Toggle sidebar

Should the NHL salary cap adjust for local income tax?

Status
Not open for further replies.
We've had a thread on here (today) where people were seriously suggesting that Toronto not only sign Tavares to a wink-wink 9 year deal, but also include clauses guaranteeing endorsements as incentive to sign with the Leafs. Get outta here with this tired taxes argument.

Life is life. Some cities are attractive and some aren't. Some teams are attractive, some aren't. Let's quit with trying to completely level the playing field already.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mouser, GoldOnGold, Empoleon8771 and 2 others
Melrose Munch said:
yup.

Where does this idea come from? The cap is about cost certainty and nothing else.
Click to expand...

Primarily yeah, but people who think the only purpose is cost certainty are thinking too narrowly here imo.

The cap being created most definitely was also partly result of there being a wide divide between the haves and have nots of the league
 
  • Like
Reactions: Melrose Munch
glovesave_35 said:
We've had a thread on here (today) where people were seriously suggesting that Toronto not only sign Tavares to a wink-wink 9 year deal, but also include clauses guaranteeing endorsements as incentive to sign with the Leafs. Get outta here with this tired taxes argument.

Life is life. Some cities are attractive and some aren't. Some teams are attractive, some aren't. Let's quit with trying to completely level the playing field already.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I mean who wants economic parity. If a team chooses not to spend to a cap that's their prerogative but the system today says money in Tampa or other states with no state tax is essentially more valuable than elsewhere. Systemic issues that affect buying power should be corrected.

And you won't find many leaf fans who truly believe such a deal with Tavares would happen
 
Sypher04 said:
Yeah, I mean who wants economic parity. If a team chooses not to spend to a cap that's their prerogative but the system today says money in Tampa or other states with no state tax is essentially more valuable than elsewhere. Systemic issues that affect buying power should be corrected.

And you won't find many leaf fans who truly believe such a deal with Tavares would happen
Click to expand...

In another post you mentioned finances and empirical data. Cost of living is empirical and that varies by city. It really has nothing to do with pro sports. If 9 million in Dallas lets you live better than 9 million in Toronto or NY, so be it. Lots and lots of people would take the equal money in the more expensive city for any number of reasons. And "Free" Agency allows them to do so.

You know how people are using the "going home" narrative for Tavares. Or how they used it for Stamkos. Or how they use it with literally any player from southern Ontario? How many "going home" stories do you think there are for places like Texas, Nashville, or Florida? How can we balance that out in the salary cap equation?

Also, whoever keeps mentioning that the salary cap was never intended to be about parity first and foremost is correct. The owners wanted cost certainty. The level playing field bit was just a by-product and something they could feed fans who they have screwed out of games twice in the last 14 years.
 
Why is it always Leafs fans starting these kind of threads complaining about taxes with the salary cap? Well, I know exactly why it is, but humor me.
 
glovesave_35 said:
In another post you mentioned finances and empirical data. Cost of living is empirical and that varies by city. It really has nothing to do with pro sports. If 9 million in Dallas lets you live better than 9 million in Toronto or NY, so be it. Lots and lots of people would take the equal money in the more expensive city for any number of reasons. And "Free" Agency allows them to do so.

You know how people are using the "going home" narrative for Tavares. Or how they used it for Stamkos. Or how they use it with literally any player from southern Ontario? How many "going home" stories do you think there are for places like Texas, Nashville, or Florida? How can we balance that out in the salary cap equation?

Also, whoever keeps mentioning that the salary cap was never intended to be about parity first and foremost is correct. The owners wanted cost certainty. The level playing field bit was just a by-product and something they could feed fans who they have screwed out of games twice in the last 14 years.
Click to expand...

Cost of living isn't the problem. I've been very clear this whole time that I think cost of living has no place in this argument as it does not relate to the cap or taxes. This is for a number of reasons. 1) cost of living is what you do with your money AFTER you've made it, not what you make therefore it's outside the scope of the cap imo 2) cost of living is relative not only to state, or country, but the city as well... far too many variables. Point 1 however is really the beginning and ending of the argument though in my eyes.

The "going home" narrative, which I'd like to point out is mostly perpetuated by the media, moreso than the fanbase in a place like Toronto, and I'd imagine others as well, is also outside the scope of this argument. Because, the pull of a player perhaps wanting to return to their hometown to play hockey is not a financial matter, it's emotional.

As for the salary cap. Yes, as I said before, it's primary reason for existing was cost certainty but anyone who thinks the parity was just a happy bi-product is kidding themselves. Before the cap there was a lot of noise about the inability of budget teams (of which there were a lot) to compete. I think it's naive to think those owners were not actively looking for a solution to those issues as well and highly receptive to the cap for those reasons.
 
Crede777 said:
Players don't just pay income tax to the state or province of their home team. They pay income tax in every state or province they play in.

Panthers players for instance pay California income tax for each day they play in California.
Click to expand...
Huh? This seems entirely wrong on the face of it. Being a proffesional athlete and more working visas might make a difference but isn’t it based upon company (team) location and home addresses with some different states having reciprocal agreements. For example, PA residents only paying PA taxes even though they work in MD.
 
Empoleon8771 said:
Why is it always Leafs fans starting these kind of threads complaining about taxes with the salary cap? Well, I know exactly why it is, but humor me.
Click to expand...

I don't know about always, but being one of the highest tax markets in the NHL (second only to Montreal by a like 0.03%) it really shouldn't be surprising.
 
I'm against this type of thinking, but Los Angeles, New York ,
And Anaheim just as a few examples, do have absurdly high taxes,
As well as very high cost of living

I do not know enough about other cities, but I know there are more

Seattle will bring in another no income tax team

Again, I'm against it. But in a cap situation, I certainly understand the thoughts on it.....
I had to deal with earning in multiple states and countries and the tax prep is a nightmare
 
pbgoalie said:
I'm against this type of thinking, but Los Angeles, New York ,
And Anaheim just as a few examples, do have absurdly high taxes,
As well as very high cost of living

I do not know enough about other cities, but I know there are more

Seattle will bring in another no income tax team

Again, I'm against it. But in a cap situation, I certainly understand the thoughts on it.....
I had to deal with earning in multiple states and countries and the tax prep is a nightmare
Click to expand...

Yeah, Florida, Tampa, Dallas, Nashville & Vegas all have a tax rate of 36.31%

Meanwhile, Anaheim, LA, San Jose, both New York teams, Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver, Winnipeg & Ottawa are 49% or more.

This is based on a $5,000,000 salary btw
 
Sypher04 said:
It's all still the same amount of money, tax and cap regardless of how they opted to pay it.
Click to expand...

Oh I do know that, what I meant is in places like Canada if you make over $1,000,000 the government could take half of that unless you were to own a business, as to which some NHL players do to avoid that, or do what PK Subban did and donate a huge sum of it to a Children's hospital. But when you think about it an NHL players salary is pretty much half of what they make so that's why they have bonuses, so that they can get their whole salary they signed up for and the bonus pretty much covers up what they have to pay in taxes.
 
4thTierSport said:
Huh? This seems entirely wrong on the face of it. Being a proffesional athlete and more working visas might make a difference but isn’t it based upon company (team) location and home addresses with some different states having reciprocal agreements. For example, PA residents only paying PA taxes even though they work in MD.
Click to expand...
It's called the Jock Tax. Jock tax - Wikipedia
 
Hypothetical mystery player has the option of going to UFA:

TBL offers him 7x8.5
TOR also offers him 7x8.5

Over the course of that 7 year deal he would make $9,815,624 more in Tampa than he would in Toronto.

For the Leafs to match that deal they would have to increase their offer to just a sliver under 11.5 million per year
 
  • Like
Reactions: DanM
Although this would never happen, and taxes are a state, provincial, and or federal issue, it is frustrating.

The league went out of it's way to create parity, and I get why, but they totally neutered the advantages teams like NYR, MTL, and TML had when it came to being able to use it's financial might, and while we paid to help smaller southern markets on top of it.

Not saying we had proper management in place for years in Toronto when we could spend, but the smaller markets with great weather/less taxes have a clear advantage over the markets who basically built the NHL in the first place.

Not all markets should be or have been created equal. Everyone should be able to utilize their advantages.
 
I think the easiest thing would be to have all teams have an office in a no tax state like Florida and let them sign a percentage of their salary as a signing bonus to make it even. Would that work?

That way they make their money in a no tax state and it evens up take home.
 
DanM said:
Although this would never happen, and taxes are a state, provincial, and or federal issue, it is frustrating.

The league went out of it's way to create parity, and I get why, but they totally neutered the advantages teams like NYR, MTL, and TML had when it came to being able to use it's financial might, and while we paid to help smaller southern markets on top of it.

Not saying we had proper management in place for years in Toronto when we could spend, but the smaller markets with great weather/less taxes have a clear advantage over the markets who basically built the NHL in the first place.

Not all markets should be or have been created equal. Everyone should be able to utilize their advantages.
Click to expand...

I think anything you can do to sell the city to a prospective player is fair game, but the system itself should not basically have differing values of the cap in different locations. I concede it's a complex issue though, and I don't pretend to be the one with the answer on the best way to fix it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DanM
Sypher04 said:
I think anything you can do to sell the city to a prospective player is fair game, but the system itself should not basically have differing values of the cap in different locations. I concede it's a complex issue though, and I don't pretend to be the one with the answer on the best way to fix it.
Click to expand...

Agreed

The complexity of trying to fix this would be too much for any league to want to consider tweaking.

I think cities should help themselves by selling what they have to offer, and should be able to fully supplement salaries with endorsement deal after endorsement deal.

Times have also changed, and with the type of money being made today, players want to live in warm climates with less tax. They also seem to value more privacy and financial stability as opposed to playing for legendary franchises.

I remember watching old time videos of how proud the players were to play for historic teams, times and priorities are just too different for todays athletes.

If I am an NHL player, I would want to win in a place like Toronto or Montreal over everything, you would be a god forever.
 
DanM said:
If I am an NHL player, I would want to win in a place like Toronto or Montreal over everything, you would be a god forever.
Click to expand...

If I'm an NHL player, I want to make the most amount of money to support my family in a safe neighborhood with great weather. Not everyone wants to be a celebrity.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DanM
As long as they account for cost of living, sales tax, desirability of location, nightlife, endorsement contracts, etc. as well
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom