View Single Post
11-02-2012, 01:52 PM
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 5,550
vCash: 500
I still ask the question, why do some teams pay 25% of their revenue to the players while other teams pay 75% of their revenue to players? That's the golden goose in my opinion. There is parity on the ice and now we need (more) parity in the finances of the teams off the ice.

I would compare it to taxes. Should every tax payer pay the same flat rate for their share whether they make $20,000 a year or $100,000 a year? If their tax liability was $5000 per year the person making $20K a year is paying 25% taxes while the person making $100K is only paying 5% on taxes. This obviously favors the rich, but you could debate whether a flat tax like that makes sense.

Is it more fair if people paid 25% of their income to taxes? The person making $20K pays $5K for taxes but the person making $100K pays $25K for taxes. I wouldn't say that favors the poorer, but it surely doesn't favor the rich.

The NHL cap as it has been since the last lockout is basically a flat tax. It doesn't matter how much or how little revenue the individual team produces, they pay an equal share even though they do not get equal benefits.

I honestly don't know the answer to this question, but how many countries operate on a flat tax versus a progressive tax? Simple enough to go to Wikipedia and there are actually a number of countries that follow the flat tax, the largest of them probably being Russia. None of the countries on the list seem to be among the emerging or most successful markets in the world however.

Guest is offline   Reply With Quote