An idea to remove the cap advantage for no tax states

[Golden_Jet]

How about we just re-locate all of the teams to no tax states.

Problem solved. You're welcome.

Easier and a lot less teams, to re-locate the no tax teams. Problem solved.

 

[Viqsi]

How about we just re-locate all of the teams to no tax states.

Problem solved. You're welcome.

That seems extreme and potentially damaging. How about we just relocate the ones with unusually high taxes?

 

[easton117]

Glad people within the NHL are finally saying something. Hopefully this issue is corrected in the next CBA or else just get rid of the cap. Thanks

As a fan of a team that would, I think, outspend all but a couple of others, I really don’t think removing the cap is a good idea.

Unless you want a Euro soccer league type setup where all but a few stand zero chance to compete

 

[JPT]

We know that, it was sarcasm about the cap but something needs to change so those teams dont have an advantage. Just like something had to change 20 years ago so the rich teams didnt have an advantage.

In 2004, the league average was $44m for team salaries. Detroit and NY Rangers spent over $77m on their player salaries that year. Do you really think that the lack of state income tax accounts for $33m a year in advantages? If so, lol. If not, why compare the state income tax “issue” with the salary issue that led to the cap?

 

[Viqsi]

Trotz: 'No question' teams in tax-free states have advantage​

And?

Many times I keep getting told that folks want to play in Canada because hockey up there is almost a way of life and therefore they're treated like superstar celebrities or something. I think this constitutes an unfair advantage and therefore those of us not in Canada deserve extra cap space to offset it.

 

[Viqsi]

In 2004, the league average was $44m for team salaries. Detroit and NY Rangers spent over $77m on their player salaries that year. Do you really think that the lack of state income tax accounts for $33m a year in advantages? If so, lol. If not, why compare the state income tax “issue” with the salary issue that led to the cap?

Because of perceptions of who's affected versus who gains. "This is our chance to claw something back from those ungrateful other markets that don't deserve our hockey!"

 

[DistantThunderRep]

We know that, it was sarcasm about the cap but something needs to change so those teams dont have an advantage. Just like something had to change 20 years ago so the rich teams didnt have an advantage.

They didn't implement the cap because rich teams had an advantage though? Where the hell did that come from? The league locked out and implemented the cap because player wages accounted for 75% of all league revenue. They had to basically stop owners from being their own worst enemy because just like any free market, raising costs don't ever come down. The owners would never agree to get rid of a hard cap because a handful of crying fans are complaining about an advantage. The only thing the Owners give a shit about is profits. And as of right now, they are the highest they have ever been. You realize that PLAYERS accept the contracts, the only way the Players would decide the Tax-Free teams need to change is if the NHLPA feels that those teams are lowering the potential growth of contracts. Which isn't the case at all. Not in any measurably significant way.

I constantly have said and willing to put up my account and permanently delete it against anyone's account, that during the next CBA negotiations, Neither the Owners or Players will bother even change anything or have any meaningful discussions on the matter because that's how irrelevant it is to both parties.

Because of perceptions of who's affected versus who gains. "This is our chance to claw something back from those ungrateful other markets that don't deserve our hockey!"

I swear, if now people start saying that rich teams having an advantage by having the ability to spend more is the reason for the lockout....I am going to have to post more meme's of moving goal posts.

 

[Viqsi]

I swear, if now people start saying that rich teams having an advantage by having the ability to spend more is the reason for the lockout....I am going to have to post the more meme's of moving goal posts.

Well, of course it was the reason for the lockout. To illustrate: Those markets are, as we all know (or should know), The Only Ones That Matter. The effect of the cap on those markets was to take away their ability to spend more. Therefore, clearly the only reason the lockout happened is because all the undignified unwashed rabble who refuse to Know Their Place insisted on handcuffing actually deserving franchises so they could then steal what they have no business having. It's obvious logical sense.

 

[Warh1ppy]

And?

Hmm.

Being recognized in public and having people want to take photos with you

vs keeping an additional $3.4 million a year in taxes.

Which seems like the more promising option for an individual who has spent their life honing their skills at a specific craft?

 

[Viqsi]

Hmm.

Being recognized in public and having people want to take photos with you

vs keeping an additional $3.4 million a year in taxes.

Which seems like the more promising option for an individual who has spent their life honing their skills at a specific craft?

I dunno; ask John Tavares.

 

[Maple Leaf]

I dunno; ask John Tavares.

?

 

[Warh1ppy]

I am genuinely baffled here

Do people really think that players who can make or keep more of their salary based on the location of the team they could play for is not in fact an advantage for some?

A player making $1-$2 million in a location with generous tax laws will keep a significant amount more money than a player making $1-$2 million in a place with more stringent or significant tax laws.

To suggest that is not some sort of a determining factor for players is not just laughable but bordering on the idiotic. These are individuals that spend the bulk of their lives honing their skills at a sport their parents and them have invested years and small fortunes on.

If someone has the ability to take home more money with the same contract that has been offered by Team A over Team B; where they would in fact take home significantly less money; there is almost always going to be more interest towards team A

No amount of anecdotal statements, smarmy comments, smug positioning or childish antics and posting will change basic human behaviour.

 

[Viqsi]

I am genuinely baffled here

Do people really think that players who can make or keep more of their salary based on the location of the team they could play for is not in fact an advantage for some?

No. What people know is that while it is technically an advantage, it is not anywhere near the size folks are suggesting it is, nor is it significant enough to be a substantial one above and beyond all the usual other little usually-inconsequential details that different markets have. It's no more significant than the advantages some markets get for being close to home for some players.

 

[Warh1ppy]

I dunno; ask John Tavares.

Oh, Johnny T? The guy who took that amazing home discount right? The guy who literally only had 1 place he wanted to play in his career and made it essentially known without question or hesitation (outside of his statements to the NYI fans) that he would be going to Toronto?

Who signed for $11 million a year.

Glad you found the what, one of maybe 2 whole dozen stories like that available for reference in the league over the last 20 ish years.

But for kicks, Tavares makes $11 million a year. His take home AFTER federal, provincial taxes and CCP/EI comes to $5,144,348. Or in essence he is losing $5,855,652 in total dollars every year.

Obviously losing over half of one's entire yearly salary would absolutely make no difference to a young player. Player nearing retirement, or player looking for a longer term deal knowing they only have one chance to maximize their earning potential.

Obviously the idea of playing somewhere that would allow you to make home say 75% or more of your entire yearly earnings has little affect on a player or player agent's decision on where they will sign as a UFA

Obviously.

 

[Viqsi]

Oh, Johnny T? The guy who took that amazing home discount right? The guy who literally only had 1 place he wanted to play in his career and made it essentially known without question or hesitation (outside of his statements to the NYI fans) that he would be going to Toronto?

Who signed for $11 million a year.

Glad you found the what, one of maybe 2 whole dozen stories like that available for reference in the league over the last 20 ish years.

But for kicks, Tavares makes $11 million a year. His take home AFTER federal, provincial taxes and CCP/EI comes to $5,144,348. Or in essence he is losing $5,855,652 in total dollars every year.

If that's all he's taking home he has a poor agent and/or tax preparer.

 

[Warh1ppy]

No. What people know is that while it is technically an advantage, it is not anywhere near the size folks are suggesting it is, nor is it significant enough to be a substantial one above and beyond all the usual other little usually-inconsequential details that different markets have. It's no more significant than the advantages some markets get for being close to home for some players.

K. Not an advantage at all or a determining factor. Thanks for clarifying that. A player from say Kapuskasing would absolutely be more happy to be near Kapuskasing than say Miami. Who wouldn't want to be born and grow up in Vanderhoof and play near Vanderhoof over Dallas. Every single kid growing up in Estevan Saskatchewan would give it up to play for Calgary or Edmonton over Las Vegas.

Playing near home from those fine metropolitan areas is absolutely worth leaving 45% or more of one's yearly take home on the table.

Sorry mate, I know I am being a bit d-baggish here but I am genuinely stunned because that's not how human behaviour works. 1 out of every 100 people would maybe take a bit of a shave to be near home but by and large; but by and large sir; it's not happening and an additional 3-4 million ensures you can make your family home wherever you are at that point and comfortably. Or visit whenever you want


Again for reference.

Tavares makes $11 million a year. His take home AFTER federal, provincial taxes and CCP/EI comes to $5,144,348. Or in essence he is losing $5,855,652 in total dollars every year.

 

[DistantThunderRep]

I am genuinely baffled here

Do people really think that players who can make or keep more of their salary based on the location of the team they could play for is not in fact an advantage for some?

A player making $1-$2 million in a location with generous tax laws will keep a significant amount more money than a player making $1-$2 million in a place with more stringent or significant tax laws.

To suggest that is not some sort of a determining factor for players is not just laughable but bordering on the idiotic. These are individuals that spend the bulk of their lives honing their skills at a sport their parents and them have invested years and small fortunes on.

If someone has the ability to take home more money with the same contract that has been offered by Team A over Team B; where they would in fact take home significantly less money; there is almost always going to be more interest towards team A

No amount of anecdotal statements, smarmy comments, smug positioning or childish antics and posting will change basic human behaviour.

Have you read anything? I guess not....because why would any crybaby Canadian fans actually read instead of just spewing TSN garbage?

Well anyway, it's never not been said it's and advantage. It's constantly been stated that it's not as big as people think. But you know...hockey fans know international tax law better than agents and etc...so why the f*** would you need facts when your feelings are more important?

Stating the obvious which is factual isn't "playing the victim" I don't see it your way but I find no reason to spew vitriol implying how i am better than everyone and i am ashamed because i know better than everyone else but no one is listening to me

but then again.... some folks prefer reason and logic while others just sit on high horse no matter how many "facts" are presented to them

Facts? What about all the other facts saying otherwise? It's like...now I it's hard for you to follow being a constant victim...but maybe it's more complicated and nuanced than you or I or anyone else thinks...but NO it couldn't be that because Confirmation Bias is way better while being a professional victim.

 

[DistantThunderRep]

K. Not an advantage at all or a determining factor. Thanks for clarifying that. A player from say Kapuskasing would absolutely be more happy to be near Kapuskasing than say Miami. Who wouldn't want to be born and grow up in Vanderhoof and play near Vanderhoof over Dallas. Every single kid growing up in Estevan Saskatchewan would give it up to play for Calgary or Edmonton over Las Vegas.

Playing near home from those fine metropolitan areas is absolutely worth leaving 45% or more of one's yearly take home on the table.

Sorry mate, I know I am being a bit d-baggish here but I am genuinely stunned because that's not how human behaviour works. 1 out of every 100 people would maybe take a bit of a shave to be near home but by and large; but by and large sir; it's not happening and an additional 3-4 million ensures you can make your family home wherever you are at that point and comfortably. Or visit whenever you want


Again for reference.

Tavares makes $11 million a year. His take home AFTER federal, provincial taxes and CCP/EI comes to $5,144,348. Or in essence he is losing $5,855,652 in total dollars every year.

Good job using turbo tax. But it's more complicated than that. Why do you think the CRA is suing Tavares? Its because he is arguing his signing bonus should have been exempt from Canadian Taxes because he was still a resident of New York when he received it. The CRA is saying he was living in Toronto already when he received it.

It's the perfect example of how nuanced it all is and how players everywhere are avoiding taxation. But please continue on with your narrative.

 

[PromisedLand]

Facts? What about all the other facts saying otherwise? It's like...now I it's hard for you to follow being a constant victim...but maybe it's more complicated and nuanced than you or I or anyone else thinks...but NO it couldn't be that because Confirmation Bias is way better while being a professional victim.

Apparently you know more than Trotz because he is clearly stating that No Tax States have an advantage. I don't see any point in continuing this conversation. Adios!

 

[Lackhalak]

I'm not sure on the legality of this but, all the tax to be paid by players should be totalled and devided evenly by all the players. Kinda like revenue sharing

 

[Warh1ppy]

Good job using turbo tax. But it's more complicated than that. Why do you think the CRA is suing Tavares? Its because he is arguing his signing bonus should have been exempt from Canadian Taxes because he was still a resident of New York when he received it. The CRA is saying he was living in Toronto already when he received it.

It's the perfect example of how nuanced it all is and how players everywhere are avoiding taxation. But please continue on with your narrative.

That's not turbo tax but hey thanks for coming out.

That's the basic tax federally and provincially for the province of Ontario. It is I agree more complicated than that. But the bare numbers don't change. Players are losing 40% or more of their yearly income in some markets and keeping 90% or more in others.

This is not an argument that can be debated outside of opinion.

 

[tucker3434]

K. Not an advantage at all or a determining factor. Thanks for clarifying that. A player from say Kapuskasing would absolutely be more happy to be near Kapuskasing than say Miami. Who wouldn't want to be born and grow up in Vanderhoof and play near Vanderhoof over Dallas. Every single kid growing up in Estevan Saskatchewan would give it up to play for Calgary or Edmonton over Las Vegas.

Playing near home from those fine metropolitan areas is absolutely worth leaving 45% or more of one's yearly take home on the table.

Sorry mate, I know I am being a bit d-baggish here but I am genuinely stunned because that's not how human behaviour works. 1 out of every 100 people would maybe take a bit of a shave to be near home but by and large; but by and large sir; it's not happening and an additional 3-4 million ensures you can make your family home wherever you are at that point and comfortably. Or visit whenever you want


Again for reference.

Tavares makes $11 million a year. His take home AFTER federal, provincial taxes and CCP/EI comes to $5,144,348. Or in essence he is losing $5,855,652 in total dollars every year.

Definitely helps your argument when your numbers are wrong.

 

[DistantThunderRep]

That's not turbo tax but hey thanks for coming out.

That's the basic tax federally and provincially for the province of Ontario. It is I agree more complicated than that. But the bare numbers don't change. Players are losing 40% or more of their yearly income in some markets and keeping 90% or more in others.

This is not an argument that can be debated outside of opinion.

Multiple deciding factors.

1) are they a resident of the city the play in?
2) signing bonus Vs salary contract?
3) citizen of Canada or some other country?
4) using an RCA?
5) charitable donations?
6) jock tax
7) any tax deferrals?
8) capital gains/off setting tax burdens by capital losses?
9) married?
10) any dependants?

These are just off the top of my head. It's not one to one and that's the point. You, me, none of us here truly understand how or what each individual player does to lower or not lower their burdens. But one fact remains true, it's not up to the league or the owners to give a shit what they do. It's the players responsibility and no one else. Tax free teams sell that you can keep more money. Original 6 teams sell sponsorship deals and legacy. Every location has the benefits, except Winnipeg. They are f***ed all around.

 

[Warh1ppy]

Definitely helps your argument when your numbers are wrong.

Does it?

I dunno barring a few grand here and there it seems to track for income taxes paid in Ontario.

Ontario Tax Calculator 2024: Estimate Your Taxes - Forbes Advisor Canada

Use our income tax calculator to find out what your take home pay will be in Ontario for the tax year. Enter your details to estimate your salary after tax.

www.forbes.com

$11,000,000 income tax calculator 2024 - Ontario - salary after tax

If you make $11,000,000 in Ontario, what will your income after tax be? The Talent.com Online Salary and Tax Calculator can help you understand your net pay.

ca.talent.com

Wealthsimple: Make your money make more money.

Smart investing products and personalized advice to build long-term wealth. Low-fee managed investing, commission-free trading, and high-interest chequing and savings.

www.wealthsimple.com

2024 Personal tax calculator | EY Canada

Tax Calculators, 2024 Personal Tax Calculator

www.eytaxcalculators.com

 

[Viqsi]

Does it?

I dunno barring a few grand here and there it seems to track for income taxes paid in Ontario.

Ontario Tax Calculator 2024: Estimate Your Taxes - Forbes Advisor Canada

Use our income tax calculator to find out what your take home pay will be in Ontario for the tax year. Enter your details to estimate your salary after tax.

www.forbes.com

$11,000,000 income tax calculator 2024 - Ontario - salary after tax

If you make $11,000,000 in Ontario, what will your income after tax be? The Talent.com Online Salary and Tax Calculator can help you understand your net pay.

ca.talent.com

Wealthsimple: Make your money make more money.

Smart investing products and personalized advice to build long-term wealth. Low-fee managed investing, commission-free trading, and high-interest chequing and savings.

www.wealthsimple.com

2024 Personal tax calculator | EY Canada

Tax Calculators, 2024 Personal Tax Calculator

www.eytaxcalculators.com

Because when you make millions per year, obviously your only practical source of financial advice is free stuff on the Internet.