Should the salary cap be based on after tax salary

[Cenzo_]

The salary cap has a huge impact on teams. Due to the fact that it is based on salary before tax, this provides significant advantages to team in low tax area.

It can be really simple. The NHL determines what is the average salary between all NHL player, then assign to each NHL team the tax rate a person making the determined average salary in the city where the team is and this becomes the rate assign to a team for the whole season. Then the NHL sets a pre tax salary cap, and then the cap for each team is that amount after taxes.

For GMs, it is just another step to manage the cap, just multiply the rate given by the league to the team to the players salary.

I think this is quite simple and only make thing more fair

Click to read more...

 

[Morgs]

Helps the Leafs, so sure.

 

[mouser]

No. It's always been a silly idea.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

I want to say yes because California taxes suck, but that's a step towards a soft cap/luxury tax system.

 

[b1e9a8r5s]

Nope, silly idea.

 

[The Macho King]

No - awful idea.

 

[Cenzo_]

No. It's always been a silly idea.

Why is that? It is silly that teams have advantages over others due to the salary cap

 

[93LEAFS]

I'd love it if it was actually implementable realistically. But, it really isn't for a variety of reasons. First, how do you incorporate property taxes? Or just general sales tax? Secondly, owners will never touch it, because it leaves them massively exposed to dramatic tax changes which makes it difficult to project expenditures.

 

[b1e9a8r5s]

Why is that? It is silly that teams have advantages over others due to the salary cap

1) Every city/market has advantages and disadvantages over the others. Some markets have better housing or night life. Others have better weather. There's pros and cons to each market.

2) Tax rates change. What happens if the state of Illinois raises their taxes? All of the Hawks take home pay goes down, so they have more cap space? The cap is there to make sure the teams can spend the same as each other, not to insure every player takes home the same pay. Because Illinois has a hire or lower tax rate than other markets, doesn't change the amount of money the Hawks can spend, nor should it.

Teams can't beholden to unexpected tax rate changes that they can't control and only effects what their team spends and not anyone else.

 

[Howboutthempanthers]

Until I see homegrown talent signings being affected negatively by tax rates, I don't see a problem.

 

[ijuka]

It would need to be recalculated after every single season's schedule is released. In other words, it'd be a complete mess.

 

[mouser]

It would need to be recalculated after every single season's schedule is released. In other words, it'd be a complete mess.

Not only that, but two players on the same team could have identical "salaries" but end up paying different amounts of tax. For example, many of the European players on Canadian teams probably have much lower effective tax rates then you'd think.

 

[Maukkis]

Too many moving parts for my liking. How would you trade players if their cap hits changed drastically upon switching teams?

 

[kij]

So teams in a high taxed area would have a higher amount of cap space. That means they just have more money to spend. The cap is against the teams not against the players. No matter the tax rates in town, each team still pays out the same amount of money to the players.

 

[Cenzo_]

1) Every city/market has advantages and disadvantages over the others. Some markets have better housing or night life. Others have better weather. There's pros and cons to each market.

2) Tax rates change. What happens if the state of Illinois raises their taxes? All of the Hawks take home pay goes down, so they have more cap space? The cap is there to make sure the teams can spend the same as each other, not to insure every player takes home the same pay. Because Illinois has a hire or lower tax rate than other markets, doesn't change the amount of money the Hawks can spend, nor should it.

Teams can't beholden to unexpected tax rate changes that they can't control and only effects what their team spends and not anyone else.

It can be really simple. The NHL determines what is the average salary between all NHL player, then assign to each NHL team the tax rate a person making the determined average salary in the city where the team is and this becomes the rate assign to a team for the whole season. Then the NHL sets a pre tax salary cap, and then the cap for each team is that amount after taxes.

For GMs, it is just another step to manage the cap, just multiply the rate given by the league to the team to the players salary.

I think this is quite simple and only make thing more fair

 

[Devil Dancer]

Just curious, how would that work in multi-jurisdictional regions like the NYC area or DC? Would it be based on taxes in NYC, or some weird average of NY, NJ and CT? Same thing for DC, VA and MD.

 

[Makar Goes Fast]

players get paid per game, and taxed based on where the game takes place

 

[triggrman]

It's a cop out. Turris signed in Nashville with no trade protection. So it wasn't about the tax break.

 

[ole ole]

The salary cap has a huge impact on teams. Due to the fact that it is based on salary before tax, this provides significant advantages to team in low tax area.

Yes it should be. Level the playing field for everyone. The cap was brought in to level the playing field but they forgot about tax difference in different markets.

 

[ole ole]

So teams in a high taxed area would have a higher amount of cap space. That means they just have more money to spend. The cap is against the teams not against the players. No matter the tax rates in town, each team still pays out the same amount of money to the players.

Would you go play in toronto for 8 mil a season but lose 40 % in taxes or would you rather play in another market where you only lose 20% of that same 8 mil.That;; not a level playing field.

 

[b1e9a8r5s]

Yes it should be. Level the playing field for everyone. The cap was brought in to level the playing field but they forgot about tax difference in different markets.

Cost of living is more in some cities. Players in Toronto can make more in endorsements than in Florida? Should that be accounted for.

The cap is to limit what teams can spend.

 

[Eternal Leaf]

Can't do it unless the tax rate was fixed in place forever.

The moment it moves up or down, a team's entire cap becomes a mess.

 

[Ducks in a row]

No way

 

[Critical13]

Yes

 

[mouser]

I must confess that I'm confounded why the teams in "low tax areas" aren't piling up Stanley Cups if it's such a big competitive advantage.

 

[DonM]

We should just punish every team for any incentive their city or state has to live there, whether financial or otherwise. Only then will Winnipeg and Edmonton truly dominate.

Also it would be hilarious when a state lowered their taxes mid season, leading to cap teams being unable to ice a full roster because they're now over the cap.