Thread: A thought
View Single Post
Old
09-16-2004, 12:02 PM
  #2
fan mao rong
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: port royal , pa
Posts: 968
vCash: 500
A luxury tax doesn't do anything of consequence. Especially tripe like the union's 2 proposals. A 10% tax on payrolls over 50 million is a joke. If a team overspends the 50 million guideline by 10 million dollars it will pay an extra 1 million in a tax. A real luxury tax that would get into ownership stated objectives would start at 20 million and tax dollar for dollar over the limit. Then the bigger teams would pay out maybe 40 million total while only 30 million going to the players. But even at that lower revenue teams would be pressured to match to keep their players.. And if a team wants to be competetive it has to keep its players. The assets of a team are its players. A luxury tax would curtail the spending, somewhat , of higher revenue teams. This is not about curtailing the payroll of higher revenue teams. It is about enabling lower revenue teams to keep their players.

fan mao rong is offline