Toggle sidebar

Should the NHL salary cap adjust for local income tax?

Status
Not open for further replies.
No. It would be an administrative nightmare. Every time there is a new tax change in a state or province or country, then you'd have to adjust things.

Maybe the NHL can address the climate difference between locations as well then?. Surely Edmonton needs Florida weather to have a level playing field.
 
  • Like
Reactions: King'sPawn
No major sport does this and they never will.

Wow...lots of butthurt around here lately.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Reactions: ultra63
It's partially in play - but not as much as cost of living, real estate availability, and quality of life with family.

If taxes were the biggest game in town, Florida would also have a stacked roster.

I completely understand the OP, but teams like the Rangers and Bruins have no problem getting guys to play for them and the taxes in New York, New York (there's extra municipal tax on top of state tax there) as well as in Taxachussets are just about as insane as Canadian taxes.

That being said, Vegas is going to be a prime location for free agents due to the availability of real estate, distance to California, things to do (there's literally concerts nightly in their free time), and no State Income tax. Tampa being on the coast is another prime example. What a middle-6 guy might be able to afford in LA (condo on the beach) - they can own a property /home on the beach with less cost of living in Tampa for. You'd have to adjust far more than taxes to balance the draw here.... just note some guys seem not to take that in account for their seasons.
 
tucker3434 said:
No, certain markets will always have certain advantages or disadvantages. That’s just part of it. It’ll never be perfectly fair.
Click to expand...

How is it fair to draw a line in the sand there and say certain markets have advantages or disadvantages but the Leafs cannot use the power of being the most profitable franchise in the league?
 
No. That's not an issue for the NHL. That's for you to take up with your local government. Ppl pay higher taxes because they want better schools, good transportation, and better living conditions. It's not a penalty. You get STUFF for those taxes. Why should someone be compensated by the NHL for being able to afford to live in a nicer area that they chose to live in?
 
  • Like
Reactions: King'sPawn and Perfect_Drug
TOGuy14 said:
How is it fair to draw a line in the sand there and say certain markets have advantages or disadvantages but the Leafs cannot use the power of being the most profitable franchise in the league?
Click to expand...

Sounds like your problem is with the salary cap in general. That’s not going anywhere, and if we’re going to have one, there shouldn’t be any extra sliding scale tacked on.
 
Cane mutiny said:
No. That's not an issue for the NHL. That's for you to take up with your local government. Ppl pay higher taxes because they want better schools, good transportation, and better living conditions. It's not a penalty. You get STUFF for those taxes. Why should someone be compensated by the NHL for being able to afford to live in a nicer area that they chose to live in?
Click to expand...
Yup.

Even if I were making millions, I'd rather not have my children slaughtered at schools.

To each their own I suppose. At least you have rights to bear assault rifles. And up here in Canada we have the right to keep our children safe.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ResilientBeast and Cane mutiny
tucker3434 said:
Sounds like your problem is with the salary cap in general. That’s not going anywhere, and if we’re going to have one, there shouldn’t be any extra sliding scale tacked on.
Click to expand...

I assume that if someone supports the salary cap they are trying to create a level playing field for all teams, so I don't understand why they would be opposed to a cost of living / tax rate modifier to the cap to keep things fair.

Why should a team like TB get to pay star players 10-20% less AAV because of favorable tax rates compared to a team like Montreal?
 
TOGuy14 said:
I assume that if someone supports the salary cap they are trying to create a level playing field for all teams, so I don't understand why they would be opposed to a cost of living / tax rate modifier to the cap to keep things fair.

Why should a team like TB get to pay star players 10-20% less AAV because of favorable tax rates compared to a team like Montreal?
Click to expand...

I think the intent of the cap was to keep player salaries in check more than anything.

And as far as level playing fields go, the Toronto’s, New York’s, and LA’s aren’t having any trouble attracting talent as is. The NHL isn’t going to grant them additional cap space while telling the Arizona’s and Florida’s to pound sand. There is absolutely no incentive for the NHL to stack additional obstacles on those franchises. It’s kind of the opposite of what the NHL is going for.
 
  • Like
Reactions: T REX
TOGuy14 said:
I assume that if someone supports the salary cap they are trying to create a level playing field for all teams, so I don't understand why they would be opposed to a cost of living / tax rate modifier to the cap to keep things fair.

Why should a team like TB get to pay star players 10-20% less AAV because of favorable tax rates compared to a team like Montreal?
Click to expand...
The point being illustrated by cane mutiny is a good one.

I myself live in Montreal making a pretty decent wage. I am given plenty of opportinity to live in Miami, but I chose not to.

I like socioeconomic conditions of socialism provided in Canada.
 
At they end of the year they should just take the total income tax owed by all players and just distribute the whole debt among them in such a way that they all pay at the same rate
 
Seras said:
The cap was created for an even playing field So yes
Click to expand...
But it wasn't at all though. The 04 lockout didn't happen because there wasn't enough parity, it was because spending got out of control. An even playing field was just what they tried to sell to the fans.
 
Probably, but I'm sure the players and their agents enjoy being able to play Montreal off against Dallas. Might get them a few extra bucks either way.
 
jbeck5 said:
Certain places have minimal taxes and others have high taxes. For some star players this could be the difference of over a milion for income per year.

Should the cap be adjusted for post tax income instead of pretax income?

This would get rid of advantages teams from areas with barely any taxes for signing free agents.

On one hand it creates more parity, on the other hand it slightly complicates things.
Click to expand...


easier said then done

No all players live in the state/province they play in year round. For the longest time about 1/4 of the canucks lived in Blaine, Washington state and many players on US teams live in Canada during the off season

also people who live in different states or provinces at the same time have different tax they already pay. One reason why so many players have to spend a lot of money of tax accountants is because they are paying taxes in multiple places or even countries

Every time I see this thread it reminds me how linear thinking most people are understanding the complex nature of taxes whether it be local, state, federal or different countries.

Also, several cities have a jock tax already and so should we then factor in that some players will play in those cities more then others

Tax is a very complicated thing when it comes to multi-juristic filings it is ten times worse. For a few years I was paying tax in Canada, here in the UK and Australia --that did my head in

Given the OP position

should the cap also factor in whether or not a player is married with kids or single with kids? If he owns or rents?
 
It's true. A team like Dallas seems to get a whole bunch of good free agents all the time and that's why they've been winning so much!
 
I'm curious what the difference would be in earned salary between the team with the most taxes vs the team with the least taxes if both teams were spending to the cap. Couldn't it be a 10-15 million dollar difference if not more?
 
jbeck5 said:
I'm curious what the difference would be in earned salary between the team with the most taxes vs the team with the least taxes if both teams were spending to the cap. Couldn't it be a 10-15 million dollar difference if not more?
Click to expand...

I took Ovechkin as an example because his salary is a nice round $10M, and I am sure that this calculator is an oversimplification but it gives a rough idea:
Alex Ovechkin Post-Tax Earnings - CapFriendly - NHL Salary Caps

Florida / Dallas / Nashville have the lowest combined rate at 39.16%, Toronto / Montreal / Ottawa are listed as the highest around 53.1%, about a 14% difference.

This dated study shows which teams have the most preferential taxation rates:

https://www.taxpayer.com/media/CTF-HomeIceDisadvantage.pdf
 
jbeck5 said:
Certain places have minimal taxes and others have high taxes. For some star players this could be the difference of over a milion for income per year.

Should the cap be adjusted for post tax income instead of pretax income?

This would get rid of advantages teams from areas with barely any taxes for signing free agents.

On one hand it creates more parity, on the other hand it slightly complicates things.
Click to expand...
Yes Then we would have true parity.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HOF Paul Henderson
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom