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

[Shane Diesel]

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

Read the studies. You think Berkeley is conservative?


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

I believe you, your capacity for making things up seems limitless.

I have no idea what your arguing at this point and I don't think you do either. You don't respond to anything I post and it's just ad hominems at this juncture.

 

[Dfence033]

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.

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.

If “your point” was that the growth was attributed to WW2 and the effects, rather than a high marginal rate, it was poorly made, not a lack of everyone else’s reading comprehension.

You are correct, high marginal rates, even ludicrously high rates, can’t slow down external economic factors relating to world events. Why does that matter? Because people are arguing that high(er) rates are the cause of specifically Canadian teams not winning - or at least being substantially disadvantaged by them, so much so that there needs to be a league-mandated correction to account for it.

Do you know WHY high marginal rates aren’t relevant and why @WhiskeyYerTheDevils brought up effective tax? It’s not semantics, and any CPA worth the paper their licenses are issued on would know why. But I’m not here to argue economics or give history lessons. The topic is brandished about by people overly loyal to a logo residing in certain locations to excuse or justify their chosen logo’s historical lack of success as unfairness rather than inadequacy.

 

[WhiskeyYerTheDevils]

I have no idea what your arguing at this point and I don't think you do either.

Reading is hard, I know.

 

[Shane Diesel]

If “your point” was that the growth was attributed to WW2 and the effects, rather than a high marginal rate, it was poorly made, not a lack of everyone else’s reading comprehension.

LOL

Keep doubling down, it was as straightforward as could possibly be.

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.

Do you know WHY high marginal rates aren’t relevant and why @WhiskeyYerTheDevils brought up effective tax? It’s not semantics, and any CPA worth the paper their licenses are issued on would know why.

Ok, explain it to me since you're the expert.

What is the importance of referring to effective rates as opposed to marginal rates when discussing the economic boom of the 40s to 60s and how income taxes didn't slow the economy?

The floor is yours and the assignment is open book.

Reading is hard, I know.

Man, you are the poster boy for projection. Every accusation is a confession.

 

[HabsAddict]

Why is it complicated?

Any accounting firm can figure out the spread between states and provinces, then allocate an individual cap accordingly. Do it after the cup award so the FA signings are clearer.

If Florida teams had 5 million lower cap, it wouldn't cripple them. Or if Canadian teams had 5 million more, it wouldn't make them contenders.

 

[Dfence033]

LOL

Keep doubling down, it was as straightforward as could possibly be.



Ok, explain it to me since you're the expert.


Man, you are the poster boy for projection. Every accusation is a confession.

Sorry, was it someone else using your account that posted:

“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%?”

Because if your point was that the growth was from WW2 and the resulting effects of the global economy, and that even ludicrously high marginal tax rates could slow it down because no one has ever paid the marginal rates and the effective tax rates were so substantially lower than 91% has become a bit of a cult following meme, you did a marvelous job hiding it.

Straight as a broken arrow bouncing around a centrifuge, but keep blaming my “lack of reading comprehension” for your at best incompletely expressed point.

I don’t believe I have to explain the difference between marginal and effective tax rates to a self-professed CPA. I’m not one, nor ever claimed to be one. But I do understand the basics of taxation, and this isn’t exactly a difficult concept. So unless you advise all of your clients to take no deductions whatsoever, pay the absolute full load marginal rates (which would make you a horrific CPA), your “you explain it to me” smacks of desperation.

Why is it complicated?

Any accounting firm can figure out the spread between states and provinces, then allocate an individual cap accordingly. Do it after the cup award so the FA signings are clearer.

If Florida teams had 5 million lower cap, it wouldn't cripple them. Or if Canadian teams had 5 million more, it wouldn't make them contenders.

But if Florida had $5M less and Toronto had $5M simultaneously, that would account for a 12% benefit of cap space to one team over another. Again, a “solution” in search of a “problem” that’s only an issue because there has to be some reason or excuse beyond inadequacy for losing for some fans of some teams. Much like “the refs” after every game for many. It’s a coping mechanism to handle loyalty to what amounts to an entertainment brand.

 

[Shane Diesel]

Sorry, was it someone else using your account that posted:

“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%?”

Because if your point was that the growth was from WW2 and the resulting effects of the global economy, and that even ludicrously high marginal tax rates could slow it down because no one has ever paid the marginal rates and the effective tax rates were so substantially lower than 91% has become a bit of a cult following meme, you did a marvelous job hiding it.

This is unintelligible word salad. I have no clue what point you're making. Memes? Cults? WTF?

Yes effective rates are lower than the highest marginal rates. I'm not disputing this.

People paid 91% from '45-'63 in the highest income bracket. It wasn't their effective rate. Again, as straightforward as it gets.

Straight as a broken arrow bouncing around a centrifuge, but keep blaming my “lack of reading comprehension” for your at best incompletely expressed point.

I don’t believe I have to explain the difference between marginal and effective tax rates to a self-professed CPA. I’m not one, nor ever claimed to be one. But I do understand the basics of taxation, and this isn’t exactly a difficult concept. So unless you advise all of your clients to take no deductions whatsoever, pay the absolute full load marginal rates (which would make you a horrific CPA), your “you explain it to me” smacks of desperation.

So you don't have an answer you just know better?

It sure is weird you ask me a question, I respond I don't know and then you refuse to answer or provide additional context or information. Why is that?

Can't follow through, huh?

Deductions have nothing to do with this discussion, just another strawman. And no, I understand tax brackets perfectly fine. No sane person is suggesting paying the highest marginal rate on their entire income. I don't know how you've gotten to the point where you think this is what I'm suggesring, but it's flabbergasting.

Impressive stuff, you've changed my mind. No, you won't "explain it to me" because you have nothing to teach me and you and Whiskey have completely lost the plot.

 

[LeafGrief]

Ya know, nowadays the more I see people flock to argue that something totally isn’t a thing, the more I start to believe it’s totally a thing. Especially when it’s pointed out as just Canadian paranoia, that’s like the ultimate gaslighting line.

Our teams are shit for their own reasons, but that doesn’t mean this isn’t real, or that doing something about it wouldn’t be a good thing.

 

[ChaosAgent]

Oh no, it's almost like you choose to root and identify with cities with higher tax rates. Maybe find players who share your values around taxing the rich.

 

[TheDawnOfANewTage]

Monitoring it like they monitor cap circumvention, cheating and sexual assault in that they know it’s there but won’t actively do anything about it?

Oh shit he said the thing! Yo, Doug Gilmour is so pissed.

 

[wmupreds]

Ya know, nowadays the more I see people flock to argue that something totally isn’t a thing, the more I start to believe it’s totally a thing. Especially when it’s pointed out as just Canadian paranoia, that’s like the ultimate gaslighting line.

Our teams are shit for their own reasons, but that doesn’t mean this isn’t real, or that doing something about it wouldn’t be a good thing.

It may be a "thing" that certain players take into account. I would assume it probably is. Just like many other things. NY teams, Boston, California teams to name some also deal with this to varying degrees. Toronto (as an example) also possesses some pretty unique advantages. Probably the most friendly environment in the entire league for endorsement deals, and they certainly have an outsized number of players who grew up with the Leafs.

No other league with a salary cap adjusts based on taxes. It is accepted that each market has its benefits and drawbacks, tax climate included, and deals with them accordingly (or they just suck- NFL players don't really want to play in Jacksonville- tough sh!t). For some reason Canadian fans choose to whine about this particular issue over and over.

 

[Dfence033]

This is unintelligible word salad. I have no clue what point you're making. Memes? Cults? WTF?

Yes effective rates are lower than the highest marginal rates. I'm not disputing this.

People paid 91% from '45-'63 in the highest income bracket. It wasn't their effective rate. Again, as straightforward as it gets.


So you don't have an answer you just know better?

It sure is weird you ask me a question, I respond I don't know and then you refuse to answer or provide additional context or information. Why is that?

Can't follow through, huh?

Deductions have nothing to do with this discussion, just another strawman. And no, I understand tax brackets perfectly fine. No sane person is suggesting paying the highest marginal rate on their entire income. I don't know how you've gotten to the point where you think thus is what I'm suggesring, but it's flabbergasting.

Impressive stuff, you've changed my mind. No, you won't "explain it to me" because you have nothing to teach me and you and Whiskey have completely lost the plot.

Sorry, I’ll simplify for you: you didn’t make the point you think you did.

You are arguing that, despite knowing effective rates are lower than marginal rates, that people “paid” 91%. Either you have no understanding of tax avoidance throughout history, history itself, or both. Very, very few people have ever paid the top marginal rate, and certainly even fewer at the top brackets who can afford good CPAs to reduce their tax burdens (making effective tax what matters, because again people who can afford an accountant or know even the basics of filing federal returns DO NOT ACTUALLY PAY MARGINAL RATE. Is that simple enough? Or would you like to insult my intelligence, read comprehension, and “follow through” again?

Deductions don’t have anything to do with marginal vs. effective tax rate? Are you sure you’re a CPA? If anyone’s lost the plot…

Anyway, the assertion that tax rates have a substantial and significant impact on certain teams ability to be competitive is obviously something the league doesn’t view as reality - at least not as important and impactful enough to do anything beyond giving lip service to those screaming the loudest. Sometimes your chosen team just isn’t good enough. In a 30+ team league, that happens a lot more than in a 6 team league. Basic math.

 

[Shane Diesel]

Sorry, I’ll simplify for you: you didn’t make the point you think you did.

You are arguing that, despite knowing effective rates are lower than marginal rates, that people “paid” 91%. Either you have no understanding of tax avoidance throughout history, history itself, or both. Very, very few people have ever paid the top marginal rate, and certainly even fewer at the top brackets who can afford good CPAs to reduce their tax burdens (making effective tax what matters, because again people who can afford an accountant or know even the basics of filing federal returns DO NOT ACTUALLY PAY MARGINAL RATE.

So your whole point in this discussion is that the highest earners game the system to not pay the highest marginal rate? And that refutes my position that an income tax doesn't hurt economic growth?





I already told you amigo, you've lost the plot.

Is that simple enough? Or would you like to insult my intelligence, read comprehension, and “follow through” again?

It's not an insult when it's true. You don't read correctly. Again, this is barely readable and I can't follow your train of thought.

Deductions don’t have anything to do with marginal vs. effective tax rate? Are you sure you’re a CPA? If anyone’s lost the plot…

Deductions have a lot to do with the amount of taxes one pays. However, it is completely unrelated to the discussion of income tax rates and economic growth as a whole.

Macro, not micro.

Anyway, the assertion that tax rates have a substantial and significant impact on certain teams ability to be competitive is obviously something the league doesn’t view as reality - at least not as important and impactful enough to do anything beyond giving lip service to those screaming the loudest. Sometimes your chosen team just isn’t good enough. In a 30+ team league, that happens a lot more than in a 6 team league. Basic math.

I don't care. This is something you're inserting into a discussion that had nothing to do with you originally.

 

[CanadienShark]

Monitoring, but will do nothing at all about it. I look forward to them also monitoring cheating teams *cough Vegas* and also do nothing at all.

 

[Mrfenn92]

 

[CanadienShark]

It's a thing, sure, but I think it's overblown. If Matthews was a free agent, would he take less money than he is making with Toronto in lower tax place? Doubtful. Drai would be making 14-15 M on the cap anywhere in the NHL. Goalie Bob would take up more than 10M in cap space if he signed with NYR? Or in California? Or somewhere in Canada? Instead of signing in Florida? I don't think so.

Matthews is definitely a unique case, both in terms of player and market. Marketing opportunities for him specifically in Toronto are HUGE and I'd be willing to bet much more valuable (to him personally) than the difference in taxes in a less popular hockey market like say Dallas.

 

[Dfence033]

So your whole point in this discussion is that the highest earners game the system to not pay the highest marginal rate? And that refutes my position that an income tax doesn't hurt economic growth?





I already told you amigo, you've lost the plot.


It's not an insult when it's true. You don't read correctly. Again, this is barely readable and I can't follow your train of thought.



Deductions have a lot to do with the amount of taxes one pays. However, it is completely unrelated to the discussion of income tax rates and economic growth as a whole.

Macro, not micro.



I don't care. This is something you're inserting into a discussion that had nothing to do with you originally.

Fine, even more simple: your argument is a logical fallacy. It can’t be proven that the 91% marginal tax rate in 1945 did NOT hinder economic growth, insignificantly or massively. All we know is that the economy did grow, the top marginal rate was 91%, and almost no one has ever paid that.

So your “point” is rooted in a logically unprovable assumption. Which is why it’s become a “meme,” as I stated in my “unintelligible word salad.” It’s a meme because it’s always what people who believe as you do point to as evidence, when there is no logical testing to show that in those exact circumstances less the 91% rate, the economy would not have grown faster. It’s always the go-to, “gotcha,” and far too often isn’t met with enough scrutiny and derision for assuming fact not in record. We are all meant to just “believe me, I’m an expert.”

As for what you “don’t care” about, that was my redirecting the conversation back to the topic of the thread without insulting you.

 

[chirrrs]

The funniest part about this whole debate is the "7 of the last 10" stat that keeps getting cited. It's worded in such a way that one might think that of 10 distinctly different teams, 7 were from tax free states. Of course, it's not 7 distinct teams, it's only 4: Tampa (3x), Florida (2x), Dallas (1x), and Vegas (1x). How exactly were those teams built?

Tampa: Through the draft (high lottery picks and hit on some really good later round picks).
Florida: Some of the above, plus two years ago the immediate consensus was that they massively lost the Tkachuk trade.
Dallas: Won a lottery pick (Miro) and had an amazing 2017 draft with Oettinger (26OA) and Robertson (2nd round). Continued to draft exceptionally well without high picks (Harley, Wyatt, Stankoven, Bourque). Benn (5th round) and Seguin are never accused of taking discount contracts.
Vegas: Came into the league with fans wondering if they would break the record for most losses ever, only to develop a winning culture from day one which made them a competitive team that players wanted to sign with. They also were quick to trade players at the height of their value after short term success, but now they're having the same cyclical cap issues that competitive teams inevitably end up with.

At the end of the 2012-13 season, the Lightning, Panthers, and Stars were all dead last in their respective divisions. All of those teams slowly built up their teams through drafts and trades; free agent signings and discount contract extensions didn't just magically turn them into contenders over that time period.

Instead of just throwing those teams out there as evidence, I want to hear what *specific* tax beneficial contracts those teams signed while the team was still non-competitive that suddenly turned them into Cup finalists?

 

[CanadienShark]

Also, while we're here debating competitive advantages and making up for them, I think more recently added teams should get some sort of offsetting bonus to make up for the competitive advantage teams that have been around for five decades or more have from being able to sell players on history and tradition.

Vegas already got that advantage during the Seattle expansion draft.

 

[WhiskeyYerTheDevils]

Deductions don’t have anything to do with marginal vs. effective tax rate? Are you sure you’re a CPA? If anyone’s lost the plot…

He's very obviously not a CPA lol.

 

[MadLuke]

It's not an insult when it's true.

Quite the out of subject tangent and something you can hear a lot of the time, but I always found that statement to be a bit strange.

Insult: a disrespectful or scornfully abusive remark or action, mean to cause hurt feelings or deep resentment, suggests deliberately causing humiliation, hurt pride, or shame.

The best insult will tend to be true or at least rooted in some, where the if it is true it is not insult idea come from (it is not defamatory which is a different subject), I never read any definition even implying that insulting has anything to do with lying or telling the truth.

because again people who can afford an accountant or know even the basics of filing federal returns DO NOT ACTUALLY PAY MARGINAL RATE. Is that simple enough? Or would you like to insult my intelligence, read comprehension, and “follow through” again?

I must have lost the plot myself because in Quebec you pay marginal taxrate on declared income over $119.9k Can (around 88k usd), there creatives and there for someone with a regular 6 millions USD salary achieving to have less than 90k USD in taxable income at the end of it.

It is far frrom the american 40s with the marginal tax bracket for the people making 3 millions in today dollars (with capital gain with a low 15% tax rate....).

 

[Shane Diesel]

Fine, even more simple: your argument is a logical fallacy. It can’t be proven that the 91% marginal tax rate in 1945 did NOT hinder economic growth, insignificantly or massively. All we know is that the economy did grow, the top marginal rate was 91%, and almost no one has ever paid that.

So your “point” is rooted in a logically unprovable assumption. Which is why it’s become a “meme,” as I stated in my “unintelligible word salad.” It’s a meme because it’s always what people who believe as you do point to as evidence, when there is no logical testing to show that in those exact circumstances less the 91% rate, the economy would not have grown faster. It’s always the go-to, “gotcha,” and far too often isn’t met with enough scrutiny and derision for assuming fact not in record. We are all meant to just “believe me, I’m an expert.”

As for what you “don’t care” about, that was my redirecting the conversation back to the topic of the thread without insulting you.

You are so lost friend, it's becoming painful.

The economy in the US from the mid-40s to the mid-60s was incredibly strong. Fact.

The highest marginal rate during this same time period was 91%. Fact.

If you want to argue it could've it could've been even higher with lower taxes, fine.

But that isn't disproving my point that even with high marginal rates the economy did very well during this time period.

If you have links with evidence showing the economy was severely hindered during this era, please provide them, because at this point you're just moving goalposts and stating opinion as truth.

He's very obviously not a CPA lol.

Your glomming on to minutiae that has nothing to do with the point. Again.

Deductions are a component of a tax bill. What that has to do with the overall rates and economic growth is unclear. Individual deductions have nothing to do with anything when analyzing macro economics for the purpose of this discussion.

You're purposely mudding the waters because you don't have anything else.

 

[HockeyScotty]

New York City is also one of the most expensive places to live in North America. Is the league doing a cost of living cap adjustment too?

And what about exchange rates? Canadian Dollar vs American Dollar. Global Series games? National income tax discrepancies between USA and Canada?

Salary Cap X COLA (weighted by days in each locality) X Exchange Rate Factor (weighted by days in each country) x Municipal/State/National Income Tax Factor (weighted by days in each jurisdiction) = Adjusted Salary Cap per team.

It's so simple.

 

[MadLuke]

Ok, so provide the links with evidence showing a 91% marginal rate was a hindrance.


Your glomming on to minutiae that has nothing to do with the point. Again.

why if about no one pay it, was for extremely high revenues almost no one made (specially if you let the capital gain tax ultra low), that it would have been a hindrance that can be calculated ?

Try to compare to the alternative to some comparable when it was in the exceptional context of the WW2 war effort...

 

[Shane Diesel]

why if about no one pay it, was for extremely high revenues almost no one made (specially if you let the capital gain tax ultra low), that it would have been a hindrance that can be calculated ?

I don't agree no one paid it, and so far the only evidence provided has been anecdotal "trust me, bro" posts.

Try to compare to the alternative to some comparable when it was in the exceptional context of the WW2 war effort...

The 91% marginal tax rate went well past WWII.