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

[Lazlo Hollyfeld]

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.

And that 40k was what exactly?

IT WAS INCOME.

I get that you're providing an alternative tax plan. But this all started with you providing an example of a reality without income taxes.

I really don't want to spend any more time having to make the point that a consumed income tax is in fact an income tax. It's peak hfboards absurdity.

 

[WhiskeyYerTheDevils]

Bottom 5 management and terrible ownership until recently

What about the rest of the no tax teams?

 

[HockeyVirus]

What about the rest of the no tax teams?

https://x.com/i/web/status/1834276034231107615

Evidence is clear there is an advantage

 

[Three On Zero]

What about the rest of the no tax teams?

They all paid taxes until they were good

 

[WhiskeyYerTheDevils]

And that 40k was what exactly?

IT WAS INCOME.

I get that you're providing an alternative tax plan. But this all started with you providing an example of a reality without income taxes.

I really don't want to spend any more time having to make the point that a consumed income tax is in fact an income tax. It's peak hfboards absurdity.

It was consumption. A consumed income tax is a consumption tax. Just read table 3 here: https://taxfoundation.org/research/all/federal/us-consumption-tax-vs-income-tax/

Types of consumption taxes:
- Retail Sales
- VAT
- X Tax
- Consumed income tax

 

[Three On Zero]

https://x.com/i/web/status/1834276034231107615

Evidence is clear there is an advantage

Perhaps NHL teams are more of a cyclical trend, and those that were poor teams finally built a winning team. Perhaps taxes had nothing to do with drafting players.

 

[WhiskeyYerTheDevils]

https://x.com/i/web/status/1834276034231107615

Evidence is clear there is an advantage

There is no correlation between team success and effective tax rates. I posted the data on this in previous threads on the topic. It's an open and shut case.

 

[Strangle]

There is no correlation between team success and effective tax rates. I posted the data on this in previous threads on the topic. It's an open and shut case.

There is more than a single variable involved in a successful hockey team. Being able to offer good players more money is one

 

[Three On Zero]

There is no correlation between team success and effective tax rates. I posted the data on this in previous threads on the topic. It's an open and shut case.

When Florida and Tampa are inevitably going for high draft picks, can we blame it on no state income tax? Florida won the draft??? Damn you no state tax!

 

[WhiskeyYerTheDevils]

There is more than a single variable involved in a successful hockey team. Being able to offer good players more money is one

Perhaps, but apparently it's not nearly enough of an advantage to correlate to on ice success.

 

[No Fun Shogun]

Friendly reminder, folks were complaining about supposed tax advantages being unfair when plenty of low/no-tax teams were in the crapper and higher taxed Chicago, Los Angeles, and Boston won six championships in a row. This is an evergreen complaint among certain circles, and it gets brought up regularly even when not practical. And when we see a few higher taxed teams win again a few times, we'll still see the complaint levied regularly.

Of course taxes are something that players consider, but so is hometown proximity, marketability, and any number of other factors that favor more traditional markets, just as access to nightlife favors bigger markets, good weather favors southern markets, and any number of other factors favors any number of other groups of markets.

And assuming it is an advantage, fat chance getting enough support to push for anything more than lip service.

 

[Three On Zero]

Perhaps, but apparently it's not nearly enough of an advantage to correlate to on ice success.

I think Seattle missed out on the no state tax benefit memo. I also missed all the top end talent they signed this off season because of it. Alaska also has no state tax, let’s get a team there pronto! It’ll be a hit destination for free agents!

 

[Dale Gribble]

I could be wrong, but I don't recall the Non State Tax Teams having a big advantage a few years ago when they weren't very good.

Vegas is still a relatively new team, it will be interesting to see what happens when they aren't a playoff contender let alone Cup contender. Florida and Tampa's success are still pretty recent, there was a long period of bottom dwelling though.

 

[Three On Zero]

I could be wrong, but I don't recall the Non State Tax Teams having a big advantage a few years ago when they weren't very good.

Vegas is still a relatively new team, it will be interesting to see what happens when they aren't a playoff contender let alone Cup contender. Florida and Tampa's success are still pretty recent, there was a long period of bottom dwelling though.

Was only a few years ago when Florida was considered a drain on the league and people wanted them out. Now people say it’s unfair that they’ve become successful.

It’s almost like you need to grow to become a better team.

 

[HockeyVirus]

There is no correlation between team success and effective tax rates. I posted the data on this in previous threads on the topic. It's an open and shut case.

But I Literally just provided evidence of that?

 

[Dale Gribble]

Was only a few years ago when Florida was considered a drain on the league and people wanted them out. Now people say it’s unfair that they’ve become successful.

It’s almost like you need to grow to become a better team.

Who knew players wanted to go places and are willing to take a little less money to play for Cup Contenders ?

Not like Nashville is winning a bunch of Cups. They were a mediocre team for years, and it could easily be argued that they had to overpay to get Stamkos past his prime.

 

[Dfence033]

Exactly my point. High marginal tax rates have little to do with economic growth. Thus your argument about income taxes killing the economy is totally, abjectly wrong.


Sure, here you go.

Historical Income Tax Rates

Wolters Kluwer takes a historical look at the top marginal income tax rates in the United States.

www.wolterskluwer.com

The top marginal rate from 1945 to 1963 was 91%.

First, attributing the growth of the US economy from 1945-1963 solely (or even primarily) to marginal tax rates can’t be a real argument. You don’t have to be a CPA to know that there was a pretty significant external driver of economic growth at that time, one that even the simplest understanding of world and human history would clearly point to. Check out the per capita income in the US starting in some year before 1941, then check out the curve from 1941 through any date in the 50s. What of global significance happened to the US during that time that would drive unprecedented economic growth? Two guesses, and it wasn’t the implementation of a 91% marginal tax rate.

Second, @WhiskeyYerTheDevils clearly said “effective” tax rate, not marginal. Surely as a CPA you know the difference and that near zero people ever pay the full marginal load.

Third, while this is not a new excuse, it’s always louder when teams generally viewed as the “have-nots”/“poverty” franchises start having any perceived success over the Canadien teams. Does anyone stop to wonder why teams go through cycles of success? Could it be those very teams currently enjoying success happen to be the ones who were horribly bad and received multiple top draft selections - which is far more about “competitive balance” than anything else the NHL has implemented - and not because of tax implications of millionaires? Exactly as the system was designed to do.

 

[WhiskeyYerTheDevils]

Exactly my point. High marginal tax rates have little to do with economic growth. Thus your argument about income taxes killing the economy is totally, abjectly wrong.

Who said anything about marginal tax rates?

Sure, here you go.

Historical Income Tax Rates

Wolters Kluwer takes a historical look at the top marginal income tax rates in the United States.

www.wolterskluwer.com

The top marginal rate from 1945 to 1963 was 91%.

You don't know the difference between effective income tax rate and marginal income tax rates? How are you a CPA?

But I Literally just provided evidence of that?

That's not evidence of a correlation. That's an anecdote. I did a regression analysis a little while back, the r2 was nearly zero.

 

[wmupreds]

I'm pretty sure if a realistic formula actually got applied, Canadian fans would be disappointed with how much actual gain they got from this cap adjustment.

Also, no other league does this. Wonder why.

 

[Shane Diesel]

First, attributing the growth of the US economy from 1945-1963 solely (or even primarily) to marginal tax rates can’t be a real argument.

It isn't. Not even close. You have horrible reading comprehension. Of course my f***ing point was WWII and the manufacturing boom that followed, along with the baby boom was the reason for growth. And guess what? That 91% marginal rate didn't slow any of it down.

Exactly my point. High marginal tax rates have little to do with economic growth. Thus your argument about income taxes killing the economy is totally, abjectly wrong.

The overaching point is high tax rates don't kill the economy. Pretty simple.

As for the rest, see below. And just to be crystal clear, home boy mentioned both effective and marginal rates in his post.

 

[Shane Diesel]

Who said anything about marginal tax rates?

You don't know the difference between effective income tax rate and marginal income tax rates? How are you a CPA?

I'm sorry I misread your post. But nothing about my point changes whether we are using effective or marginal rate.

While the rate the highest earners paid in total was an effective rate less than the top marginal bracket, they still paid 91% on their last dollars earned.

You realize you need the marginal rates to calculate the total effective rate, right? Obviously not.

You're attempting to argue semantics in a context that does nothing for your prior thesis.

Income tax rates don't negatively impact economic growth as I've now stated multiple times and the evidence is overwhelming.

 

[WhiskeyYerTheDevils]

I'm sorry I misread your post.

I don't believe you.

But nothing about my point changes whether we are using effective or marginal rate.

This is why I don't believe you.

While the rate the highest earners paid in total was an effective rate less than the top marginal bracket, they still paid 91% on their last dollars earned.

Are you sure about that?

You're attempting to argue semantics in a context that does nothing for your pror thesis.

Their is nothing semantical about it. The fact that you think the difference between marginal and effective tax rates is "semantics" makes me doubt you're credentials.

Income tax rates don't negatively impact economic growth as I've now stated multiple times and the evidence is overwhelming.

Here, I will make it easier for you to educate yourself. The impact of income taxes have been studied and simulated for years, and it consistently shows a lower level of growth and welfare vs consumption taxes.

From the article:

For example, a Treasury Department research paper in 2007 found replacing just the U.S. corporate income tax at the time with a business activity tax (a type of consumption tax that does not tax the normal return to saving or investment) would increase the size of the economy from 2.0 percent to 2.5 percent.

Ending the income tax penalty on saving and investment by moving to a consumption tax would boost economic output.[15] Depending on how the transition is designed, all income cohorts can enjoy long-run welfare gains.[16] Simulations of replacing individual and corporate income taxes with various types of consumption taxes find increases in long-run economic output of 5 to 9 percent.[17]

For example, a simulation by Carlos E. da Costa and Marcelo R. Santos finds that switching from a progressive income tax to a progressive consumption tax leads to widespread welfare gains because it results in a more efficient allocation of effort and consumption, which enables more efficient revenue generation for redistribution with welfare improvements ranging from 8.6 percent to 19.0 percent

In other words, prioritizing a tax code that is simple and pro-growth can raise revenues for government spending priorities while boosting living standards relative to the tax system we have today. Like studies that simulate the benefits of moving toward consumption taxes, econometric studies likewise indicate benefits from taxing consumption.

Economist Anh Ngyuen and her coauthors examined the effects of individual income, corporate, and consumption taxes in the United Kingdom from 1973 to 2009. They found that switching from an income tax base to a consumption tax base had positive effects on growth, as both individual income and corporate income taxes in their study were found to be more distortionary.

Moving to full expensing, an incremental step toward a consumption tax base for businesses, reduces the cost of capital and incentivizes businesses to invest more, which in turn boosts productivity growth and economic output, illustrating the benefits of consumption tax reform.

 

[Shane Diesel]

I don't believe you.

I don't care. You haven't demonstrated good judgment yet.

This is why I don't believe you.

I'm not surprised, you haven't shown any real knowledge of how the economy or taxation works.

Are you sure about that?

100%, that's how income tables work. Truly as basic as it gets.

Federal income tax rates and brackets | Internal Revenue Service

See current federal tax brackets and rates based on your income and filing status.

www.irs.gov

Maybe this will help you visualize how it works.

Their is nothing semantical about it. The fact that you think the difference between marginal and effective tax rates is "semantics" makes me doubt you're credentials.

Tell me, how does one calculate the effective tax rate? I'll give you a hint, it's based on marginal rates. They're intrinsically related.

You stating that effective rates are less than marginal ones is so obvious I don't know what point you're making. No f***ing shit.

Here, I will make it easier for you to educate yourself. The impact of income taxes have been studied and simulated for years, and it consistently shows a lower level of growth and welfare vs consumption taxes.

From the article:

I raise your one conservative rag with multiple sources that disagree.

The relationship between taxation and U.S. economic growth

An examination of empirical evidence linking U.S. economic growth to facets of taxation and income and wealth inequality.

equitablegrowth.org

Empirical studies based on real-world data are often unable to find these negative growth effects.

Do High Local Taxes Really Hurt Economic Growth?

Corporate incentives and low tax rates are supposed to make a city more business-friendly. An economist explains why that’s often not the case.

insight.kellogg.northwestern.edu

Those who oppose increasing taxes (or eliminating tax breaks) say they’re bad for business—that raising rates will scare off investors, entrepreneurs, and corporations. But according to Therese McGuire, a professor of strategy at the Kellogg School and a tax policy expert with experience working for state governments, this is a false narrative.

https://www.cbpp.org/research/recent-studies-find-raising-taxes-on-high-income-households-would-not-harm-the-economy

Many policymakers and pundits assume that raising federal income taxes on high-income households would have serious adverse consequences for the economy. Yet this belief, which has been subject to extensive research and analysis, does not fare well under scrutiny.​

I can go all night, amigo.

 

[Pablo El Perro]

I don't care. You haven't demonstrated good judgment yet.

I'm not surprised, you haven't shown any real knowledge of how the economy or taxation works.

100%, that's how income tables work. Truly as basic as it gets.

Tell me, how does one calculate the effective tax rate? I'll give you a hint, it's based on marginal rates. They're intrinsically related.

You stating that effective rates are less than marginal ones is so obvious I don't know what point you're making. No f***ing shit.


I raise your one conservative rag with multiple sources that disagree.

The relationship between taxation and U.S. economic growth

An examination of empirical evidence linking U.S. economic growth to facets of taxation and income and wealth inequality.

equitablegrowth.org

Do High Local Taxes Really Hurt Economic Growth?

Corporate incentives and low tax rates are supposed to make a city more business-friendly. An economist explains why that’s often not the case.

insight.kellogg.northwestern.edu

https://www.cbpp.org/research/recent-studies-find-raising-taxes-on-high-income-households-would-not-harm-the-economy

I can go all night, amigo.

So you're saying one economic simulation is just that, a simulation? Go figure. Personally, I think we'd be better off economically with a wealth tax instead of so much focus on income tax.

 

[WhiskeyYerTheDevils]

I don't care. You haven't demonstrated good judgment yet.

I'm not surprised, you haven't shown any real knowledge of how the economy or taxation works.

100%, that's how income tables work. Truly as basic as it gets.

Tell me, how does one calculate the effective tax rate? I'll give you a hint, it's based on marginal rates. They're intrinsically related.

You stating that effective rates are less than marginal ones is so obvious I don't know what point you're making. No f***ing shit.

I never stated that, you need to stop with the lies mr CPA lol.

I raise your one conservative rag with multiple sources that disagree.

Read the studies. You think Berkeley is conservative?

Empirical studies based on real-world data are often unable to find these negative growth effects.

Who said anything about negative growth rates? Man you really need to stop the strawmans and go back to school.

I can go all night, amigo

I believe you, your capacity for making things up seems limitless. So I think I'll say goodnight.