Melrose Munch
Registered User
- Mar 18, 2007
- 24,247
- 2,316
didnt the owners wanted that out at the last CBA and the PA refused it and wouldnt bend on that clause?Why not just eliminate NTCs and NMCs? That's the real problem anyway.
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.
Yup.didnt the owners wanted that out at the last CBA and the PA refused it and wouldnt bend on that clause?
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?
Lots of good points... definitely a complicated topicPeople 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?
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