HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   The Business of Hockey (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=124)
-   -   Players on Canadian teams dinged on pension (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=1299291)

cbcwpg 11-29-2012 07:51 AM

Players on Canadian teams dinged on pension
 
Players on Canadian teams dinged on pension

http://www.calgaryherald.com/sports/...656/story.html

The NHL pension plan is funded and administered jointly by the league and the players’ association. For the first 160 games of a player’s career, he gets $24,000 a season in his pension fund, regardless of where he plays. But things get more complicated after a player has logged the equivalent of two full seasons in the NHL.

The annual payments jump to about $50,000 a year — the actual amount varies depending on exchange rates — but Canadian tax laws cap pension contributions at $24,000. A Canadian player gets $24,000 dumped into his pension account and receives a cheque for the remaining amount — after the tax man takes his cut.

Darche added that the NHLPA is lobbying the federal government for an exemption that would allow more money to be placed into the pension fund.

“The difference is huge,” Darche said. “A player who plays 15 seasons with a U.S. team will have about $1 million in his pension account, while a player with a Canadian team would have $375,000.”

MrFunnyWobbl 11-29-2012 07:54 AM

You left out the comparison to an average persons pension.

Dojji* 11-29-2012 08:23 AM

Not sure it's relevant TBH. what we have here is teams that have yet another competitive disadvantage when trying to collect talent.

Holdurbreathe 11-29-2012 08:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrFunnyWobbl (Post 56111535)
You left out the comparison to an average persons pension.

The average person doesn't get the top jobs in any industry or the pensions that go with them.

Every time I see this type of argument, all it seems to suggest is bitterness for being average and envy of those that aren't.

HabsByTheBay 11-29-2012 08:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Holdurbreathe (Post 56112071)
The average person doesn't get the top jobs in any industry or the pensions that go with them.

Every time I see this type of argument, all it seems to suggest is bitterness for being average and envy of those that aren't.

Also it's misplaced anger. People have crappy pensions. NHL players aren't the reason why. Cheapskate employers are.

coldsteelonice84 11-29-2012 08:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Holdurbreathe (Post 56112071)
The average person doesn't get the top jobs in any industry or the pensions that go with them.

Every time I see this type of argument, all it seems to suggest is bitterness for being average and envy of those that aren't.

Yeah, no ****ing kidding. You want big money, find a way to make it. You don't, be happy with what you have. The ****ing sense of entitlement and bitterness is mortifying.

predfan98 11-29-2012 08:53 AM

They can start drawing pension-- a guaranteed amount-- at age 45. Guaranteed and administered by the union......

UsernameWasTaken 11-29-2012 09:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrFunnyWobbl (Post 56111535)
You left out the comparison to an average persons pension.

what does that have to do with anything? :shakehead

Quote:

Originally Posted by coldsteelonice84 (Post 56112191)
Yeah, no ****ing kidding. You want big money, find a way to make it. You don't, be happy with what you have. The ****ing sense of entitlement and bitterness is mortifying.

No kidding. I find the obsession with the "lowest common denominator" around here incredibly obnoxious. How many posts have I see of people whining "last year my boss told me and the other cashiers at the campus photocopying store that we had to take a pay cut so i agreed because it was better than getting fired and it's so unfair that the players get paid a lot of money in bad economic times, that's not the way business works!!1!!1" :shakehead

coldsteelonice84 11-29-2012 10:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UsernameWasTaken (Post 56112789)
No kidding. I find the obsession with the "lowest common denominator" around here incredibly obnoxious. How many posts have I see of people whining "last year my boss told me and the other cashiers at the campus photocopying store that we had to take a pay cut so i agreed because it was better than getting fired and it's so unfair that the players get paid a lot of money in bad economic times, that's not the way business works!!1!!1" :shakehead

Yeah...this is a 100% fact and a lesson in life to anyone who wants / needs it. If you are not pushing forward, you are left behind. And that's totally fine, there is nothing wrong with being content with your current situation, you earned it and if it makes you happy, be happy, God bless you. However, if you are not happy, do not look onto others with jealousy, it is counterproductive to your own progress and if you wanted sympothy from others, you surely are not going to get it that way. I don't care if it is the NHL players, the neighbor next door, the guy from high school you thought was a loser that is driving a luxury car now...doesn't matter.

mouser 11-29-2012 10:36 AM

Surprised no one asked the question: what's the motivation for Canada to cap pension contributions to $24k/year?

epo 11-29-2012 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mouser (Post 56114135)
Surprised no one asked the question: what's the motivation for Canada to cap pension contributions to $24k/year?

Tax allocation base on our society's values.

TrillMike 11-29-2012 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by predfan98 (Post 56112221)
They can start drawing pension-- a guaranteed amount-- at age 45. Guaranteed and administered by the union......

This ^. Is it fair that other guys doing the same thing in south of the border have a lot more? Probably not, but compared to the average guy/gal who might retire around the age of 60-65 (if they're lucky)... C'mon.

Ari91 11-29-2012 11:39 AM

Why can't they just put the remainder of it in an RRSP account instead?

epo 11-29-2012 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HockeyCrazed101 (Post 56115461)
Why can't they just put the remainder of it in an RRSP account instead?

That's what they are doing in the first place.

barneyg 11-29-2012 12:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mouser (Post 56114135)
Surprised no one asked the question: what's the motivation for Canada to cap pension contributions to $24k/year?

Pension contributions reduce taxable income in the year they are made, and payments (withdrawals) are taxed in the year retirees get them. So in essence a pension contribution (a) defers taxes on the part of your income that you put aside for your old days, and (b) therefore lets you invest using pre-tax money.

The greater the contribution, the greater the deferred taxes, and the greater the "pre-tax investment" advantage. Wealthier people (e.g. including NHL players) can afford to make greater contributions so they benefit the most from those rules. Canada caps pension contributions to limit that benefit for wealthier people.

edit: What Darche leaves out is that to get to $1 million, the guy on a US team needs to contribute more to his pension than his Canadian team counterpart. So it's not really $1 million vs. $375k, more like $1 million vs. ($375k + whatever the Canadian team guy was able to do with the reduced contributions). $1 million is still going to be bigger but it's not quite the margin Darche alluded to.

sunnyvale420 11-29-2012 01:07 PM

Should you qualify for ANY sort of pension if you have made over 10 million dollars in your working career? This goes for business owners, joe blow employee, sports athletes, government...

kdb209 11-29-2012 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by predfan98 (Post 56112221)
They can start drawing pension-- a guaranteed amount-- at age 45. Guaranteed and administered by the union......

The NHL Pension Plans (there are separate plans for players on US and Canadian teams) are no longer defined benefits plans (and haven't been since 1986) - they are defined contribution plans.

The League and the NHLPA make annual contributions to individual fully vested retirement accounts for each player - the amount (and currency) is based on whether a player as > 160 games credited. The player may then choose how the funds are invested - the available investment fund options are defined by the Plan Trustees.

Ari91 11-29-2012 03:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by epo (Post 56115513)
That's what they are doing in the first place.


So then Darche's comment is based on a situation where a player doesn't put the remaining money in RRSPs? He said you get back 13k and if you're smart you invest it but if they have RRSP accounts, the transfer could go straight to their accounts and that isn't taxable until you withdraw money out of it. Also, it might be an issue for players who make around league minimum because I think an RRSP contribution can't be more than 18% of your annual income.

veganhunter 11-29-2012 05:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UsernameWasTaken (Post 56112789)
what does that have to do with anything? :shakehead



No kidding. I find the obsession with the "lowest common denominator" around here incredibly obnoxious. How many posts have I see of people whining "last year my boss told me and the other cashiers at the campus photocopying store that we had to take a pay cut so i agreed because it was better than getting fired and it's so unfair that the players get paid a lot of money in bad economic times, that's not the way business works!!1!!1" :shakehead

I don't disagree with this in theory but the NHLPA insist on making ridiculous comparison to themselves and the common working man. I think a lot of these comparison are borne out of that. I mean you can't have it both ways.

barneyg 11-30-2012 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HockeyCrazed101 (Post 56122087)
So then Darche's comment is based on a situation where a player doesn't put the remaining money in RRSPs? He said you get back 13k and if you're smart you invest it but if they have RRSP accounts, the transfer could go straight to their accounts and that isn't taxable until you withdraw money out of it. Also, it might be an issue for players who make around league minimum because I think an RRSP contribution can't be more than 18% of your annual income.

The 18% rule only applies if you make less than ~$130,000/year. If you make more than that, the cap is fixed at ~$24,000 (18% of $130k).

The $24,000 pension contribution IS already dumped into the player's RRSP -- Darche can't put anything else in it. So he has to pay taxes on the additional cheque he gets. Then he can put a small part of it into a TFSA ($5k/year) but if he invests the rest, if will be in a non-registered account and he will therefore have to pay taxes on interest/dividends/capital gains every year after that.

Fourier 11-30-2012 04:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cbcwpg (Post 56111517)
Players on Canadian teams dinged on pension

http://www.calgaryherald.com/sports/...656/story.html

The NHL pension plan is funded and administered jointly by the league and the players’ association. For the first 160 games of a player’s career, he gets $24,000 a season in his pension fund, regardless of where he plays. But things get more complicated after a player has logged the equivalent of two full seasons in the NHL.

The annual payments jump to about $50,000 a year — the actual amount varies depending on exchange rates — but Canadian tax laws cap pension contributions at $24,000. A Canadian player gets $24,000 dumped into his pension account and receives a cheque for the remaining amount — after the tax man takes his cut.

Darche added that the NHLPA is lobbying the federal government for an exemption that would allow more money to be placed into the pension fund.

“The difference is huge,” Darche said. “A player who plays 15 seasons with a U.S. team will have about $1 million in his pension account, while a player with a Canadian team would have $375,000.”

Hockey players are certainly not the only people who are subject to this rule. Why would they deserve an exemption that others would not receive. They are already much more likely to have a secure future than others for whom this rule applies? I can see the arguement that their earning years are limited, but this is about it. Politically, this would be a very dicey move.

Noob616 11-30-2012 04:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mouser (Post 56114135)
Surprised no one asked the question: what's the motivation for Canada to cap pension contributions to $24k/year?

Because we hate rich people.

Silver 11-30-2012 04:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourier (Post 56146867)
Hockey players are certainly not the only people who are subject to this rule. Why would they deserve an exemption that others would not receive. They are already much more likely to have a secure future than others for whom this rule applies?

A lot of those same guys getting dinged on the pension do better in other ways by being in Canada. I don't see Corey Perry in ads for Wells Fargo like Iggy does for Scotiabank.

Maybe they should equalize that out as well? :sarcasm:


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:33 PM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.