Even with the jock tax, your saving a lot more playing in Florida secondary to state income tax than other destinations.
Cost of living is higher in Toronto than Miami, Tampa by most accounts..not sure what this has to do with Toronto but whatever. Either way, cost of living falls under the perks that are subject for any given NHL player to gauge the value there of (when deciding a FA destination) as compared to weather, nightlife, media pressure, or whatever else they value. Those don't fall under the scope of the CBA. And those aren't things the NHL can control or has tried to control with the salary cap.
Radulov took more money to sign in Dallas over Montreal just this offseason. Since you asked for factoid examples, I don't think that is relevant regardless but whatever.
The fact that this fiscal advantadge exists- as it pertains to NHL salary, when it is inherently designed by the NHL to provide financial parity, as it pertains to NHL salaries- shows that there is a inherent design flaw in the CBA.That's the point you seem to overlook, you keep naming off either extremes, hypotheticals, or mostly, factoids that have nothing to do within the context of NHL salary, under the pretense of the CBA in the NHL.
I don't expect the NHL to regulate how Walmart will pay any given player to endorse any given product. They are two separate private entities. What does endorsements have to do with anything? Those are perks that may or may not get a given free agent to sign somewhere. The NHL doesn't control that, nor should they.
As I said earlier, I think your overstating them either way, I'm not convinced either way Crosby would make a sizeable amount more in third party endorsement money playing in Canada. And on the other extreme, I don't think Matt Martin makes anything significantly more playing in Toronto/Canada- a point you've seem to harp on for a little while here.
https://capfriendly.com/post_tax_calculator/alexander-radulov Here is a reference for you to see how much of an impact state taxes have on NHL salaries- under the pretense of the cap, designed by the NHL in the first place. Is this parity to you?
According to said reference, Radulov makes a little more than ~1 million in net salary alone this year playing in Dallas versus Montreal.
Yes, you pay less with the jock tax than in income tax. My point isn’t that the jock tax makes up for it. My point is that living Florida isn’t some easy street just because there is no income tax. There are numerous other local and state ordinances that Florida uses to 'tax' their residents to collect income. Afterall, the state has to function somehow, right? These are also not controlled by the NHL or CBA, but ultimately affect a players real salary. And while I’m sure you’ll lump this into the consequences of choosing that as your location, these are taxes just like income taxes.
Ive checked numerous cost of living calculators, and most put Miami well above Toronto. I chose toronto because I assume you live near that area, and it may drive the point home a little. I also suspect its one of the more expensive cities to live in in Canada, though i havent looked. You say that those are things not under control of the NHL or CBA, but ultimately, they effect a players real salary. So if you want to go granular and regulate salaries based on tax rates, it goes without saying that cost of living would be the next step. Where do you feel comfortable drawing the line in the interest of parity?
Radulov signed for the same amount that the Canadiens offered, according to multiple sources. The catch is that the Canadiens tried to sign him for less up front and didn’t make the same offer as Dallas until after he had already agreed to join Dallas. So Dallas was interested in paying him a higher wage regardless. You could say he went there for money, but you can pretty easily justify that decision based on contention (no offense, Montreal), and putting himself in a better situation with better teammates. But at the end of the day - If Dallas is willing to pay him the same as the canadiens, there isnt an 'advantage' for the team is it?
Maybe this is what's driving our disagreement, I’m not sure. But the cap isn’t designed to lower player's salary, directly, anyway – that’s what the 20% max contract rule is for.
The salary cap, imo, is designed to limit the team's spending in order to not allow 'super teams' a la the NBA (its actually officially referenced in the CBA as the "Upper limit of the Payroll Range" which would imply a limit to total spending, not individual), and not allow teams with more financial backing to overrun the league. Now, it does provide a glass ceiling type effect (you have a given budget, and 23 spots to fill, and numerous people attempting to fill said 23 positions, so 'superstars' aren’t really effected since they’re going to make cash either way. It does have an effect on your lower tier players fighting for those last roster spots – who might have to sacrifice some earning in order to play, but this effect it likely minimal, and would be universal among all teams), but it doesnt limit the per person spending. Which takes me back to my original point: If a player is willing to sign for 6 million in Texas, and 6 million in Montreal (or, pick any other non-florida, non-texas team, it makes no difference, im just using the Radulov example here), what is the advantage to the team, who the "salary cap" is designed to restrict? Sure, the player may make more - but as I’ve already stated and provided examples for - no one is choosing Florida or Texas just to make money. Radulov counts as the same % of the cap in Texas as he would have had he re-signed in Montreal at the same rate.
Income tax has no effect on a team’s operation or cap. They are cutting a player who earns 8 million a year an 8 million dollar check whether they are in Montreal, Dallas, Alberta, Philadelphia, or California. Once that check is cut, the player’s monies are then taxed according to federal and local tax rates that are dictated by entities outside of the NHL. Saying that it disrupts the idea of the CBA is just inherently false unless you believe the salary cap was designed to solely limit player salaries, which it wasn’t. It was designed to allow each team a relatively even (and minimum, mind you) playing field to play on, in order to avoid the incredibly boring product that the NBA is currently putting on display.
Until players start signing for less in no-income tax states than they are in taxed states in comparison to similar status talents (again, Florida has 3 of the highest earning defensemen in the NHL, players aren’t signing for less money to play there, and Florida teams are being hit with the same levels of AAV/Cap hits on those contracts against their caps), in order to “make the same” without an ulterior motive – which is never going to be possible to prove – you can’t say that the income tax provides an unfair advantage. All it is, is just another ‘cost of living’ factor that, once you get to a UFA eligible age – are free to consider when signing your next contract.
I do have to say - its been enjoyable to have a conversation with you without it resorting to personal attacks. I appreciate your stance on the topic, and am glad we could talk about it civilly, despite not agreeing.