NFL state tax and competitive balance

much it's given them a competitive imbalance.

Seriously though, OV gave us a first-hand account as how little it mattered. He wanted to play for a winner (thankfully we became one) giving up probably 10+ million in taxes and living expense increase to come up north.

But if two teams offer the player the same contract could state tax play role in his decision? Could this undermine the salary cap? Should only non financial free agency benefits such as coach, teammates, system, location, and winning only be considered?

but we're rumored to have offered him $7M to Miami's $4M, taxes are not a determining factor there.

it's particularly stark in the NHL where you have guys with the option of playing in FL or TX with no state tax and lower US tax rates, vs Canada which has higher federal and provincial rates than any US fed-state combo. It will become more start if anything like one recent GOP tax proposal I saw passes (lowering top rate to 33% w/ elimination of the write-off for state income tax).

As the players also pay state taxes in the state where they play away games. Differing states of reciprocity or offsets etc. That's a long winded way of saying I wouldn't want to be their accountant.

Deej good point but in the NHL all salaries are payed in US dollars so going to canada to play might be the best at the moment.

in these type of intangibles.

Should then large market teams be penalized of they offer more outside endorsement opportunities? What about the local schools systems?

Teams are where they are, and who they are. They each have some advantages/disadvantages with recruiting certain individuals and that's part of the overall competition of the sport.

In comment 13402995 Young Elijah said:

Quote:

much it's given them a competitive imbalance. Seriously though, OV gave us a first-hand account as how little it mattered. He wanted to play for a winner (thankfully we became one) giving up probably 10+ million in taxes and living expense increase to come up north.

I don't know that it's that big a difference. Remember, as someone else said they pay taxes to states where they play away games. Also, they get a deduction on their federal return for state taxes paid that will offset about 1/3 of their state tax bill. And with salaries like they make, they probably don't have to worry about AMT. Admittedly that doesn't take living expenses into account, but they'll eventually be able to sell that more expensive house for more money.

so the FL advantage is cut in half

Overall these players are robbed by uncle sam, their agents and all the other job related expenses they have (keeping your body and skills at a very high level)...

A player making 100M will probably only see 40-45M hit his bank account.. Compare that to Trump and Gates and Buffett who pay less than I do in terms of their income..

Going back to the state tax.. A player making 100M or even 10M isn't going to change his decision based on 3% more income.. I would never change a job simply because another one offers me 3% more...

In comment 13403168 chuckydee9 said:

Quote:

I would never change a job simply because another one offers me 3% more...

As long as you don't live in NYC (the worst), NJ, Connecticut or California. There, even tax affected for the federal benefit, it would probably run closer to 5-8%, the 8% being NYC.

In comment 13403182 njm said:

Quote:

In comment 13403168 chuckydee9 said: Quote: I would never change a job simply because another one offers me 3% more... As long as you don't live in NYC (the worst), NJ, Connecticut or California. There, even tax affected for the federal benefit, it would probably run closer to 5-8%, the 8% being NYC.

I know that the higher income earners have high tax brackets but after all the work related expenses you would deduct.. the effective tax expense compared to the contract value is probably no more than 3-4%..

It could be done to take into account different tax rates in different cities/states. However, it would be a bear to administer unless they just assumed the player would live in the city where the team plays its home games.

a $5m salary) for the next season, the difference is substantial between filing as a Florida resident and filing as a Manhattan resident. We are talking over a $1 million difference in income taxes. That is not something people (unless stupid) would say, "I wouldn't change my job for that".

.

.

In comment 13403574 jeff57 said:

Quote:

.

The difference between Manhattan and Massachusetts is around 8%, probably 5% tax effected. Of course, you could live in New Jersey or Westchester and cut that in half.

in a state with no state income tax, but it is not as big as you may think. Most states charge income tax to visiting players, where 1/16th of their pay is assessed.

In comment 13403168 chuckydee9 said:

Quote:

Overall these players are robbed by uncle sam, their agents and all the other job related expenses they have (keeping your body and skills at a very high level)... A player making 100M will probably only see 40-45M hit his bank account.. Compare that to Trump and Gates and Buffett who pay less than I do in terms of their income.. Going back to the state tax.. A player making 100M or even 10M isn't going to change his decision based on 3% more income.. I would never change a job simply because another one offers me 3% more...

Always has to be someone to make it political...Fees paid to AGENTS are agreed upon.

.

In comment 13403610 EricJ said:

Quote:

.

Not for these guys. 8.97% for income over $500k.

interested in being named the highest paid player no matter where they play. I would think that taxes would be at the low end of the thought process. Family, friends, endorsement opportunity & winning I think would be higher on the totem pole.

I have seen people turn down much higher paying jobs because of the title. Normal people don't have to share their salary with others they just say I am VP with xyz company. Players prestige is based off of their salary. I haven't heard of a player picking a team because of taxes.