NHL monitoring teams’ income-tax advantages, but ‘there are no easy fixes’

[benfranklin]

This is an easy fix. Poll the players, force them to take a polygraph while answering honesty, and ask the following questions:

Does an extra 1-16% persuade you to play in city A vs city B?
Is weather a factor in your decision?
Is your hometown a factor in your decision?
Does the economics of a city factor into your decision?
Does the politics of a city factor into your decision?
Does the media or lack there of factor into your decision?


Income tax is one of many factors and its hard to argue that Nashville, Vegas, TX, and Florida dont have an advantage here, but all of those teams also have a huge weather advantage as well.

Then you throw in Cali which has the weather but not the tax breaks.

Then throw in buffalo and NYC. Players die to play for the Rangers (the worst taxed team in the league at the higher levels), but not Buffalo. That is the city difference there and not so much weather nor tax reasons.

Then toss in Canada which has neitehr tax nor weather advantages, but some awesome cities, but then the negativity of the media.

There are too many factors involved and its silly to strictly blame income tax.

 

[eojsmada]

It's actually not that hard to figure out. It's just not permissible without PA approval. Just find the median average tax rate and assess an increase or decrease to their yearly cap ceiling/floor based on said average. Will it be wonky looking? Sure. Will it bring greater parity and get rid of the tax free status that those teams enjoy? Yep.

 

[WhiskeyYerTheDevils]

I'm guessing you mean consumption tax?

Unless youre solution to getting rid of income tax is another form of income tax?

You're not familiar with consumed income tax? I thought you were a CPA?

https://taxfoundation.org/research/all/federal/us-consumption-tax-vs-income-tax/

 

[Lazlo Hollyfeld]

You're not familiar with consumed income tax? I thought you were a CPA?

https://taxfoundation.org/research/all/federal/us-consumption-tax-vs-income-tax/

I'm not the one who said I was a CPA.

I assumed you were talking about a consumption tax because if you're talking about a consumed income tax, it's still an income tax. And I thought your whole thing was providing an alternative to an income tax.

From the article you linked to:

Finally, under a consumed income tax, the entire tax would be collected at the household level on income less saving. Income would include wages and compensation, investment income that is spent, and net borrowing, while saving would include increases in bank deposit accounts and purchases of business assets, financial assets, and owner-occupied housing

 

[Voight]

This feels like you intend it to be a dunk, but it's important to realize (and is pointed out in every thread on the topic) that income taxes are not the only advantage/disadvantage that certain markets have, and possibly not even the most meaningful one.

Yea it's not like a star player for the Maple Leafs has more marketing/sponsorship advantages than a star player for Utah. Totally the same situation!

 

[Fatass]

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5760827/2024/09/12/nhl-panthers-lightning-income-tax-advantages/

Oh look, teams and players clearly see and feel the tax advantages. I remember people being adamant for yearssssss that it doesnt matter and players don't care about it. "Just get a good accountant and you'll make the same!!!!!" they would preach. Are those people still going to try and deny this advantage ?

Players do care about money, but as the deputy commissioner points out in the article, it’s down the list of why guys choose their clubs as UFAs.

 

[BWJM]

Has anyone mentioned Mark Stone is hurt again this January?

 

[WhiskeyYerTheDevils]

I'm not the one who said I was a CPA.

I assumed you were talking about a consumption tax because if you're talking about a consumed income tax, it's still an income tax. And I thought your whole thing was providing an alternative to an income tax.

From the article you linked to:

It only taxes income that you don't save or invest, i.e. a consumption tax that doesn't have to be paid every time you consume.

 

[Lazlo Hollyfeld]

It only taxes income that you don't save or invest, i.e. a consumption tax that doesn't have to be paid every time you consume.

That's not accurate. And also, it's still an income tax.

So your answer to getting rid of income tax is a different kind of income tax.

 

[Shane Diesel]

You're not familiar with consumed income tax? I thought you were a CPA?

https://taxfoundation.org/research/all/federal/us-consumption-tax-vs-income-tax/

I'm the CPA. All you're doing with a consumed income tax is flipping one for the other.

Are you familiar with how non-income tax states work? They in return have huge property and sales taxes to make up for the lack of an income tax. The states pay for services one way or another. There is no free ride and they will take your money one way or another.

Congratulations, you've successfully traded one type of taxation for another.

I'll post this again because you obviously didn't read it the first time:

How do 9 states get by with no income tax? A tax expert explains the trade-offs they choose

Texas, Florida and 7 other states have no income tax, but they make up for it with other taxes. Sometimes those taxes mean low-income residents pay a larger percentage of their money in taxes.

theconversation.com

"When a state doesn’t impose income taxes, it often imposes other taxes to pay for education, roads, health care and other public services.

In some cases, states will impose higher sales taxes or higher property taxes, such as taxes on a person’s home value. Or they may rely on cities and counties to impose those taxes to pay for services. For example, Tennessee has no state income tax, but it has one of the highest combined state and local sales tax rates – 9.548% – of any state."

So instead you'll be bitching about how unfair the consumed income tax is instead of the income tax one day.

As an aside, consumption taxes tend to favor the wealthy and hurt the poor, so unless you've got a bunch of wealth you are arguing for a tax policy that will likely hurt you more than help. I certainly can guess your politics from how happy you are to hurt yourself.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

My opponent says that there are no easy answers. Well, I say that he isn't looking hard enough!

 

[WhiskeyYerTheDevils]

I'm the CPA. All you're doing with a consumed income tax is flipping one for the other.

Are you familiar with how non-income tax states work? They in return have huge property and sales taxes to make up for the lack of an income tax. The states pay for services one way or another. There is no free ride and they will take your money one way or another.

Congratulations, you've successfully traded one type of taxation for another.

I'll post this again because you obviously didn't read it the first time:

How do 9 states get by with no income tax? A tax expert explains the trade-offs they choose

Texas, Florida and 7 other states have no income tax, but they make up for it with other taxes. Sometimes those taxes mean low-income residents pay a larger percentage of their money in taxes.

theconversation.com

"When a state doesn’t impose income taxes, it often imposes other taxes to pay for education, roads, health care and other public services.

In some cases, states will impose higher sales taxes or higher property taxes, such as taxes on a person’s home value. Or they may rely on cities and counties to impose those taxes to pay for services. For example, Tennessee has no state income tax, but it has one of the highest combined state and local sales tax rates – 9.548% – of any state."

So instead you'll be bitching about how unfair the consumed income tax is instead of the income tax one day.

I know, my entire objective was to replace income taxes. They have been proven to stifle growth and are incredibly burdensome from an administrative perspective.

 

[Shane Diesel]

I know, my entire objective was to replace income taxes. They have been proven to stifle growth and are incredibly burdensome from an administrative perspective.

Sales Taxes and Their Impact on Low-Income Households – RP World

econ.sites.northeastern.edu

So you can punish the poor and support the wealthy. Brilliant stuff, if you're rich.

You're a regressive.

Also, if taxes kill innovation and the economy can you explain why the US had incredible growth in the 50s and 60s with the highest tax bracket approaching 90%?

 

[WhiskeyYerTheDevils]

That's not accurate. And also, it's still an income tax.

So your answer to getting rid of income tax is a different kind of income tax.

It is not an income tax, it is a consumption tax, because you're only taxed on income you didn't save or invest (i.e. the money you spend).

 

[WhiskeyYerTheDevils]

Sales Taxes and Their Impact on Low-Income Households – RP World

econ.sites.northeastern.edu

So you can punish the poor and support the wealthy. Brilliant stuff, if you're rich.

You're a regressive.

Also, if taxes kill innovation and the economy can you explain why the US had incredible growth in the 50s and 60s with the highest tax bracket approaching 90%?

A rising tide lifts all boats. Seeing how the rich spend significantly more than the poor, they'll still be overwhelmingly carrying the tax burden. Additionally, you can still design this as a progressive tax code, just like we have now.

 

[Voight]

I agree with this. I think it gets underestimated how important, as an example, having a great country music scene in a place like Nashville might appeal to players.

I believe that played into Duchenes decision to sign there.

 

[Stephen]

Now that we know they're monitoring it, I think we can rest easy.

 

[Shane Diesel]

A rising tide lifts all boats. Seeing how the rich spend significantly more than the poor, they'll still be overwhelmingly carrying the tax burden. Additionally, you can still design this as a progressive tax code, just like we have now.

No shit, it's because they have the most to begin with so it's only fair they carry the biggest burden.

This is just a tired, worn out argument for supply-side economics.

Why won't you answer my question about the economic growth and marginal tax rates in the 50s and 60s?

 

[Jyrki]

I really think this conversation is dumb to begin with. People sign in places like NY and Chicago because they're huge cities with amenities most other markets can't match. Is the NHL going to tax them to make it "fairer" for small cities like Ottawa and Buffalo? Players will also take discounts to play in Florida or California because of the better weather; are Edmonton and Winnipeg due compensation for their winters? Texas may not have income taxes but they have high property taxes; should the Stars get their players to submit their home assessments to get cap rebates relative to low-property tax markets?

Not every market is equal and the NHL shouldn't try to pretend they are. The cap already exists to help smaller teams keep up with big spenders, and the league has gone great lengths to let certain markets bleed money if it meant keeping NHL there, also at the expense of big markets.

 

[Lazlo Hollyfeld]

It is not an income tax, it is a consumption tax, because you're only taxed on income you didn't save or invest (i.e. the money you spend).

You really don't see the problem with this sentence?

 

[HockeyVirus]

I think it's pretty clear some recent championship teams had help of unfair tax systems. The pattern of their appearance in the finals kind of shuts down any counter arguments. Do the Panthers win the cup last year if they aren't able to get some guys to take massive discounts due to no tax? If the Oilers had the same advantages they are the champs

 

[WhiskeyYerTheDevils]

You really don't see the problem with this sentence?

No, take a second to think about it.

If I make 100k and I save or invest 60k and consume 40k, I get taxed on the 40k.

 

[WhiskeyYerTheDevils]

I think it's pretty clear some recent championship teams had help of unfair tax systems. The pattern of their appearance in the finals kind of shuts down any counter arguments. Do the Panthers win the cup last year if they aren't able to get some guys to take massive discounts due to no tax? If the Oilers had the same advantages they are the champs

Then explain why they hadn't won any cups for the first 15 years of the cap era.

 

[Three On Zero]

I can.

I hope you will enjoy a world where you pay a separate toll for every road you drive on, where emergency services will only show up when you can prove you have the money to pay for it and you have no recourse when big business screws you over hard.

Like the other poster said, delusional.

You get taxed one way or another. It just depends on HOW you want to get taxed. Directly to the government or through different initiatives that likely add up to a similar cost.

No state tax sounds like a dream because you don’t realize what they pay for instead of that state tax

 

[HockeyVirus]

Then explain why they hadn't won any cups for the first 15 years of the cap era.

Bottom 5 management and terrible ownership until recently