Should the NHL salary cap adjust for local income tax?

[TheNumber4]

Parity is good for the League and its fans. Don't see how anyone could say no to this question, unless your a fan a tax-advantaged team. In which case, GTFO.

 

[Ciao]

As a fan of a team who would benefit from this absolute.

As someone who is practical, this is not a realistic implementation. I assume the players would be signed to Net deals, instead of current Gross deals. A bunch of NHL owners isn't going to go anywhere near that. If a state like Florida suddenly decided to implement an average state income tax for high-net-worth individuals, it will put significant strains on that team. It leaves owners too exposed to state legislation changes. In some cases, they may luck out (for example, Ontario income tax should go down under Doug Ford), but it produces way too much volatility. Then there is the external aspects of it, where if taxes go up for rich people, they have less discretionary income, which may lead to less season ticket sales.

For example. Say, Florida implemented a 6% tax rate on individuals who earn over 200,000 a year, and the Feds increased that tax rate by a moderate 1.5%. For the Panthers that would add 6 million a year in expenditures.

At the end of the day, parity is how they sold the cap to fans, but anyone who was actually paying attention knows it was really about cost certainty. Tying taxes to players salaries removes significant cost certainty.

Read this and learn.

Are there any employers that pay employees a fixed sum net of taxes?

Maybe there are some but I cant think of any.

This is probably the best post I've read on the topic.

 

[zetajerk]

What about doctors, nurses, firemen, policemen, public attorneys, social workers, relief workers, or people whose jobs actually matter? Should they not also get comped for their taxes by their employers? Nope, just the f***ing hockey players, because that will get me a cup.

 

[Sol]

What about doctors, nurses, firemen, policemen, public attorneys, social workers, relief workers, or people whose jobs actually matter? Should they not also get comped for their taxes by their employers? Nope, just the ****ing hockey players, because that will get me a cup.

There isn't a cap in the work force.


The NHL is a competition based league, for other teams to have more leverage because of taxes on a static cap is BS. Your point would be valid if there wasn't a cap.

 

[93LEAFS]

What about doctors, nurses, firemen, policemen, public attorneys, social workers, relief workers, or people whose jobs actually matter? Should they not also get comped for their taxes by their employers? Nope, just the ****ing hockey players, because that will get me a cup.

I don't think paying net is practical but.

How many industries cap what you can make in a gross payment, across multiple states? If a state wants to hire better people, they are free to pay people whatever they want without restriction. This is completely a false equivalency.

 

[LeafFever]

Not sure how anyone can say no. It is an unfair advantage. It needs to be addressed. The cap and revenue sharing has helped so many teams that now have that big advantage.

 

[Sol]

Let me break it down for people.

Let's say you have $100 to spend on a product, and that product is 20 dollars on Amazon.

Would you spend 30 dollars on the same product or get the one that's gonna save you more money ? Why should a team in a competitive league with a set cap have to pay 30 dollars while another team can pay 20,and have more cap to send? Why is the cap static to teams with different taxes? Obviously a higher taxed team will get screwed cap wise while a team like Florida for example will have more money to spend.



Why can't the cap be prorated after taxes that way it'd be more fair. Taxes shouldn't give another team a hand over another. In a game based on fair competition, this is bs.

 

[tucker3434]

Parity is good for the League and its fans. Don't see how anyone could say no to this question, unless your a fan a tax-advantaged team. In which case, GTFO.

If it’s about parity, let’s include endorsement money in the salary cap. After all, it should be fair, right?

Let me break it down for people.

Let's say you have $100 to spend on a product, and that product is 20 dollars on Amazon.

Would you spend 30 dollars on the same product or get the one that's gonna save you more money ? Why should a team in a competitive league with a set cap have to pay 30 dollars while another team can pay 20,and have more cap to send? Why is the cap static to teams with different taxes? Obviously a higher taxed team will get screwed cap wise while a team like Florida for example will have more money to spend.



Why can't the cap be prorated after taxes that way it'd be more fair. Taxes shouldn't give another team a hand over another. In a game based on fair competition, this is bs.

Tell me how to do it in a way that wouldn’t be 100% insanity. I’ve seen a bunch of complaints, but not one good idea on how to fix it without it being a total mess.

 

[zetajerk]

There isn't a cap in the work force.


The NHL is a competition based league, for other teams to have more leverage because of taxes on a static cap is BS. Your point would be valid if there wasn't a cap.

Yeah it must suck for Leafs fans to see Tavares sign in Dallas.

What makes you think rich teams in high tax markets want to spend more money? That's less of their income that they can pocket.

Take it up with your local government if you want lower taxes.

 

[Sol]

Yeah it must suck for Leafs fans to see Tavares sign in Dallas.

What makes you think rich teams in high tax markets want to spend more money? That's less of their income that they can pocket.

Take it up with your local government if you want lower taxes.

Rich teams can build better teams so it's called investment. And even if they don't spend more money, tell me why less taxed areas should get the privilege of being able to spend more rather than a heavily taxed area. How is that fair?


Why can't rich teams be allowed to spend more money

If I'm spending 30 on a product while someone else is spending 20 for the same exact thing in a cap league how is that fair ?


Should I be given 110 to spend and the less taxed team 100 so when I forcefully have to spend 30 dollars and my competition spends 20. We will both have 80 left. Isn't that supposed to be the standard for a truly competitive league?

 

[zetajerk]

Let me break it down for people.

Let's say you have $100 to spend on a product, and that product is 20 dollars on Amazon.

Would you spend 30 dollars on the same product or get the one that's gonna save you more money ? Why should a team in a competitive league with a set cap have to pay 30 dollars while another team can pay 20,and have more cap to send? Why is the cap static to teams with different taxes? Obviously a higher taxed team will get screwed cap wise while a team like Florida for example will have more money to spend.



Why can't the cap be prorated after taxes that way it'd be more fair. Taxes shouldn't give another team a hand over another. In a game based on fair competition, this is bs.

If it's about fairness, then why should a rich team have an advantage over teams without as much room to spend? You'd be taking away an imagined (re: not real) advantage some teams have and giving other teams (presumably yours) a very real, actual, huge advantage.

Again, provide a list of UFAs who chose to sign in a low tax market because of taxes and not because Canada is awful.

 

[Sol]

If it's about fairness, then why should a rich team have an advantage over teams without as much room to spend? You'd be taking away an imagined (re: not real) advantage some teams have and giving other teams (presumably yours) a very real, actual, huge advantage.

Again, provide a list of UFAs who chose to sign in a low tax market because of taxes and not because Canada is awful.

It's not about rich teams or poor teams. It's about every team having the same power to buy. There's no reason why teams in less taxed areas should have more power to buy in comparison to a team in a heavily taxed area. It's not about rich or poor. It's about an equal playing field. All teams should have the same POWER to buy. Whether or not they use that power is up to the owner.

 

[tucker3434]

I wish you guys would just say what you want to say: you want to be able to spend more money than everyone else. Quit hiding behind fair play. If you really wanted parity, you’d be offering to subsidize more of teams like Ottawa and Arizona, not trying to get the team that just signed one of the biggest UFA’s in recent history more money to spend. At least be honest about it.

And as I’ve said before and will say again now, there’s a reason no professional sports league in North America does anything like this. It would be an absolute nightmare for compliance. Plus, a luxury tax system accomplishes the actual goal with nowhere near as many headaches.

We’re either going to have a cap or we aren’t.

 

[zetajerk]

It's not about rich teams or poor teams. It's about every team having the same power to buy. There's no reason why teams in less taxed areas should have more power to buy in comparison to a team in a heavily taxed area. It's not about rich or poor. It's about an equal playing field. All teams should have the same POWER to buy. Whether or not they use that power is up to the owner.

Again, you're assuming it's the taxes or money that drives a player to choose where he plays, not taking into account the myriad of other factors. If you want to believe that players will line up to play in the Rust Belt and Canada if the tax "issue" went away, then power to you. The Rangers, Hawks, California teams, Leafs, etc don't have issues recruiting players. We don't have teams in low tax markets winning the cup every year.

If the owners weren't happy with the current way of doing things, especially rich team owners, it would change. I wouldn't want to be the accountant to have to calculate all the state income taxes a player had to pay from playing in so many different states.

This is just a "I want my team to have an advantage and I want other teams to get screwed". Because only your experience or what you want matters. I'm sure you think you're owed a cup because your tickets are expensive, or something.

 

[Sol]

Again, you're assuming it's the taxes or money that drives a player to choose where he plays, not taking into account the myriad of other factors. If you want to believe that players will line up to play in the Rust Belt and Canada if the tax "issue" went away, then power to you. The Rangers, Hawks, California teams, Leafs, etc don't have issues recruiting players. We don't have teams in low tax markets winning the cup every year.

If the owners weren't happy with the current way of doing things, especially rich team owners, it would change. I wouldn't want to be the accountant to have to calculate all the state income taxes a player had to pay from playing in so many different states.

This is just a "I want my team to have an advantage and I want other teams to get screwed". Because only your experience or what you want matters. I'm sure you think you're owed a cup because your tickets are expensive, or something.

You certainly don't know what drives players but I can assure you everyone likes keeping more of their money. So let's not act like people aren't looking to save money.


No one would be getting screwed if everyone has the same power to buy. I don't see how you're not grasping such an easy logical trail of thought.

 

[tucker3434]

You certainly don't know what drives players but I can assure you everyone likes keeping more of their money. So let's not act like people aren't looking to save money.


No one would be getting screwed if everyone has the same power to buy. I don't see how you're not grasping such an easy logical trail of thought.

You are oversimplifying an extremely complex issue then putting a bow on it by calling it a “logical trail of thought.”

If it’s so logical, tell me how to do it and do it in such a way that doesn’t just absolutely hammer teams with compliance costs.

 

[Ciao]

Would the player's salary be adjusted for taxes when a trade is made?

If Mike Hoffman signs a $5-million contract in Ottawa, what is his cap hit in Florida, or Colorado? Would it change?

 

[Shockmaster]

Would the player's salary be adjusted for taxes when a trade is made?

If Mike Hoffman signs a $5-million contract in Ottawa, what is his cap hit in Florida, or Colorado? Would it change?

Which is why the cap will never be adjusted based on local taxes. It's just way too much of a headache to deal with.

It just sucks that because the cap isn't adjusted the Leafs couldn't get any decent free agents this off season

 

[Beezeral]

It's about every team having the same power to buy.

so then we should ban signing bonuses because rich teams have the ability to frontload contracts and pay it all as signing bonuses like the Leafs just did with Tavares while teams like the Panthers can't afford to pay out 10+ million bonuses on July 1st.

Got to give every team the same power to buy like you say.

 

[zetajerk]

so then we should ban signing bonuses because rich teams have the ability to frontload contracts and pay it all as signing bonuses like the Leafs just did with Tavares while teams like the Panthers can't afford to pay out 10+ million bonuses on July 1st.

Got to give every team the same power to buy like you say.

No, you see, because you and your tax free wonderland team don't matter.

 

[Sypher04]

Would the player's salary be adjusted for taxes when a trade is made?

If Mike Hoffman signs a $5-million contract in Ottawa, what is his cap hit in Florida, or Colorado? Would it change?

The point would be, if this was done, that either the cap itself would be higher to adjust for high taxes OR all players cap would be based on net income, but that'd get messy. So they'd make the same net whereever they go, but then the team would pay them real dollars whatever it'd cost in that location to do that.

 

[PensandCaps]

lol no

 

[ijuka]

100% cap should be after taxes. It's unfair. Only people who don't have a problem with this are low tax or no tax teams who can spend to the ceiling.

You'd be illogical to believe the way it is right now is fair.

Everyone gets an equal amount of money to spend - How is it unfair?

Furthermore, it would become far too complicated. The amount taxed would depend on the away games as well and it'd have to be calculated separately for every single season depending on the match schedule. Not to mention that many more things go into it than taxes. Should there be living cost or weather adjustments, as well?

 

[tfong]

Nope, because you all assume they pay the same income taxes. This would become needlessly complicated because howabout the players with good tax planning agents? Is their cap now super low because they are able to tax haven their income or something along those lines?

Also how do you adjust for players that make massive donations (ala Subban), you'd be essentially giving them a massive cap deduction then.

Or what if I make myself a charitable donation and reduce my caphit to 0 because i donated all my money?

You guys are thinking too simply about income tax.

 

[missingchicklet]

No way this ever happens. Cost of living varies. Local taxes vary. State taxes vary. Etc. Cities/counties frequently change income tax rates and increase things like property taxes to increase revenue. Where does it end? Over the course of a contract there is a high likelihood that a multitude of tax rates would change in a given location, at least in the USA. What a nightmare it would be to try to keep track of all this for each player and keep adjusting things. Then, as others have pointed out, what happens when a player is traded? More readjustment. It would be a complete mess, and the arguments as to what should count as things that need to be adjusted for when it comes to cap would be never ending.