Should the NHL salary cap adjust for local income tax?
- Thread starter jbeck5
- Start date
- Status
Stuzchuk
Registered User
didnt the owners wanted that out at the last CBA and the PA refused it and wouldnt bend on that clause?
DickSmehlik
Registered User
Is this really a big issue? How many free agents in the past decade have declined to sign with a team, or decided to remain with a team, because of taxes?
Whatever the answer is, I doubt it is enough that we have to change the cap formula.
Whatever the answer is, I doubt it is enough that we have to change the cap formula.
DickSmehlik
Registered User
Also, I assumed many NHL players hire a team of lawyers and accountants to avoid paying taxes, just like a lot of the super rich in the United States.
No, because it would not shock me if jurisdictions start to base their tax policies on the cap implications for their local teams, especially in Canada. If the NHL can get states and municipalities to pony up for arenas, I don't see why the next step won't be, say the Maple Leafs lobbying Ontario to reduce income taxes for hockey players in an attempt to make it easier for them to sign John Tavares or whoever to come play for them. (Granted, I'm not Canadian, so I don't know if Ontario charges its own income tax, much less what it is).
And why not just make it more complicated and adjust it for cost of living. You can buy the same house in the nicest area of Arizona for probably one third of the price as you could in Los Angeles or Silicon Valley a/k/a San Jose.
And why not just make it more complicated and adjust it for cost of living. You can buy the same house in the nicest area of Arizona for probably one third of the price as you could in Los Angeles or Silicon Valley a/k/a San Jose.
That's my thought as well. It doesn't really matter what the stated tax rates are because there are so many tax deductions available that greatly reduce the actual tax paid. I'd be curious to know how the taxes are handled by players from other countries. Do they even pay US/Can taxes?
BenchBrawl
Registered User
- Jul 26, 2010
- 31,063
- 13,996
It's really complicated what players actually pay in taxes. Especially the big money earners can "hide" some of the money because they are entertainers and therefore corporations.
And where do people pay tax, where they work or where they live? With some many players having primary residences in various, states, provinces or country, no one on this site can say for sure what each player pays in taxes. The personal tax for each jurisdiction is rather meaningless.
And where do people pay tax, where they work or where they live? With some many players having primary residences in various, states, provinces or country, no one on this site can say for sure what each player pays in taxes. The personal tax for each jurisdiction is rather meaningless.
Assuming taxes are collected from the place of employment, would it be possible for the players to be NHL employees that are contracted to a team rather than players who sign contracts with teams? Basically the way temp employees work... Team A wants to sign Player 1 to a 5m/year contract... Player 1 signs the contract with the NHL with the understanding he will be contracted to Team A. Team A pays their payroll to the NHL. Lets say the NHL payroll/contract office is located in Toronto, all players would pay taxes based out of Toronto. I know there's probably going to be a problem with this method that I'm not seeing, but working on an hour of sleep haha.
Empoleon8771
Registered User
Problems with this idea:
1. It would be an absolute nightmare to adjust salary caps based on income tax, that's by far the biggest issue with this idea.
2. People who pay higher income taxes get some of that back when the city spends more money on public works, it's not like the money just disappears and you're comparing 2 equally good locations. The one with the higher taxes is going to have better public works.
3. At least in the NHL's case, places with higher income taxes likely have more opportunities for sponsorships and other off ice deals
4. Cost of living in different cities is different.
5. Money isn't everything with players, and for who the discussion is actually about, do you seriously think they'd pick one city over the other if they'll be making like $8 million regardless?
6. I also would imagine that some players use other addresses other than their current address for tax purposes. If your parents lived in rural NY and you now play for the Rangers, I wouldn't be surprised for a player to list his parents address on his W-4 forms.
This just sounds like sour fans of Canadian teams, mostly Leafs fans, that want an unfair advantage to attract guys like Stamkos to join their team.
1. It would be an absolute nightmare to adjust salary caps based on income tax, that's by far the biggest issue with this idea.
2. People who pay higher income taxes get some of that back when the city spends more money on public works, it's not like the money just disappears and you're comparing 2 equally good locations. The one with the higher taxes is going to have better public works.
3. At least in the NHL's case, places with higher income taxes likely have more opportunities for sponsorships and other off ice deals
4. Cost of living in different cities is different.
5. Money isn't everything with players, and for who the discussion is actually about, do you seriously think they'd pick one city over the other if they'll be making like $8 million regardless?
6. I also would imagine that some players use other addresses other than their current address for tax purposes. If your parents lived in rural NY and you now play for the Rangers, I wouldn't be surprised for a player to list his parents address on his W-4 forms.
This just sounds like sour fans of Canadian teams, mostly Leafs fans, that want an unfair advantage to attract guys like Stamkos to join their team.
Last edited:
What if a player signs in say Tampa for a lower cap hit locked into a five, six year contract because of taxes, then is promptly traded to Leafs/Habs? Unless you have a clause in your contract that says you can't be traded to teams with higher taxes, then it won't work. The NTC or NMC will drastically increase.
GeeoffBrown
Registered User
- Jul 6, 2007
- 6,323
- 4,428
There are lots of factors to consider.
For example, Winnipeg has 8% provincial sales tax, plus you have to convince a player to live in Winnipeg in the winter. Yet, the overall cost of living is relatively low.
Basically, you cannot make the playing field exactly level.
For example, Winnipeg has 8% provincial sales tax, plus you have to convince a player to live in Winnipeg in the winter. Yet, the overall cost of living is relatively low.
Basically, you cannot make the playing field exactly level.
When you have a situation like Stamkos that is offered the same contract by other teams but he made more money because Florida has no state income tax it is tough to argue.
What also makes it infuriating is that the cap limits teams like Tor, MTL, NYR etc from spending money to help teams like Fla,TB, ARI compete. If that how they want it fine but why should places like this have an advantage over teams who are willing to pay more?
What also makes it infuriating is that the cap limits teams like Tor, MTL, NYR etc from spending money to help teams like Fla,TB, ARI compete. If that how they want it fine but why should places like this have an advantage over teams who are willing to pay more?
No, the NHL should move all teams out of high tax areas so players are not expected to fund dysfunctional government policies
Kidding mostly
Kidding mostly
Brock Radunske
안양종합운동장 빙상장
- Aug 8, 2012
- 16,787
- 4,701
SHANNYPLAN
Registered User
- Nov 24, 2016
- 5,271
- 2,648
Should the cap be adjusted for each team based on their tax rate?
For example, let’s say player X can sign in Florida or Toronto for 8,000,000/season
In Florida they would get to keep all of (or most of that 8 million whereas in Toronto they would be getting less than half based on tax rates.
This gives the lower tax rate teams a huge advantage in signing players.
Should the Cap be increased for teams with higher tax rates to even out the playing field? How can it be done?
For example, let’s say player X can sign in Florida or Toronto for 8,000,000/season
In Florida they would get to keep all of (or most of that 8 million whereas in Toronto they would be getting less than half based on tax rates.
This gives the lower tax rate teams a huge advantage in signing players.
Should the Cap be increased for teams with higher tax rates to even out the playing field? How can it be done?
Bank Shot
Registered User
- Jan 18, 2006
- 11,737
- 7,542
People in Florida still pay federal income tax. The rate for NHLers is 40%, so the difference is not quite as dramatic as it might appear.
As for changes:
Well you could just make the salary cap based on net income.
You get say $50 million to spend based on net salaries after tax.
If a guy gets traded, his cap hit changes but salary remains the same.
This is a slippery slope though. What about sales tax? What about property taxes?
Purchasing a home in New York is going to be way more expensive than in Minneapolis. How do you take that into account?
SHANNYPLAN
Registered User
- Nov 24, 2016
- 5,271
- 2,648
I’m getting major déjà vu in this thread.
As stated previously if they were to adjust based on taxes, what about adjusting the cap for the standard of living? Cost of living? Availability of higher education for the kids? What if there is no Burger Baron
As stated previously if they were to adjust based on taxes, what about adjusting the cap for the standard of living? Cost of living? Availability of higher education for the kids? What if there is no Burger Baron
Dr Robot
Registered User
- Nov 3, 2011
- 1,643
- 1,393
PensPlz
Registered User
I don't know why people try to muddy the topic up with things like you've mentioned. If you're rich, these aren't going to be problems virtually anywhere you live. There is however very clear and obvious mismatch in the buying power of some teams within the cap versus others
- Status
