Friedman: CRA going after former athletes for Canadian teams could impact their ability to draw free agents

[DuklaNation]

Does the NHL need to adjust the cap for weather and pressured environment as well? It's a stupid argument and just comes off as whining. Its not the NHL's job to make your market desirable.

Good, get rid of the hard cap.

 

[Icarium]

They need to rework the cap system because there is an imbalance, just like the reason it exists in the first place.

No, the reason it exists in the first place is cost certainty for the owners. It is doing exactly what it was designed to do, relative parity is merely a side effect. After tax cap isn't going to happen, notice how no actual GM or owner is loudly demanding it, just random fans on the internet.

 

[DuklaNation]

No, the reason it exists in the first place is cost certainty for the owners. It is doing exactly what it was designed to do, relative parity is merely a side effect. After tax cap isn't going to happen, notice how no actual GM or owner is loudly demanding it, just random fans on the internet.

If I'm the Leafs, cost certainty is a non factor. Random fans? LOL Cost certainty is a factor for low revenue teams taking advantage of the situation. Facts.

 

[Knave]

I don't really care and haven't read into this but if as another poster suggested - the CRA retroactively changed the rules of the game they will lose in court.

And it's a giant waste of time and money. If the CRA did in fact do this I want everyone responsible for it fired. Change the rules. Apply them going forward so you don't lose in court. It's super simple.

The CRA has lost like this before so I don't understand why they would go down this road again.

 

[Lady Stanley]

And when they first expanded, they put all the expansion teams in one conference and then the winner got creamed when they met an O6 team in the SCF. If Canadian teams are really so uncompetitive, the same thing will happen with a Canadian division.

That's not how the math works out.

This may be why people have trouble understanding it.

It's a subtle numerical effect.

It's not that a Canadian team can't literally ever win a cup. It's that the odds are statistically much less.

You have to beat the odds twice, first to get to the 3rd round, and then you have to beat much steeper odds to win the final.

And it's not just beating the odds twice.

It's that teams have to be constructed to be overcharged in the round 1, teams like the leafs and oilers have to put all of their eggs in one basket, because they don't have enough eggs to go around. Canadian teams crash and burn in the playoffs because they can't afford the depth to go far. It creates the mirage of parity but eventually some AI will spill the beans.

Ironically the Habs were the opposite of this. They had a depth of mid level players that took over in the later rounds. They had the luck of exactly what you'd expect happening.

The leafs lost tavarres and they won. The Jets lost both Demelo(remember they had paper thing D) and Scheifele in game 1.

They got lucky with vegas and hit a brick wall with Tampa.

The reason this is so detrimental to the league, is eventually fans will figure it out, and they'll walk away from the league.

I'd argue we're about to see this in Toronto.

Toronto can win in Baseball/Basketball/Football/Soccer. They've gotten titles in all 4. There's little reason for casual people to support hockey. It's losing cultural momentum and we'll see with the next rogers-bell contract if the networks agree with the analysis.

the Matthews years were the glory years and their highlight was getting to the 2nd round once, and they could follow that up by going on a rebuild.

Canadian teams take forever to rebuild, and their contender ship status is incredibly narrow.

They can't accumulate the depth needed to make it in later rounds.

If I'm the Leafs, cost certainty is a non factor. Random fans? LOL Cost certainty is a factor for low revenue teams taking advantage of the situation. Facts.

It's not just cost certainty it's expense certainty.

The Jets are one of the lowest revenue teams in the league. But they also have one of the richest owners. They can afford the once in a decade surge loading up on free agents.

But they have performance ceiling.

 

[rsteen]

The only people that care about 'A Canadian team winning the Cup' are nerds on the internet. Why would Leafs fans be happy if the Habs won a Cup, Flames fans if the Oilers won a Cup, or anyone apart from Leafs fans be happy if the Leafs won a Cup?

 

[Icarium]

If I'm the Leafs, cost certainty is a non factor. Random fans? LOL Cost certainty is a factor for low revenue teams taking advantage of the situation. Facts.

You are assuming the Leafs owners care more about winning than making as much profit as possible. The cap is a godsend for big team owners who don't care too much about winning. It's a ready made excuse for lack of success and cuts costs at the same time. Parity is merely a happy side effect that helps them sell the cap to fans of smaller teams.

And in any event, I was talking about owners in generals. They aren't a hive mind, so of course some care about cost certainty more than others but the cap is doing its job and that's why no owner is making noises to radically change or remove it.

 

[Lady Stanley]

The only people that care about 'A Canadian team winning the Cup' are nerds on the internet. Why would Leafs fans be happy if the Habs won a Cup, Flames fans if the Oilers won a Cup, or anyone apart from Leafs fans be happy if the Leafs won a Cup?

It'd be evidence that there is a way to win.

It's as simple as that.

The evidence is conclusive. Canadian teams can't win.

They can't even build rosters with depth.

I mean this really is fringing on a product of general intelligence.

If all the evidence suggests you can't win, the whole point of following the sport is pointless.

 

[baabaa]

Oh no, athletes are also required to pay taxes. What a shocker.

 

[PensandCaps]

Boohoo. Rich people crying about taxes is hilarious. let's trade places any day.

 

[Lady Stanley]

You are assuming the Leafs owners care more about winning than making as much profit as possible.

Rogers and Bell own the team, they make small fortunes when Canadian teams go on runs. They make massive fortunes when the Leafs go on runs.

This is the difference between Canadian and American markets.

They aren't typically paired up with NBA teams, big corporate money etc. There's a much more direct connection with winning and profit.

And in the case of the leafs they are owned by a group and not an individual, no one gets a raise just because the team didn't lose money this year. They reward people for making more money. Staying the same is assumed.

The cap is a godsend for big team owners who don't care too much about winning. It's a ready made excuse for lack of success and cuts costs at the same time. Parity is merely a happy side effect that helps them sell the cap to fans of smaller teams.

And in any event, I was talking about owners in generals. They aren't a hive mind, so of course some care about cost certainty more than others but the cap is doing its job and that's why no owner is making noises to radically change or remove it.

 

[rsteen]

If I'm the Leafs, cost certainty is a non factor. Random fans? LOL Cost certainty is a factor for low revenue teams taking advantage of the situation. Facts.

TIL Jeremy Jacobs is the owner of a low revenue team. Probably wouldn't be a cap without Jacobs.

It'd be evidence that there is a way to win.

It's as simple as that.

The evidence is conclusive. Canadian teams can't win.

They can't even build rosters with depth.

I mean this really is fringing on a product of general intelligence.

If all the evidence suggests you can't win, the whole point of following the sport is pointless.

Again, if their depth is so bad, they'll flame out in the third round instead of the first. A Canadian division doesn't fix it, unless you like hanging Division Championship banners.

 

[Icarium]

And in the case of the leafs they are owned by a group and not an individual, no one gets a raise just because the team didn't lose money this year. They reward people for making more money.

Yeah, and the cap is helping them make lots and lots of money. Hence their silence on the matter of how much the cap sucks for Canadian teams or rich teams.

 

[Hockeysawks]

Well, I am in the top 10 percent so I mean people above me like the top 3% who are making millions a year. Mostly corporations making billions should be asked to pay their share

Corporations are publicly owned, the people that work for them pay taxes and profits by shareholders are taxed they don’t really need to be taxed again

 

[The Hanging Jowl]

Corporations are publicly owned, the people that work for them pay taxes and profits by shareholders are taxed they don’t really need to be taxed again

Not all are publicly owned (in fact, comparatively few are). But you're right either way. I've always been of the opinion that there should be no corporate tax at all. If any corporate profit is to be enjoyed by someone, it's taxed as personal income or as a dividend and the dividend tax rate takes into account how much corporate tax was already paid. So what's the point? The government is getting their tax no matter what - either on the frontend or on the backend. If a corporation makes a profit, they will use that money to grow and hire or dividend it out to people that pay tax.

 

[Lady Stanley]

Yeah, and the cap is helping them make lots and lots of money. Hence their silence on the matter of how much the cap sucks for Canadian teams or rich teams.

Except it's not it doesn't help them in the least.

Their silence is based on time. The consequences of the Cap didn't really com into the picture until 2014ish. It wasn't obvious how it'd affect the game. It was only a few years ago, that the Leafs went on the rebuild.

It'll be a top topic of discussion when the Leafs finally fizzle out. To anyone thinking I'm over zealous you ain't seen nothing yet.

And again as I said before it's not like MLSE can't succeed elsewhere.

They won an NBA championship, won a CFL Greycup in November, and a MLS title.

 

[Zerotonine]

Is it ludicrous?

The man owns several homes and a yacht.

And so do most politician's, difference is Bautista paid for his with a lengthy professional baseball career while a politician paid for there's on a government salary. How does that make sense......

 

[Skolman]

I don't see a problem with that to be honest. Tax the rich!

What do you mean by this?

They pay taxes, how much exactly do you expect them to pay?

I've never understood why average/below average income people believe successful people owe them something

 

[Non Player Canadiens]

Well… see it as a trade off. We get services for the said paid taxes. Namely; health and dental for one, plenty others as well. It’s not like it’s a take everything and nothing goes back as services.

There are different view points on that matter, but it’s not « just taking part of a pay check just for shits and giggles ».

some people wanna live in a society with all the benefits of taxes but also don't wanna pay taxes

 

[Lady Stanley]

What do you mean by this?

They pay taxes, how much exactly do you expect them to pay?

How about proportionate amount to everyone else?

I'm a massive proponent of a flat tax for every dollar made after 40k or whatever.

Get rid of loop holes etc.

I've never understood why average/below average income people believe successful people owe them something

We don't, you're free to leave any time you wish. You're not a slave.

Purchase a piece of land on the free market, do what you want with it.

That's how democracy works, the voting majority own the land/country.

The Greco-Romans called it tyranny of the mob for a reason. Western society suppressed democracy for 2,000 years for a reason.

Just because you hold an idealized version of what democracy is, doesn't make it real.

 

[Lady Stanley]

Not all are publicly owned (in fact, comparatively few are). But you're right either way. I've always been of the opinion that there should be no corporate tax at all. If any corporate profit is to be enjoyed by someone, it's taxed as personal income or as a dividend and the dividend tax rate takes into account how much corporate tax was already paid. So what's the point? The government is getting their tax no matter what - either on the frontend or on the backend. If a corporation makes a profit, they will use that money to grow and hire or dividend it out to people that pay tax.

You realize this is how you end up with castles being head offices of major corporations?

Billionaires already do this with charitable contributions.

They literally buy a yacht and claim they donated its use as a charitable operation.

Every other NHL player is doing something similar BTW.

The irony is how many people are duped by hyper generous NHLers, they "raise 2 million" for a cause, and then they get their mother to be in charge of the charity paying herself 200k a year.

FYI it's also when athletes go bankrupt they still get to ride around in their parents Benz.

Like this is why the NHL will never ever ever talk about this openly.

 

[Non Player Canadiens]

10% for low income, 15% for middle, and 20% for everyone over x amount...no more loop holes

doesn't matter where you set the number, the rich will always find their loopholes. they wanna live in a world where they earn their billions and don't owe shit to anyone else.

it's the Just World fallacy: the rich deserve to be rich and the poor deserve to be poor. like all conservative views, it's appealing because it's extremely simple

 

[Fish on The Sand]

Of course it's only on money spent here. Doesn't change my point. And no, I stated the after tax correctly. It's tax on money you were already taxed on so the true percentage is higher on your original earnings than the 13%.

Edit: just to clarify the HST issue: if you make a hundred bucks and I take 13 bucks, that's 13% of your money. If I take that same 13 dollars against your after-tax income of $46.50, I just took 28% of your money. I actually stated it low (because I originally calculated that 19% a few years ago against Canada's average tax rate., not someone paying almost all of there tax at the highest marginal rate).

Once again, HST is not applied against earnings. Bautista was charged 0% HST on his earnings.

He only pays HST on shit that he buys, when he buys it.

 

[Lady Stanley]

doesn't matter where you set the number, the rich will always find their loopholes. they wanna live in a world where they earn their billions and don't owe shit to anyone else.

it's the Just World fallacy: the rich deserve to be rich and the poor deserve to be poor. like all conservative views, it's appealing because it's extremely simple

More like it's critically important if civilization is to function survive and thrive, we reward people/institutions that succeed.

Any time you start using words like fair/greed/deserves/earned/should your'e going on a tangent.

Any country that fails to adopt that model will become hell on earth over time. Rewarding people for being stagnant is bad for a society.

I think the key is not mixing things up.

On this topic we want people to make money, so they can invest money and create jobs.

No athlete is doing this. Which is why a jock tax is such a no brainer.

I suspect we'll see a total overhaul of tax codes when AI software gets sufficiently good enough to really figure out who should get tax breaks, based on how they actually spend and produce money.

 

[The Hanging Jowl]

Once again, HST is not applied against earnings. Bautista was charged 0% HST on his earnings.

He only pays HST on shit that he buys, when he buys it.

I never once said HST is applied against earnings. I said HST is higher than face value when you consider it's charged against after-tax dollars. It's a tax on earnings that were already taxed and therefore the real sales tax is higher than 13% (especially for someone with Bautista's income).