Fix the income tax debate

[Steelhawks80]

Federal Income Tax is 37% for NHL level salaries:
Only savings to any player is on the money earned in the state where they play their home games.
Could be 0 at the lowest - and the 13.3% at the highest
Every dollar earned on the road - for every away game - is taxed at the rate that state applies and where the game is played.

Like mentioned earlier, the only savings on the income tax for the 0% or very low states is on the money earned at home.

I don't know enough about each state to know if there are other methods in those higher rate states where there is opportunity to lower the taxable income and/or rate, say like an RSP or something like that, but if there is, then the gap narrows.

The situation is over blown.

The reality is people want to play where there is good weather, good night/social life, good areas for families, and somewhere they can be left alone and just play.

that's what's going on here.

 

[Gil Gunderson]

A lot of big markets in northern high-tax states/provinces are able to attract free agents and front-load contracts that other markets can’t. Can this be adjusted as well?

 

[PhysicalGraffiti]

No need to fix it.

This has become a very new and annoying complaint and started when the Bolts, Panthers, and Knights won. Ignoring that the Oilers were TWICE runners up, Montreal has been in a cup final recently, and both the Blackhawks and Penguins have had cup wins/runs in recent memory.

The Panthers and Bolts have done a great job creating a winning roster and to try and use this ignorant tax excuse takes away from it.

The Predators and Kraken haven't become a dynasty, the Stars have been good, but not good enough. It's really all justification people have for hating Florida as a state (LOL) and that teams in non traditional markets are winning the cup.

Way too many people with the delusion that somehow the cup "deserves" to be won by a team up north.

And for all of you who personally are upset at what you're paying for income taxes, there are plenty of states with all sorts of varying climates/activities/sports/outdoor activities etc.. You like not having a winter, water all around, and lots of sun? Florida is here. You like having it hot and sunny, but a drier type heat with some beaches? Texas is there. You like hiking and woods and rainy weather, Washington is an option. You like mountains and mild weather, Tennessee has a place for you. Want that dry heat with not much rain and maybe you like to gamble, Nevada is waiting for you.

Those are only the states that have NHL teams. Alaska, South Dakota (WTF North Dakota), New Hampshire, and Wyoming also have this benefit.

 

[triggrman]

Below is a chart of the cost of living comparison for all NHL cities. The income tax advantage disappears once you include housing, and goods too. Seattle has 0 state income yet, it's has the 5th highest cost of living. Montreal seems like it has the highest advantage financially when you consider endorsements too.

Rank	City	Housing	Taxes	Goods	Total
1	NY Rangers	210%	135%	140%	165%
2	NY Islanders	200%	135%	138%	160%
3	San Jose	190%	130%	140%	158%
4	Boston	185%	130%	138%	155%
5	Seattle	180%	125%	135%	150%
6	LA Kings	175%	130%	135%	148%
7	Anaheim	170%	130%	133%	145%
8	Vancouver	175%	145%	125%	142%
9	Toronto	170%	145%	123%	140%
10	New Jersey	165%	135%	128%	138%
11	Washington DC	160%	130%	130%	135%
12	Vegas	155%	115%	130%	133%
13	Colorado (Denver)	145%	120%	125%	125%
14	Calgary	140%	135%	115%	122%
15	Edmonton	135%	135%	112%	120%
16	Minnesota	130%	125%	115%	118%
17	Chicago	125%	125%	115%	116%
18	Florida (Panthers)	130%	110%	120%	115%
19	Tampa Bay	125%	110%	118%	114%
20	Philadelphia	120%	125%	110%	108%
21	Dallas	115%	110%	110%	105%
22	Nashville	110%	110%	108%	103%
23	Carolina (Raleigh)	105%	105%	105%	100%
24	Ottawa	105%	140%	95%	97%
25	Pittsburgh	100%	115%	100%	95%
26	Detroit	95%	115%	98%	93%
27	Columbus	90%	110%	95%	90%
28	St. Louis	85%	110%	95%	88%
29	Buffalo	85%	120%	95%	87%
30	Winnipeg	90%	140%	85%	85%
31	Montreal	85%	145%	85%	83%
32	Utah (Salt Lake City)	80%	105%	90%	80%

 

[Beukeboom Fan]

I did this exercise a couple years ago determined it's a low vs high discussion, not just the zero income tax teams.

To make it simple and clear, high income tax teams had only won the cup twice since 2012 which I believe is LAK and WSH.

Conclusion - There's a problem.

Causation vs. correlation. Is taxation an issue because the Rangers got beat in the Stanley Cup final by the Kings? 3 of the last 14 Cups being from high taxes is probably fair if you consider the high tax US locations as NYR, NYI, NJD, MINN, LA, ANA, SJ is about 30%, and about half those teams have been to a Cup final or multiple trips to the conference finals during that time frame. Same thing for CND if you consider that over that timeframe you've had multiple teams in the Cup Finals (EDMx2, VAN, MON).

IMO, people are looking for a crutch or an excuse, and taxes is it. Teams that win the Cup do so primarily because of a strong management team and good luck from a health perspective. I can show that for US teams - the difference is relatively minor (a fraction of what people quote), and for the high tax locales for the most part they have other benefits regarding night life and culture. (I don't know enough on CDN taxes to understand all the nuances and ensure a complete picture).

I

 

[SI90]

 

[Beukeboom Fan]

"Estimated". Would love to see their calculation on that, because it's absolutely insane. Assuming NO state taxes ($3.0 estimates tax based on 37% US rate) because FLA is a no-tax state is provably false. Complete BS.

 

[kingsholygrail]

There is no issue with income tax. Half their games are still taxed in the states they play in anyway. But if taxes are such a problem, contact your representatives.

 

[WhiskeyYerTheDevils]

Whoever posted this doesn't understand how income tax is applied. Nor do they understand the various tax shelter strategies the agents and advisors of these players use.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

"Estimated". Would love to see their calculation on that, because it's absolutely insane. Assuming NO state taxes ($3.0 estimates tax based on 37% US rate) because FLA is a no-tax state is provably false. Complete BS.

Whoever posted this doesn't understand how income tax is applied. Nor do they understand the various tax shelter strategies the agents and advisors of these players use.

Agreed. Those are not reasonable estimates. The post appears to be comparing a situation where 100% of the income is sourced to Ontario vs 100% being sourced to Florida. That's not how it works for a professional athlete playing in 15+ jurisdictions each year. (To be clear, Tkachuk's tax burden has decreased as a result of the trade, but posts like that are deceptive because they exaggerate the impact).

 

[CDN24]

It would require some tax law changes in 2 countries but won't happen but a model based on how partnership income is taxed in Canada would solve the problem. In Canada partnership income is taxed in the provincial jurisdiction where the revenue is earned. If I am a partner in a law firm with offices in 4 cities Mtl/Calgary/Toronto/vancouver and am based in Mtl office with qc based clients only i still pay tax in all 4 provinces based on where the revenue gross is earned. so if 50% of revenue is in Van office 25% mtl 10% tor and 15% Calgary I pay taxes on 50% of my income in Bc and only 15 in qc.

How it could work NHL. Create a NHL master player salary partnership. teams do not pay players they pay the players partnership who then pays the players. Lets say total salaries are $3Billion about 93.75M each team. some will spend more than others.

Lets say mtl spends 100M and dallas spends 110M and so on. Mtl pays its 100M to the partner ship dallas its 110m and so on. Every player will be taxed as a partner of the partnership in proportion to what each jurisdiction paid to partnership. Quebec is 100M /3B or 3.33% so 3.33% of every NHL players salary is taxed in Qc., similarly 110M/3B or 3.67% taxed in texas. texas is a no tax state so only the fed 37% applies and so on. Trades won't matter as it won't be dependent on the team paying you. Player X traded from Rangers to Dallas there is no impact on his tax- he will still be taxed on 3.33% in mtl 3.37% in Texas and so on.

Every player would be taxed in the same way.

Gary send my commission 1% of that partnerships revenue to Cdn24@ money .$$$

 

[Gizmokov]

Whoever posted this doesn't understand how income tax is applied. Nor do they understand the various tax shelter strategies the agents and advisors of these players use.

Brother, they don't give a shit. They want engagement

 

[Team_Spirit]

The reason it was not an advantage in the past was because the cap was like 65M and the 5/10% difference was maybe 1 good player.

Nashville not winning means nothing they cleaned up all the good free agents in 2024 the GM is clueless.

 

[MikeyMike01]

Another idea, brought up but @danisonfire , is to have their cap hit directly tied to their take home pay.

This is literally an impossible idea

 

[GIN ANTONIC]

Debate falls apart when you look at Nashville and it's entire existence with subpar success.
Seattle stuck in mediocrity.

Dallas doesn't get any cheap contracts with it's no tax either.

Harley is going to be the 4th highest paid blue liner this season, and he's not even top 30 in terms of talent or impact.

Florida and Vegas are on teams lists because they are successful and the quality of life. The "tax advatage" is overplayed.

What's next we give Winnipeg a bump too because nobody wants to waste away in a frozen tundra all winter?

Stars have had Matt Duchene making nothing for the last 3 years while he’s averaged like 30 goals and 70+ points over that time

 

[M88K]

Stars have had Matt Duchene making nothing for the last 3 years while he’s averaged like 30 goals and 70+ points over that time

Yeah because he's getting paid on the Nashville buyout still.
And he's not averaged 30g and 70 points, come on.
Does it 1 time. Suddenly averaging it

 

[GordieHoweHatTrick]

5 of the last 7 cup winners were from no tax states precisely due to the relatively flat cap. With the cap going up, their tax advantage will evaporate and they will become retirement destinations again.

 

[Fig]

I want someone to fix the income tax debate like I want price fixing.
I don't.