Fix the income tax debate

[Reality Czech]

It's easy to think this way because it's much harder for poorer people to move.

Well, people under a certain income level pay little to no taxes. Still don't see why sports rules should be changed because of political decisions.

 

[Drytoast]

You think it took 10 years for GMs to figure out that state taxes exist?

Or maybe 2 Florida teams that were bad for a long time added a bunch of high draft picks and then became successful. And at the same time we added an expansion franchise who capitalized on favorable rules for the expansion draft.

Yes I believe that it took roughly 10 years for the old contracts to die off and then for the word to get out that you could save 30% of your take home signing in a no state tax market.

And let's not forget that teams started using these stupid long term contract signings which started in the late 2010 to 2016 where they teams would use this loop hole of signing players for 12-15 years to keep the AAV down as a means to compete/be attractive get elite players for a low cap hit while still paying them a stupid amount of money. (I guess you forgot that bit of history)

So really. We haven't had a stabilized "now the state tax markets have a clear advantage" since roughly 2016

 

[joepeps]

And NC has income tax lol

lol 3.99% flat

New York 10.9%

 

[Dr Jan Itor]

Well, people under a certain income level pay little to no taxes. Still don't see why sports rules should be changed because of political decisions.

I don't think the rules should be changed either.

I'm just saying that if you don't "tax the rich", you either provide less benefits or you tax the less rich more. Both of which are not great options if you're not rich.

 

[Drytoast]

What a brutal excuse.. cmon man

Here, this is for you as well.

And let's not forget that teams started using these stupid long term contract signings which started in the late 2010 to 2016 where they teams would use this loop hole of signing players for 12-15 years to keep the AAV down as a means to compete/be attractive get elite players for a low cap hit while still paying them a stupid amount of money. (I guess you forgot that bit of history)

I think you just hate reality.

let's just drop the salary cap then if money isn't an issue.

 

[Dr Jan Itor]

lol 3.99% flat

New York 10.9%

So the New Yorker making $10M nets $600k more, before factoring in being able to deduct state against federal taxes. So let's say ~$400k tax benefit on $10M earnings. Doesn't scream "re-write the salary cap rules" to me.

 

[VivaLasVegas]

I never said that there was no tax advantage. My point is that it's incredibly difficult to calculate and that you just can't look at "Rate DIfferential" without understanding all of the implications. My point is that in MOST situations - the difference should be relatively small. A guy probably takes home something like 2-3% less signing with most US based teams (Avs, Hawks, Blues, Pens, Flyers, Canes, Jackets, Mammoth) compared to a no-tax state. I'm sure the 2-3% is factored in with a bunch of other factors (weather, culture, etc.), but IMO is completely secondary to how competitive the team is.

The current "popular" teams (TB, FLA, Vegas, DAL, MINN) are in demand because they're good teams because some combination of being terrible 10+ years ago and drafted a strong core, and/or supplemented by great work by the FO. Some cases it's more the front office doing great work, but in all those cases they are really good teams right now. In 2-3 years I'd expect FLA/Vegas to fall off that list and teams like MON/SJ/ANA and maybe CHI/CLM added as they improve. Those first 3 teams are in terrible tax locations, but I expect that they'll be popular because guys want a chance to win more than take home $'s.

That, and folks never take into account that:

(1) There are usually federal tax deductions for state taxes paid; and

(2) Taxes are determined by where games are played, meaning that everybody pays the same taxes for road games and thus any tax advantage/disadvantage is only against 50% of income for home games exclusively.

 

[WhiskeyYerTheDevils]

Yes I believe that it took roughly 10 years for the old contracts to die off and

You think it took 10 years for contracts to die off?

That's provably false.

then for the word to get out that you could save 30% of your take home signing in a no state tax market.

Why would word get out about something that's not even true? I take it you're not an accountant... Maybe do some research on the way players are taxed.

And let's not forget that teams started using these stupid long term contract signings which started in the late 2010 to 2016 where they teams would use this loop hole of signing players for 12-15 years to keep the AAV down as a means to compete/be attractive get elite players for a low cap hit while still paying them a stupid amount of money. (I guess you forgot that bit of history)

Oh yeah? Is that why those teams were so successful? Feels like that would have given an even larger benefit to no tax teams, the larger the amount, the larger the benefit right?

So really. We haven't had a stabilized "now the state tax markets have a clear advantage" since roughly 2016

You're not making any sense at all. The factors you mentioned would have helped no tax teams more.

 

[Drytoast]

^^^ This.

The underlying premise of this entire thread is that teams subject to higher taxation are so crippled that they can't possibly be successful. The Canes lifting the Cup stamps paid to this sorry theory.

In the last 15 years 9 of the cup finals had at least 1 no state tax team represented.

up until the Krakken joined 2 years ago...there were only 5 teams in the 32 team league that are no state tax markets.

Carolina winning the cup this year doesn't negate a clear over representation.

lol...

 

[Dr Jan Itor]

That, and folks never take into account that:

(1) There are usually federal tax deductions for state taxes paid; and

(2) Taxes are determined by where games are played, meaning that everybody pays the same taxes for road games and thus any tax advantage/disadvantage is only against 50% of income.

Yeah, these two things + reducing signing bonus are probably ~90% of the way there for evening out the tax situations. Don't need to change the rules anymore for the remaining 10%.

 

[Doublechin]

While it has constantly be raised, it is becoming more and more apparent as the cap increases, the teams in no or low income tax states will gain benefits for the higher tier players. A solution came to mind that I think would be fair, an NHLPA escrow of 20%( or whatever is agreed upon) and if they are in a state with income tax, that income tax % is deducted from the escrow %. Probably not the first time this idea has been floated, but I think with 100m+ contracts being thrown around, and players NTC/NMC teams always including multiple no income tax states, it should be at least considered.

Also take into account, while it may not directly correlate, that 5 of the last 7 stanley cup champions are from no income tax states. ( TB, TB, COL, LV, FL, FL, CAR)

I think there has to be something done, I 100% agree, wherever that's finding a system to help overly taxed markets and trying to make all markets have a cap that comes out to the same thing after taxes BUT then if a player is traded things can get complicated

An alternative would be that each team can get one, two or three players of their drafted players count at 50% of the cap per year

Teams like Vegas, Tampa, Florida, Dallas would have one of these

While teams in Canada/California New York getting 3 and teams in between getting 2

This is an example but I think something here can work

 

[Drytoast]

You think it took 10 years for contracts to die off?

That's provably false.

Why would word get out about something that's not even true? I take it you're not an accountant... Maybe do some research on the way players are taxed.

Oh yeah? Is that why those teams were so successful? Feels like that would have given an even larger benefit to no tax teams, the larger the amount, the larger the benefit right?


You're not making any sense at all. The factors you mentioned would have helped no tax teams more.

Because before 2013 no state tax advantage was negated by the long term contracts elite players signed in markets that had high tax. Thus negating the advantage. Then the NHL stepped in and squashed that in 2013. So really the no state tax advantage hasn't been exposed or glaring until then.

I've explained it to you with logic and reason and all you are giving me is a childish "nuh unh"

lol.

 

[Dr Jan Itor]

In the last 15 years 9 of the cup finals had at least 1 no state tax team represented.

up until the Krakken joined 2 years ago...there were only 5 teams in the 32 team league that are no state tax markets.

Carolina winning the cup this year doesn't negate a clear over representation.

lol...

All of those no state tax teams in the Cup finals made bold moves to get there that had no bearing on the tax situations.

 

[VivaLasVegas]

In the last 15 years 9 of the cup finals had at least 1 no state tax team represented.

up until the Krakken joined 2 years ago...there were only 5 teams in the 32 team league that are no state tax markets.

Carolina winning the cup this year doesn't negate a clear over representation.

lol...

The over representration is for teams have quality management, as it should be.

Are we next going to have a monetary adjustment for teams that are perennially mismanaged?

 

[Salsero1]

In the last 15 years 9 of the cup finals had at least 1 no state tax team represented.

up until the Krakken joined 2 years ago...there were only 5 teams in the 32 team league that are no state tax markets.

Carolina winning the cup this year doesn't negate a clear over representation.

lol...

Were you asleep when Edmonton beat two no state tax teams in the playoffs last year? I think WWE is more your thing than actual sports.

 

[WhiskeyYerTheDevils]

Because before 2016 no state tax advantage was negated by the long term contracts elite players signed in markets that had high tax. Thus negating the advantage. Then the NHL stepped in and squashed that in 2016. So really the no state tax advantage hasn't been exposed or glaring until then.

Why wouldn't no tax teams just offer the same long term deals? Were high tax teams the only teams allowed to offer these long term contracts?

I've explained it to you with logic and reason and all you are giving me is a childish "nuh unh"

lol.

Except your "logic and reason" don't make any sense.

 

[Drytoast]

All of those no state tax teams in the Cup finals made bold moves to get there that had no bearing on the tax situations.

lol.

bold moves!

it sure helps when all the no state tax markets are on every UFA's trade list.

Show me a no state tax GM being successful in a high taxed market.

 

[Dr Jan Itor]

Because before 2013 no state tax advantage was negated by the long term contracts elite players signed in markets that had high tax. Thus negating the advantage. Then the NHL stepped in and squashed that in 2013. So really the no state tax advantage hasn't been exposed or glaring until then.

I've explained it to you with logic and reason and all you are giving me is a childish "nuh unh"

lol.

How were long-term contracts in high tax states more advantageous to the player financially?

 

[DistantThunderRep]

lol.

bold moves!

it sure helps when all the no state tax markets are on every UFA's trade list.

Show me a no state tax GM being successful in a high taxed market.

Yes...no taxes is the only reason they are on the trade lists. It couldn't be the myriad of other reasons. Why is Minnesota on trade lists?

 

[Dr Jan Itor]

lol.

bold moves!

it sure helps when all the no state tax markets are on every UFA's trade list.

Show me a no state tax GM being successful in a high taxed market.

Eichel and M. Tkachuk did not have trade protections when they were traded.

 

[Skinnyjimmy08]

Here, this is for you as well.


I think you just hate reality.

let's just drop the salary cap then if money isn't an issue.

Lol awful man.. I just noticed you are a Leaf fan so now this is all understandable why you keep coming up with non stop excuses. These teams all are rival teams that beat the Leafs and it’s been extremely frustrating times.

Now this all makes sense with these absurd replies you keep doing

 

[Dr Jan Itor]

lol.

bold moves!

it sure helps when all the no state tax markets are on every UFA's trade list.

Show me a no state tax GM being successful in a high taxed market.

Provide the list of names that have moved from no tax to high tax since 2016.

 

[Fourier]

Brother, like i said, thats millions of dollars. you are looking at it as "it's only 300k different take home pay"

Now multiply that by years of the contract

$300K x 6 for example does not mean MILLIONS. So this hypothetical player comes out with at most $1.8M more while the team gets $6M in cap space. That was my point. The team typically benefits more financially than the player in the discount scenario.

And those calculations were a high side estimate based on $10M contract vs a $9M deal. Take a look at Marchand's deal in Florida. He signed for $5.25M. Had he signed with the Oilers at say $5.6M he probably makes more money in Edmonton. On the open market he also could have gotten more than that $5.8M in nominal salary which is roughly the break even point in the calculator calculation. Most or all of his discount went to the team.

 

[Louie the Blue]

There isn't a debate.

Why aren't FAs dying to go to Nashville and Seattle currently?

Winning fixes most things.

 

[Louie the Blue]

Provide the list of names that have moved from no tax to high tax since 2016.

Yzerman.