HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, and NHL revenues.

Allow players to pay no tax to entice them to your area?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-16-2013, 12:29 AM
  #1
Dontdive
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: British Columbia
Country: Canada
Posts: 251
vCash: 500
Allow players to pay no tax to entice them to your area?

Think about stadium deals where a city will pay for huge amounts of a stadium to entice a team or owner to come/stay there. Tax breaks, building the stadium outright, that kind of thing. It happens a lot.

It's always done at that huge ownership level - but what about a city, state, province or country saying to players "You don't have to pay our income tax" (or whatever taxes they charge) to entice them to play there, effectively help negate the salary cap somewhat? It might help a team get a star player they otherwise might not able to.

Certainly the real-world impact to that area's coffers would be negligible, even though these players make millions. And in theory it might help that city win a Cup, making them far more money than they'd be giving up.

In other words, would you support your city/state/province/country doing this?

Dontdive is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-16-2013, 12:36 AM
  #2
superdeluxe
Seattle SuperSonics
 
superdeluxe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Sodo, Wa
Country: South Korea
Posts: 2,146
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dontdive View Post
Think about stadium deals where a city will pay for huge amounts of a stadium to entice a team or owner to come/stay there. Tax breaks, building the stadium outright, that kind of thing. It happens a lot.

It's always done at that huge ownership level - but what about a city, state, province or country saying to players "You don't have to pay our income tax" (or whatever taxes they charge) to entice them to play there, effectively help negate the salary cap somewhat? It might help a team get a star player they otherwise might not able to.

Certainly the real-world impact to that area's coffers would be negligible, even though these players make millions. And in theory it might help that city win a Cup, making them far more money than they'd be giving up.

In other words, would you support your city/state/province/country doing this?

I don't know any city that would do this.

But good thing for Seattle at least, No State Income Tax.

superdeluxe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-16-2013, 12:49 AM
  #3
The Zetterberg Era
Nyquist Explosion!
 
The Zetterberg Era's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Ft. Myers, FL
Country: United States
Posts: 16,109
vCash: 515
The PR of such a move would be a pretty big disaster in my opinion. Most of the public doesn't want to see millionaires get tax breaks. On the flip side of this I think the jock tax in Nashville is ridiculous and the NHL and NHLPA should really be taking that city to task for it.

The Zetterberg Era is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-16-2013, 01:05 AM
  #4
Dontdive
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: British Columbia
Country: Canada
Posts: 251
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Zetterberg Era View Post
The PR of such a move would be a pretty big disaster in my opinion. Most of the public doesn't want to see millionaires get tax breaks. On the flip side of this I think the jock tax in Nashville is ridiculous and the NHL and NHLPA should really be taking that city to task for it.
But cities often already give huge breaks to owners of teams to get the teams to move to or stay in their area. In fact the amounts involved are usually far, far more than any breaks I'm talking about here for the players.

I'm not saying "two wrongs make a right," but to many helping the owners this way is simply good business, when one looks at the big picture. One could see helping players this way as simply more of the same.

Dontdive is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-16-2013, 01:40 AM
  #5
RTN
Be Kind, Rewind
 
RTN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,811
vCash: 500
Just wondering ... OP, what profession are you in?

RTN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-16-2013, 02:02 AM
  #6
Krishna
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Krishna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Country: Canada
Posts: 81,673
vCash: 50
Do you not understand how much in taxes a player pays? It's around 30% percent.

What city, state, or country is going to turn down 750k in taxes a year per player? That's just a little over 500 million dollars into the city, state, or country for the whole nhl.

Plus, the general population would be wondering why rich athletes get tax breaks to play a game when they are struggling to make ends meat.

__________________
Krishna is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-16-2013, 02:09 AM
  #7
Krishna
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Krishna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Country: Canada
Posts: 81,673
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Zetterberg Era View Post
The PR of such a move would be a pretty big disaster in my opinion. Most of the public doesn't want to see millionaires get tax breaks. On the flip side of this I think the jock tax in Nashville is ridiculous and the NHL and NHLPA should really be taking that city to task for it.
It seems like all sports organizations are against it affecting players.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/13/sp...ef=sports&_r=0

Quote:
A spokesman for the Nashville Predators said the organization, which had supported a jock tax, would now support its repeal.
And a ridiculous excerpt from that article
Quote:
Because of an injury, center Jeff Saturday did not travel with the Indianapolis Colts to Cleveland in 2008 to play the Browns. But Cleveland officials sent him a tax bill for $3,294.

Saturday, now retired, has sued the city, arguing that he should not be taxed because he did not physically work in the state. A representative for the city declined to comment.
And the best part
Quote:
Revenue from the Tennessee jock tax, roughly $3.6 million a year, does not go to the state’s public coffers. It goes directly to the stadiums.

As for the PA fighting it
http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=435638
Quote:
The NHL Players' Association is seeking permission to sue the state of Tennessee on behalf of its membership and get reimbursed for a special tax that players must pay each time they play a game in Nashville.

Since the 2009-2010 season, the state has taxed NHL players $2,500 - with an annual cap of $7,500 - under a 'Professional Privilege Tax' each time they were on their club's playing roster for a game in Nashville.

The Players' Association believes this is unfair and possibly unconstitutional, saying a player making the league minimum would in fact lose money playing there and would be better off financially by not playing.

The reimbursement would only apply to those players who paid the tax prior to the new collective bargaining agreement. Under the current CBA, it was negotiated that the National Hockey League would reimburse players for their Tennessee tax payments, starting with the 2012-13 season.

The NHLPA - with support from the league - is also attempting to get the tax law changed and has been lobbying in Tennessee for the state legislature to repeal the 'Professional Privilege Tax' outright.

If the law is repealed, the NHL would no longer be obligated to reimburse the tax.

As it stands, the NHLPA is preparing to legally challenge the tax itself because any repeal would not be retroactive and the players would then have to file a refund request for payments made between 2009 and 2012. The deadline for filing reimbursement claims for taxes paid to the state during the 2009-2010 season is Dec. 31.
Edit : I did not realize that with the new CBA, the NHL reimburses players the tax money if I'm reading it right. I'm surprised the NHL hasn't started soemthing already on their own.

Krishna is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-16-2013, 02:14 AM
  #8
MAROONSRoad
f/k/a Ghost
 
MAROONSRoad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Maroons Rd.
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,060
vCash: 500
Ridiculous.

On second thought - okay, but only if all the working stiffs no longer pay taxes.

MAROONSRoad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-16-2013, 02:53 AM
  #9
Dontdive
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: British Columbia
Country: Canada
Posts: 251
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTN View Post
Just wondering ... OP, what profession are you in?
Huh? That's irrelevant. I don't even think this proposal is a good idea, just an interesting one to discuss. But I'm against owners getting cushy stadium deals, too, so that's not surprising.

But the owners get those concessions because the cities are desperate to get/keep a team, and for those having trouble getting the players those teams need, I could see my proposal becoming a possibility.

I suspect smaller market teams that haven't had any success lately would be more likely to try this. And/or places where the taxes are unusually high compared to other places.

Dontdive is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-16-2013, 10:19 AM
  #10
DeuceMN
Really?
 
DeuceMN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Chi-Town, Il
Country: United States
Posts: 1,885
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dontdive View Post
Think about stadium deals where a city will pay for huge amounts of a stadium to entice a team or owner to come/stay there. Tax breaks, building the stadium outright, that kind of thing. It happens a lot.

It's always done at that huge ownership level - but what about a city, state, province or country saying to players "You don't have to pay our income tax" (or whatever taxes they charge) to entice them to play there, effectively help negate the salary cap somewhat? It might help a team get a star player they otherwise might not able to.

Certainly the real-world impact to that area's coffers would be negligible, even though these players make millions. And in theory it might help that city win a Cup, making them far more money than they'd be giving up.

In other words, would you support your city/state/province/country doing this?
This is a bad comparison as Stadiums bring in jobs, and will have a far greater scope of impact, than just a player.

And if one player gets this deal, then pretty soon every player, in every sport, will be getting his agent on the phone to get this deal. The players get paid well enough; let's not open this absurd Pandora's box.

Sorry, but bad proposal. This is not Russia, and something like this should never, ever happen here.

DeuceMN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-16-2013, 10:28 AM
  #11
intangible
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 747
vCash: 139
I'm against TIFs and selective tax breaks in general, but if a stadium that will bring in jobs get tax breaks, why shouldn't a Crosby or Ovechkin, who brings more butts in the seats? More butts in the seats = more revenue for the team, stadium, and surrounding businesses.

intangible is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-16-2013, 10:29 AM
  #12
Oscar Acosta
Bat Country
 
Oscar Acosta's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Country: United States
Posts: 3,331
vCash: 738
So basically create a bigger disconnect between the public and the team you want them to spend money on.

Oscar Acosta is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-16-2013, 11:55 AM
  #13
Mayor Bee
\/me_____you\/
 
Mayor Bee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 13,563
vCash: 500
Where exactly would this end?

If I'm a city or other municipal mayor and I try to enact this, the next phone call I'm getting is from the CEO of a locally-based international company wanting the same thing. And if he gets it, they all do. Then someone would inevitably want it for their entire board of directors, and before you know it the only people actually paying local tax are the people who work and get the least for their labor.

Mayor Bee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-16-2013, 12:00 PM
  #14
Buck Aki Berg
My pockets hurt
 
Buck Aki Berg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Ottawa, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,294
vCash: 500
I can't imagine any benefit to this - the mere presence of a team in a certain city/state is enough fodder for a look-at-the-economic-benefits speech. I can't imagine using the same tactic to lure a specific player could be spun the same way.

That said, while I can't imagine ownership picking up the taxes on behalf of a player, I could see a team offering a slightly larger contract, or perhaps a signing bonus, that would offset the tax differential.

Buck Aki Berg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-16-2013, 12:33 PM
  #15
madhi19
Registered User
 
madhi19's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Cold and Dark place!
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,064
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayor Bee View Post
Where exactly would this end?

If I'm a city or other municipal mayor and I try to enact this, the next phone call I'm getting is from the CEO of a locally-based international company wanting the same thing. And if he gets it, they all do. Then someone would inevitably want it for their entire board of directors, and before you know it the only people actually paying local tax are the people who work and get the least for their labor.
So basically no change from the current tax situation.

madhi19 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-16-2013, 12:40 PM
  #16
thom
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,708
vCash: 500
Why do rich businessmen ask taxpayers to help them fund their toys such as stadiums .Are we not capitalist nations or is that a bs term.

thom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-16-2013, 12:46 PM
  #17
kdb209
Global Moderator
 
kdb209's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 12,168
vCash: 500
Completely ridiculous proposal.

The vast majority of taxes paid by players is at the Federal and State level and there is zero chance of (nor any reason for) Congress or state legislatures giving any sort of exemption for pro athletes - it would be political poison. The only place where this any chance for juggling is in states with no income tax - which levy separate special "Jock Taxes" on visiting athletes/entertainers.

Very few cities/counties levy resident of non-resident income taxes. AIUI, the only NHL markets w/ local income taxes are:

District of Columbia (4-8% - but this is instead of any state income taxes)
Detroit (2.5% resident / 1.25% non-resident)
St Louis (1%)
New York City (2.9-3.6%)
Columbus (<1% state limit)
Philadelphia (3.98%)
Pittsburgh (3.0%)

This is completely different from the tax subsidies that cities/counties offer to businesses, which are typically reductions/rebates of property & sales taxes paid at the local level - with the purported economic argument that the benefits of the companies presence (jobs, sales taxes, etc) outweigh the cost of the subsidies. No such argument can rationally be made with Players' income taxes.

kdb209 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-16-2013, 01:30 PM
  #18
hatterson
Global Moderator
 
hatterson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: North Tonawanda, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 10,930
vCash: 874
Send a message via Skype™ to hatterson
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdb209 View Post
This is completely different from the tax subsidies that cities/counties offer to businesses, which are typically reductions/rebates of property & sales taxes paid at the local level - with the purported economic argument that the benefits of the companies presence (jobs, sales taxes, etc) outweigh the cost of the subsidies. No such argument can rationally be made with Players' income taxes.
Technically the same could be done with property tax for players via offering them exemptions on property purchased within the city/county of the sports team although the amount of these taxes would be so insignificant to a pro-athlete that they wouldn't affect a decision at all.

Lets say Buffalo wanted Crosby to come sign with the Sabres and the city said "Hey sign here and you won't pay property tax on whatever mansion you buy" Even if Crosby buys a multi-million dollar mansion the tax savings would only amount to a few tens of thousands per year.

And even then the vast majority of players don't live in massive mansions, they live in nice upscale homes so the saving may not even break $10k a year.

__________________
2013/2014 NHL suspensions tracker - Here
2013/2014 Maple Leafs Prediction Contest Last 2 Games - 2013/04/10 @ Florida Panthers & 2013/04/12 @ Ottawa Senators
Come join us on the By The Numbers forum. Take a look at our introduction post if you're new. If you have any questions, feel free to PM me.
hatterson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-16-2013, 01:34 PM
  #19
hatterson
Global Moderator
 
hatterson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: North Tonawanda, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 10,930
vCash: 874
Send a message via Skype™ to hatterson
Quote:
Originally Posted by thom View Post
Why do rich businessmen ask taxpayers to help them fund their toys such as stadiums .Are we not capitalist nations or is that a bs term.
They ask quite simply because there's no reason not to and they often get it.

Rich people are generally rich because they're good at making money and/or not incurring massive expenses when they don't have to.

The reason why pro sports stadiums are built with significant public funds has nothing to do with the economic benefits of it and much more to do with the fact that we, as voters, choose to let it happen.

hatterson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-16-2013, 01:35 PM
  #20
Buck Aki Berg
My pockets hurt
 
Buck Aki Berg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Ottawa, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,294
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thom View Post
Why do rich businessmen ask taxpayers to help them fund their toys such as stadiums .Are we not capitalist nations or is that a bs term.
Why do people beg and clamour for sports teams (and concerts and other shows, for that matter) in their cities, then get angry when they realize they aren't free?

Buck Aki Berg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-16-2013, 01:36 PM
  #21
ps241
2.6% chance
 
ps241's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 9,027
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdb209 View Post
Completely ridiculous proposal.

The vast majority of taxes paid by players is at the Federal and State level and there is zero chance of (nor any reason for) Congress or state legislatures giving any sort of exemption for pro athletes - it would be political poison. The only place where this any chance for juggling is in states with no income tax - which levy separate special "Jock Taxes" on visiting athletes/entertainers.

Very few cities/counties levy resident of non-resident income taxes. AIUI, the only NHL markets w/ local income taxes are:

District of Columbia (4-8% - but this is instead of any state income taxes)
Detroit (2.5% resident / 1.25% non-resident)
St Louis (1%)
New York City (2.9-3.6%)
Columbus (<1% state limit)
Philadelphia (3.98%)
Pittsburgh (3.0%)

This is completely different from the tax subsidies that cities/counties offer to businesses, which are typically reductions/rebates of property & sales taxes paid at the local level - with the purported economic argument that the benefits of the companies presence (jobs, sales taxes, etc) outweigh the cost of the subsidies. No such argument can rationally be made with Players' income taxes.

yes for example a US citizen playing for the Winnipeg Jets files their taxes in their country of residency and is subject to their tax laws. Any source deductions taken off their pay checks in Winnipeg are equalized (reimbursed) visa vie tax treaty laws between countries.

This is a subject that gets away overblown by the press.

ps241 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-16-2013, 01:36 PM
  #22
Pyrophorus
Registered User
 
Pyrophorus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Eastern GTA
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,448
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Pyrophorus Send a message via Yahoo to Pyrophorus Send a message via Skype™ to Pyrophorus
I thought this was done already.

I know that all players get paid is US Dollars, no matter where they
play. I thought the team would kick in more to offset any taxes they
would have to pay.

e.g: Your contract is $5mil. Here is an extra 0.3mil to offset any taxes you may incur. Maybe even cap exempt, since it is not for playing.

Pyrophorus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-16-2013, 01:53 PM
  #23
kdb209
Global Moderator
 
kdb209's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 12,168
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pyrophorus View Post
I thought this was done already.

I know that all players get paid is US Dollars, no matter where they
play. I thought the team would kick in more to offset any taxes they
would have to pay.

e.g: Your contract is $5mil. Here is an extra 0.3mil to offset any taxes you may incur. Maybe even cap exempt, since it is not for playing.
Nope. The CBA prohibits any team from grossing-up a players salary to cover taxes.

The only thing of any value that a team can provide a player is his Paragraph 1 Salary and Bonuses per their SPC - any other payments are prohibited. All a team could do is offer a higher salary (with subsequent higher cap hit) to try to compensate for higher taxes in it's market.

kdb209 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-16-2013, 02:20 PM
  #24
idiroft
Registered User
 
idiroft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Country: Portugal
Posts: 365
vCash: 500
Some people should take their heads out of hockey fandom for a second and realize the kind of bull**** line of thought they are getting into.

If the league pays more to players to covers taxes that's their own business, but the state should never, ever, under any circumstance exempt these already very fortunate people.

Two words for you: social justice.

Do you understand the concept? Do you really know what it means? It means that the real problems of everyday life (food, shelter, access to health and education, life stability to raise a family, the ability to earn a living to allow for life with dignity, etc) should be the driving force behind any decent institution.

If you think that that is achieved by cutting down taxation on the rich, making society as a whole better (the trickled down economics theory, most popular in the US), you probably belong to the upper classes that don't really have to make an effort to have a good life or you have been brainwashed by propaganda, sorry the strong words, lead to believe that your own life quality and achievements are strictly you fault (I usually call this line of thought social Darwinism).

If you are just thinking about hockey, WAKE UP! How is exemption players from taxes helping create a more socially just society? Who cares about a competitive hockey freaking team when you are cutting the health or education budget in the process?

Bottom line is: only when we are equals can we be free, not the other way around.

idiroft is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-16-2013, 02:22 PM
  #25
Butch 19
King me
 
Butch 19's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: L.A. suburb
Country: United States
Posts: 8,259
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buck Aki Berg View Post
Why do people beg and clamour for sports teams (and concerts and other shows, for that matter) in their cities, then get angry when they realize they aren't free?
the same reason that L.A. doesn't have a football team.

Butch 19 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:27 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.