An idea to level the playing field for the new cba in regards to tax rates in different cities.

[Throw More Waffles]

Take the city with the highest tax rate and “tax” every player in the nhl at that rate. The difference between the actual city tax rates and the players higher (in most cases) “tax rate” is added to the escrow.

This way every nhl player has the precise same deductions while still contributing to escrow and cities with higher tax rates won’t have to overpay players to sign them.

Click to read more...

 

[No Fun Shogun]

We literally just had an offseason where the most sought after free agent took a smaller salary offer from a team in a higher taxed city than a larger offer from a team in a lower taxed city. Taxes are a factor that players consider, but Tavares is the ultimate example that it's not the only or primary factor in player heads. If it was, we'd see a deluge of players going to lower or no-income tax state teams, and yet we haven't really seen that to any noticeable degree other than arguably Stamkos taking a good deal to stay with Tampa and that almost assuredly had more to do with him wanting to stay with an at the time unarguably better team that he was accustomed to.

I'm sorry, as a fan of a team in a fairly high-taxed market, this is making much ado about nothing and prioritizing one factor compared to any number of other factors that bounce around in player heads when they make free agency decisions. Should bad teams or boring/small markets or cities with high property taxes or teams with larger than average amounts of travel or literally any other potential negative factor under a free agent's consideration get competitive boosts, too? Not to mention that if a state or province jacks up their tax rates on a whim, what happens to all those long-term deals everywhere in the league, does the cap hit suddenly change across the board?

 

[Throw More Waffles]

We literally just had an offseason where the most sought after free agent took a smaller salary offer from a team in a higher taxed city than a larger offer from a team in a lower taxed city. Taxes are a factor that players consider, but Tavares is the ultimate example that it's not the only or primary factor in player heads. If it was, we'd see a deluge of players going to lower or no-income tax state teams, and yet we haven't really seen that to any noticeable degree other than arguably Stamkos taking a good deal to stay with Tampa and that almost assuredly had more to do with him wanting to stay with an at the time unarguably better team that he was accustomed to.

I'm sorry, as a fan of a team in a fairly high-taxed market, this is making much ado about nothing and prioritizing one factor compared to any number of other factors that bounce around in player heads when they make free agency decisions. Should bad teams or boring/small markets or cities with high property taxes or teams with larger than average amounts of travel or literally any other potential negative factor under a free agent's consideration get competitive boosts, too? Not to mention that if a state or province jacks up their tax rates on a whim, what happens to all those long-term deals everywhere in the league, does the cap hit suddenly change across the board?

The extent that players care about a cities tax rate when signing a contract is debatable. So I’m just saying remove the debate altogether and level the playing field.

 

[TCNorthstars]

Good luck getting the NHLPA to agree to that.

 

[cheswick]

The whole tax thing is completely blown out of proportion lately. Ever since some cap site but an incorrect tax calculator on it. Players pay taxes in every stat and province they play games in. Its far more complicated than player X plays in Florida so pays Y% tax.

I once heard an interview with a prominent NHL agent and this question came up, and he said that its so rare for any player to make a decision on where to sign based on the bottom line after taxes amount.

 

[Throw More Waffles]

Good luck getting the NHLPA to agree to that.

Why?

The money that’s already going to escrow will just be taken out of this pot.

 

[gstommylee]

That wouldn't even be legal.

 

[AdmiralsFan24]

And while we're at it, let's make sales tax rates exactly the same. And property taxes and since we're making property taxes the same let's make a 3,000 square foot house in Raleigh cost exactly the same as a 3,000 square foot house in San Jose.

 

[Throw More Waffles]

That wouldn't even be legal.

Wouldn’t it? They wouldn’t call it a tax. They would just alter escrow adjustments based on tax rates.

 

[Throw More Waffles]

And while we're at it, let's make sales tax rates exactly the same. And property taxes and since we're making property taxes the same let's make a 3,000 square foot house in Raleigh cost exactly the same as a 3,000 square foot house in San Jose.

Sure, a line has to be drawn somewhere.

But a difference of up to 20% of their income is pretty huge and is not a nitpick.

 

[gstommylee]

Wouldn’t it? They wouldn’t call it a tax. They would just alter escrow adjustments based on tax rates.

We are dealing with 2 different countries you have federal tax state/province taxes. Not all have income tax and some have a jock tax.

It's not going to happen.

 

[varsaku]

Have an adjusted after tax salary cap calculated for each team team based on their schedule. Someone from KPMG mentioned to me that players’ state tax is based on the location of the game.

 

[gstommylee]

Have an adjusted after tax salary cap calculated for each team team based on their schedule. Someone from KPMG mentioned to me that players’ state tax is based on the location of the game.

The only issue is comes to playoffs.

 

[varsaku]

The only issue is comes to playoffs.

Playoffs would have to be excluded in the adjusted cap, since that would add too many complexities. There will still be a slight difference but this will closen the gap significantly.

 

[mouser]

A solution in search of a problem.

 

[No Fun Shogun]

The extent that players care about a cities tax rate when signing a contract is debatable. So I’m just saying remove the debate altogether and level the playing field.

So, in other words, you admit that your idea is....

A solution in search of a problem.

... well, that.

I don't think a single person denies that taxes play a role in free agent consideration, but it's one of countless points both quantifiable and nonquantifiable that players consider when they decide where they want to go for their next stage of their career. The only real reason you see this come up is due to this perceived notion that some teams are at a massive competitive disadvantage as a result of taxes, at which point it has to be reiterated that multiple low-tax markets have had more than their fair share of issues attracting/retaining free agents while other high-tax markets have been able to get free agents to sign at a discount to join their squad. The only reason you see it brought up from a realistic standpoint is because some fans perceive it as a barrier for their team and thereby a competitive advantage to be had/evened out.

 

[powerstuck]

Wouldn’t it? They wouldn’t call it a tax. They would just alter escrow adjustments based on tax rates.

It wouldn't be legal per say. State where team A plays will prevent team A from taxing the player at a higher rate than that states tax.

 

[gstommylee]

It wouldn't be legal per say. State where team A plays will prevent team A from taxing the player at a higher rate than that states tax.

That's what what i mean by not legal.

 

[Throw More Waffles]

It wouldn't be legal per say. State where team A plays will prevent team A from taxing the player at a higher rate than that states tax.

Look at it this way.

If you play in a city with high taxes, you pay less escrow. If you play in a city with low taxes, you pay more escrow. All players have the same deductions, regardless of city.

 

[gstommylee]

Look at it this way.

If you play in a city with high taxes, you pay less escrow. If you play in a city with low taxes, you pay more escrow. All players have the same deductions, regardless of city.

That will never happen. They will never agree to it.

 

[Throw More Waffles]

That will never happen. They will never agree to it.

Why not? It’s the same overall deductions.

 

[mouser]

Look at it this way.

If you play in a city with high taxes, you pay less escrow. If you play in a city with low taxes, you pay more escrow. All players have the same deductions, regardless of city.

Let’s break this down:

A) Why would the players union ever want this to happen? It would be Player vs Player who loses the largest % of their paycheck to escrow. Disruptive to the NHLPA.

B) Why would the Owners ever want this to happen? Owner vs Owner who loses the biggest advantage in cap and payroll space if you believe taxes are truly that important. P.S. I don’t believe the owners think that.

 

[Throw More Waffles]

Let’s break this down:

A) Why would the players union ever want this to happen? It would be Player vs Player who loses the largest % of their paycheck to escrow. Disruptive to the NHLPA.

B) Why would the Owners ever want this to happen? Owner vs Owner who loses the biggest advantage in cap and payroll space if you believe taxes are truly that important. P.S. I don’t.

It would mean every nhl player would have the precise same percentage of deductions, totalling the same overall escrow payments.

In other words, the nhlpa is still making the same overall escrow. The owners are still getting the same overall escrow. But the playing field has been evened.

 

[Throw More Waffles]

A solution in search of a problem.

Nhl players will sit out for months of a season trying to negotiate things like 20% more than their offer.

But 20% more deductions in some cities doesn't matter to them at all? I just don't understand how that's possible.

 

[mouser]

It would mean every nhl player would have the precise same percentage of deductions, totalling the same overall escrow payments.

In other words, the nhlpa is still making the same overall escrow. The owners are still getting the same overall escrow. But the playing field has been evened.

Why would the collective members of the players union want this?

The players are already unhappy about escrow. Your solution involves a large % of those players getting their escrow rates jacked up so a similar % of players can have their escrow rates reduced.

I highly doubt the collective players union members would see this as some sort of “fair” change.