It's counting the after-tax salary that's complex. Every player's tax profile is different.
Salary Cap: The three things ruining the NHL (Especially Canadian Teams)
- Thread starter thewave
- Start date
-
Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
Golden_Jet
Registered User
- Sep 21, 2005
- 28,370
- 15,162
Still wouldn’t work, certain players get deductions others wouldn’t get, ie one example is jock taxes etc.
How do you set the following years salary cap, when you don’t even know what taxes players paid.
ULF_55
Moderator
IMO the government involvement in leveling the playing surface is a non-starter.
No one should want any government involvement in professional sports, ever.
The NHL and the Players Association should address the unequal playing field.
Leveling the surface really would require balancing the Cap per tax jurisdiction.
This is a real issue, not a perceived issue. One player just signed a contract that defers payment 10 years beyond his playing career and part of the reasoning was to get more of that money in his pocket while living in a low tax state. That was stated in the media when it was being discussed. Obviously, there are other tax avoidance steps every individual can take, but the inequity is real.
The solution is beyond my abilities, and likely most of the posters here, as it would take an understanding of every tax law for all the states and provinces, and from what I've read in the past, where games are played, where players are legal residences of, and more than I know.
I'm sure tax laws change over time, last time I moved during the middle of the year to a new location, my return was based on where I resided at the end of the year, and my previous residence was irrelevant. Now I was an employee not a contractor, although many of my co-workers over the decades have been contractors and not employees, and most were incorporated. Some in same province some in other provinces. They paid themselves out of their incorporated companies, which also paid for their own benefits. Different tax rules apply, although over the years the government tried to call them employees if they contracted at the same location for "too long."
All this is to suggest, determining a formula to reward/increase and punish/reduce teams to arrive at a fair and equal Floor and Ceiling makes sense to me.
So a player of Matthews / marner level.
Where do you find that balancing point?
Do you use average NHL salary?
Do you use median
Just spit-balling ...
No one should want any government involvement in professional sports, ever.
The NHL and the Players Association should address the unequal playing field.
Leveling the surface really would require balancing the Cap per tax jurisdiction.
This is a real issue, not a perceived issue. One player just signed a contract that defers payment 10 years beyond his playing career and part of the reasoning was to get more of that money in his pocket while living in a low tax state. That was stated in the media when it was being discussed. Obviously, there are other tax avoidance steps every individual can take, but the inequity is real.
The solution is beyond my abilities, and likely most of the posters here, as it would take an understanding of every tax law for all the states and provinces, and from what I've read in the past, where games are played, where players are legal residences of, and more than I know.
I'm sure tax laws change over time, last time I moved during the middle of the year to a new location, my return was based on where I resided at the end of the year, and my previous residence was irrelevant. Now I was an employee not a contractor, although many of my co-workers over the decades have been contractors and not employees, and most were incorporated. Some in same province some in other provinces. They paid themselves out of their incorporated companies, which also paid for their own benefits. Different tax rules apply, although over the years the government tried to call them employees if they contracted at the same location for "too long."
All this is to suggest, determining a formula to reward/increase and punish/reduce teams to arrive at a fair and equal Floor and Ceiling makes sense to me.
So a player of Matthews / marner level.
Where do you find that balancing point?
Do you use average NHL salary?
Do you use median
Just spit-balling ...
Attachments
Larcos_Unal
Registered Nurse
53% tax is absolutely wild lolIMO the government involvement in leveling the playing surface is a non-starter.
No one should want any government involvement in professional sports, ever.
The NHL and the Players Association should address the unequal playing field.
Leveling the surface really would require balancing the Cap per tax jurisdiction.
This is a real issue, not a perceived issue. One player just signed a contract that defers payment 10 years beyond his playing career and part of the reasoning was to get more of that money in his pocket while living in a low tax state. That was stated in the media when it was being discussed. Obviously, there are other tax avoidance steps every individual can take, but the inequity is real.
The solution is beyond my abilities, and likely most of the posters here, as it would take an understanding of every tax law for all the states and provinces, and from what I've read in the past, where games are played, where players are legal residences of, and more than I know.
I'm sure tax laws change over time, last time I moved during the middle of the year to a new location, my return was based on where I resided at the end of the year, and my previous residence was irrelevant. Now I was an employee not a contractor, although many of my co-workers over the decades have been contractors and not employees, and most were incorporated. Some in same province some in other provinces. They paid themselves out of their incorporated companies, which also paid for their own benefits. Different tax rules apply, although over the years the government tried to call them employees if they contracted at the same location for "too long."
All this is to suggest, determining a formula to reward/increase and punish/reduce teams to arrive at a fair and equal Floor and Ceiling makes sense to me.
So a player of Matthews / marner level.
View attachment 981477
Where do you find that balancing point?
Do you use average NHL salary?
View attachment 981476
Do you use median
View attachment 981475
Just spit-balling ...
Golden_Jet
Registered User
- Sep 21, 2005
- 28,370
- 15,162
Marner yes, Matthews pays less than the Dallas example, due to points you already mentioned.IMO the government involvement in leveling the playing surface is a non-starter.
No one should want any government involvement in professional sports, ever.
The NHL and the Players Association should address the unequal playing field.
Leveling the surface really would require balancing the Cap per tax jurisdiction.
This is a real issue, not a perceived issue. One player just signed a contract that defers payment 10 years beyond his playing career and part of the reasoning was to get more of that money in his pocket while living in a low tax state. That was stated in the media when it was being discussed. Obviously, there are other tax avoidance steps every individual can take, but the inequity is real.
The solution is beyond my abilities, and likely most of the posters here, as it would take an understanding of every tax law for all the states and provinces, and from what I've read in the past, where games are played, where players are legal residences of, and more than I know.
I'm sure tax laws change over time, last time I moved during the middle of the year to a new location, my return was based on where I resided at the end of the year, and my previous residence was irrelevant. Now I was an employee not a contractor, although many of my co-workers over the decades have been contractors and not employees, and most were incorporated. Some in same province some in other provinces. They paid themselves out of their incorporated companies, which also paid for their own benefits. Different tax rules apply, although over the years the government tried to call them employees if they contracted at the same location for "too long."
All this is to suggest, determining a formula to reward/increase and punish/reduce teams to arrive at a fair and equal Floor and Ceiling makes sense to me.
So a player of Matthews / marner level.
View attachment 981477
Where do you find that balancing point?
Do you use average NHL salary?
View attachment 981476
Do you use median
View attachment 981475
Just spit-balling ...
Dreakmur
Registered User
It would make planning much simpler for the teams, but it doesn’t really address any of these questions.
Golden_Jet
Registered User
- Sep 21, 2005
- 28,370
- 15,162
Not really.
Like just set the cap at 95mil and that number is after tax. Let’s say player X will need to pay 4mil tax in Toronto and 3mil tax in Utah if he takes home 8mil after tax.
The 8mil will charge under the cap and the tax will be paid by whichever teams that signs him.
As long as the teams are willing to pay all the income tax of the players. It is not a difficult concept.
