’t the leagues responsibility to fix this one any more than the rest.

Sure. None as quantifiable or significant as taxes though in a Hard Cap League.

Your logical fallacy is burden of proof

You said that the burden of proof lies not with the person making the claim, but with someone else to disprove.

yourlogicalfallacyis.com

I would wager that the type of analysis and expertise required to prove this would be outside the paygrade of anyone involved in this thread. In lieu of that expertise, I will take the word of real experts like the ones i posted a page back.

 

[Viqsi]

I would wager that the type of analysis and expertise required to prove this would be outside the paygrade of anyone involved in this thread. In lieu of that expertise, I will take the word of real experts like the ones i posted a page back.

The question is really more one of whether or not this "advantage" is in any way more significant than about eleventy billion other categories of "advantage" from market to market, because the way some of y'all talk about it it's seemingly the only one worth considering ever.

 

[Pablo El Perro]

Perhaps, but aren't they already seeing that they have to pay more than other teams to have competitive offers, except as it is the entire contract counts against the cap?

If not, then what's the advantage?

It's a complex calculation but a fairly simple solution conceptually to even the playing field...in theory anyway?

It would allow higher tax teams to spend more (owners dislike) but be more competitive in theory than they are now (owners like?).

The owners pay the same amount regardless of taxes. So, in this case, you're allowing higher taxed owners to spend more or just reducing the cap for lower taxed teams. You can wiggle some bargain between to keep the 50/50 revenue split, but I don't see the NHLPA giving into that. And it would create another set of issues between higher taxed teams owners that want a higher payroll and those that don't.

 

[Beukeboom Fan]

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?

I estimated 3-5%. Players all pay state tax where the games are played. So Barkov is paying NY taxes when they play on the road at MSG. From a state perspective, Barkov plays about half his games in FLA, and the other half in taxable states. State income tax rates for Eastern conference orgs were between PA/OH/CAR at 3-5% and NY/NJ at 11%. Because the tax free state players pay tax for the road games, they essentially have about half the state tax burden of the other players. There is obviously a range depending which team you play on, but it would be roughly half of the 5-10% rate for the other teams.

 

[TheNumber4]

The question is really more one of whether or not this "advantage" is in any way more significant than about eleventy billion other categories of "advantage" from market to market, because the way some of y'all talk about it it's seemingly the only one worth considering ever.

There are other advantages and disadvantages. But in a hard CAP league, I would argue that CAP hits would be among the most important.

 

[Commander Clueless]

The owners pay the same amount regardless of taxes. So, in this case, you're allowing higher taxed owners to spend more or just reducing the cap for lower taxed teams. You can wiggle some bargain between to keep the 50/50 revenue split, but I don't see the NHLPA giving into that. And it would create another set of issues between higher taxed teams owners that want a higher payroll and those that don't.

Well for sure but I don't know if there is a solution for that. The calculation of cap space would need to adjust for available dollars.

If you have an internal budget I don't know how much this calculation would affect you.

Would the PA care so long as players are getting their split?

 

[TheNumber4]

I estimated 3-5%. Players all pay state tax where the games are played. So Barkov is paying NY taxes when they play on the road at MSG. From a state perspective, Barkov plays about half his games in FLA, and the other half in taxable states. State income tax rates for Eastern conference orgs were between PA/OH/CAR at 3-5% and NY/NY at 11%. Because the tax free state players pay tax for the road games, they essentially have about half the state tax burden of the other players. There is obviously a range depending which team you play on, but it would be roughly half of the 5-10% rate for the other teams.

And Burke in consultation with an agent estimates around 10%.

And again, on AVERAGE any player in the NHL will play the same amount of road games (tax situaitons) as everyone else. This component of the analysis is irrevelent, cause its a wash for all players. What's relevent are the local taxes that would give advantage to the home games played of which there are 42 every year.

 

[krutovsdonut]

the tax advantage is overstated as a ufa attraction. the real problem is well known to be the weather. consequently my proposal is to purchasing several montgomery burns patented sun blocker machines to remove the advantage of sunbelt states in attracting free agents. we put bettman in charge of managing their deployment and the league defers some of the costs by building a reality tv show around the process. my plan will have the added benefit of reducing ice making costs for southern us franchises thereby helping the environment.

 

[Pablo El Perro]

I estimated 3-5%. Players all pay state tax where the games are played. So Barkov is paying NY taxes when they play on the road at MSG. From a state perspective, Barkov plays about half his games in FLA, and the other half in taxable states. State income tax rates for Eastern conference orgs were between PA/OH/CAR at 3-5% and NY/NY at 11%. Because the tax free state players pay tax for the road games, they essentially have about half the state tax burden of the other players. There is obviously a range depending which team you play on, but it would be roughly half of the 5-10% rate for the other teams.

The real issue with that, which is an issue, is most of Barkov's and (other high paid players) contract is signing bonuses. Without looking it up, I'd guess 80 to 90% of his contract is signing bonuses. And it's not unique to tax free states.

Well for sure but I don't know if there is a solution for that. The calculation of cap space would need to adjust for available dollars.

If you have an internal budget I don't know how much this calculation would affect you.

Would the PA care so long as players are getting their split?

Care isn't what I'm talking about. If whiny owners are complaining about taxes and restructuring the cap on a team by team basis, anybody who's not an idiot running the NHLPA should demand more on revenue sharing. Owners, I suppose, would expect as much.

 

[Viqsi]

There are other advantages and disadvantages. But in a hard CAP league, I would argue that CAP hits would be among the most important.

I didn't say a damn thing about perceived importance. It's about significance and how substantial it actually is compared to everything else.

Frankly, as far as I can tell it just amounts to another excuse. Florida got to sign so and so because beaches. So-and-so went to Toronto because they dreamed of being a Maple Leaf as a kid. This other guy avoided Montreal because something about the media bubble. This guy extended with Nashville at a discount because taxes. Et cetera et cetera. It's fans whining about why they didn't get what they feel they deserve.

Y'know why I'm so sure it's simple excuse seeking? Because when Gaudreau came here, nobody knew what to make of it at first because there were no ready built-in excuses for Columbus. We don't have low taxes, we don't have beaches, we don't have a winning tradition - the only thing we had was a blithe assumption that Nobody Wants To Play In Columbus that just got gut-punched. So folks had to invent a new "American exodus from Canada" excuse, and cast aspersions on Gaudreau himself, because otherwise it just couldn't make sense to them. They needed a narrative that badly to be able to cope.

 

[norrisnick]

State income taxes are not really a big deal in the scope of the overall big picture. Uninformed people THINK it is a big deal, and subsequently it's treated as a big deal by players, agents, etc... but it's all overblown. Like so many other "vitally important issues" in our 24/7 news cycle. The runaway crime rates terrorizing all the big cities for one...

There is a terribly lack in media literacy and a terrible lack in media standards and subsequently issues that should be important are missed and great big distractions take all the attention. And the crazy thing is that most everyone holds a similar viewpoint, but believe it's the "other" viewpoint that is believing falsehoods. It's such a shitshow right now...

 

[WhiskeyYerTheDevils]

There are other advantages and disadvantages. But in a hard CAP league, I would argue that CAP hits would be among the most important.

Then do it, because you've provided zero empirical evidence that supports your hypothesis.

 

[JPT]

It sounds to me like teams in higher taxed areas need to take some personal responsibility, pull themselves up by their bootstraps, and find a way to make up for their shortcomings.

 

[Pablo El Perro]

Then do it, because you've provided zero empirical evidence that supports your hypothesis.

He appealed to authority