Adam Beasley
@AdamHBeasley
·
19h
Tyreek Hill on why he's a Dolphin and not a Jet right now: "State taxes." |
Seems interesting that money is such an overwhelming issue at that level. You'd think winning would be the priority for establishing a legacy. Not to count someone else's money. And not to say the Jets were the "winning" choice. But we sometimes have these discussions on BBI about where guys are willing to sign and apparently state taxes do matter some % of the time. Seems crazy to me. What about you? Would you take the % save in state taxes to play for an inferior team all other things being equal?
You are basically telling residents of New Jersey that professional athletes get special tax treatment, that they are entitled to a higher salary in order to pay their state taxes.
I guess if you are for creating a new aristocracy that makes sense.
It doesn't give athletes any tax advantage.
It gives a team an ability to pay more in salary to attract an athlete, which then translates to more taxes collected for the state.
If I had that kind of money and that wide a choice of places to work I might make the same choice.
If I had that kind of money and that wide a choice of places to work I might make the same choice.
This plus not to mention the weather.
You are basically telling residents of New Jersey that professional athletes get special tax treatment, that they are entitled to a higher salary in order to pay their state taxes.
I guess if you are for creating a new aristocracy that makes sense.
Still dont think I'm saying that. My job pays me more working on CT than the same job in Florida would and I get taxed more than someone in Florida would. I'm just saying a catch all cap from the league that doesnt account for taxes/living expenses might have worked when it was instituted back when player salaries didnt vary all that much, but now that were in a time where players make 40+ mil a year depending on sport and position you might want to think about re-addressing a league wide standard cap that makes it so teams cant pay more where expenses are higher.
Quote:
It's almost always about the money. The NFL is a business.
These guys only play for so long.
I get that money matters a lot. But when you make as much as a star NFL player makes, you can invest in hedge funds and lucrative real estate deals and make MONEY. You're already in that club. What difference does a couple of million in state taxes really buy you?
OK, but which organization looked closer to winning? I'd pick the Fins too if I was in his shoes.
Quote:
In comment 15845470 Eric from BBI said:
Quote:
It's almost always about the money. The NFL is a business.
These guys only play for so long.
I get that money matters a lot. But when you make as much as a star NFL player makes, you can invest in hedge funds and lucrative real estate deals and make MONEY. You're already in that club. What difference does a couple of million in state taxes really buy you?
OK, but which organization looked closer to winning? I'd pick the Fins too if I was in his shoes.
I don't disagree with this point.
It doesn't give athletes any tax advantage.
It gives a team an ability to pay more in salary to attract an athlete, which then translates to more taxes collected for the state.
Indirectly, yes it does.
You are basically saying a millionaire deserves more money so he can better "afford" to pay his taxes.
Where can I sign up for that? I'd like more money so I can better pay my taxes.
Quote:
The net effect is still the same.
You are basically telling residents of New Jersey that professional athletes get special tax treatment, that they are entitled to a higher salary in order to pay their state taxes.
I guess if you are for creating a new aristocracy that makes sense.
Still dont think I'm saying that. My job pays me more working on CT than the same job in Florida would and I get taxed more than someone in Florida would. I'm just saying a catch all cap from the league that doesnt account for taxes/living expenses might have worked when it was instituted back when player salaries didnt vary all that much, but now that were in a time where players make 40+ mil a year depending on sport and position you might want to think about re-addressing a league wide standard cap that makes it so teams cant pay more where expenses are higher.
This is an excellent point. Companies generally track salaries to local cost of living. Shit, I started my career in Florida and financially would have been much better off going back home. The real advantage of zero income tax states is that it benefits those that are very wealthy at the expense of everyone else. Now professional athletes are in that class and the value of local advertising in a global world has been diminished. Most of these guys aren't going to have the benefits of post-playing careers like NY, LA, and Dallas offer so it's a moot point for the most part so that advantage is lost as well. And the biggest ticket to a post-playing career in a global world is playing for a good team and producing. The local markets just don't matter as much, national visibility does.
So you are arguing that they deserve more money plus those benefits.
And maybe your profession pays more in CT than FL, but that's not true of most professions.
You guys are twisting yourselves up into pretzels to defend giving tax breaks to the rich.
Quote:
is actually beneficial for the tax base.
It doesn't give athletes any tax advantage.
It gives a team an ability to pay more in salary to attract an athlete, which then translates to more taxes collected for the state.
Indirectly, yes it does.
You are basically saying a millionaire deserves more money so he can better "afford" to pay his taxes.
Where can I sign up for that? I'd like more money so I can better pay my taxes.
One is a change in the contractual situation with an employer, the other is a just a tax break for the rich. I don't think they're really comparable.
You can negotiate with your employer for higher wages, which is what an increase in the salary cap would be.
I'm learning a lot about specific posters and how they truly view the world.
LOL
So you are arguing that they deserve more money plus those benefits.
And maybe your profession pays more in CT than FL, but that's not true of most professions.
You guys are twisting yourselves up into pretzels to defend giving tax breaks to the rich.
Because those benefits are mostly realized by the middle class where these athletes don't find themselves.
And I think you are misconstruing his point. He's saying the way the NFL calculates the salary cap should be done more on a team by team basis for market...just like corporations do. There used to be an argument for the higher earners getting more opportunities in more expensive markets, that effect has been greatly diminished with much larger salaries and the increasingly diminishing size of our world.
So you are arguing that they deserve more money plus those benefits.
And maybe your profession pays more in CT than FL, but that's not true of most professions.
What? The running joke here at Raymond James is they pay in sunshine. Salaries are much higher in the Northeast than they are here in Florida as someone that has lived and worked here for a decade until I retired.
You guys are twisting yourselves up into pretzels to defend giving tax breaks to the rich.
But to please Eric, instead of raising the cap for tax state teams like California and NY, you can lower the cap for no tax state teams like Miami and Tampa
So if the cap is 200M, make the cap 185M for Miami, Tampa, Dallas, ...
Would Eric be ok with that? It takes money away from rich people
They are arguing that a player who was given a 4-year, $120 million contract extension should get millions more in order to pay higher NJ taxes.
You can use any justification you want, but that's what the net effect. Give the rich guy more money to pay an "unfair tax burden."
LOL
I'm learning a lot about specific posters and how they truly view the world.
Perhaps you're getting a little carried away with a fairly benign conversation about competitive balance in sports as it relates to the salary cap?
They are arguing that a player who was given a 4-year, $120 million contract extension should get millions more in order to pay higher NJ taxes.
You can use any justification you want, but that's what the net effect. Give the rich guy more money to pay an "unfair tax burden."
Isn't that on the owner to pay more money in the outlined scenario? So a billionaire owner is allowed to pay more money to a millionaire player and the state receives more in taxes as a result.
You are basically arguing that millionaires should be getting tax breaks that someone who is just getting by as a plumber or waitress can't get.
Do you understand what you are saying?
That statement by itself is pretty funny, doesn't this happen today? LOL
I think it is tone deaf.
They are arguing that a player who was given a 4-year, $120 million contract extension should get millions more in order to pay higher NJ taxes.
You can use any justification you want, but that's what the net effect. Give the rich guy more money to pay an "unfair tax burden."
Yeh so your solution is, let's give the rich guys less money so the really wealthy guys can effectively pay them less and avoid their tax burden because they don't pay income taxes. It's literally a win/win/win for everyone except the owners in those markets (who obviously can more than afford it when they have franchises valued in the multi-billions from being in said markets)
This is exactly how multi-state corporations work with their salaries, it's literally no different.
But to please Eric, instead of raising the cap for tax state teams like California and NY, you can lower the cap for no tax state teams like Miami and Tampa
So if the cap is 200M, make the cap 185M for Miami, Tampa, Dallas, ...
Would Eric be ok with that? It takes money away from rich people
Brooks is right. The cap is about 1) making sure owners don't spend themselves into oblivion and 2) ensuring competitive balance. They should have incorporated a tax adjustment into the cap from the beginning.
Quote:
I know exactly what people are arguing.
They are arguing that a player who was given a 4-year, $120 million contract extension should get millions more in order to pay higher NJ taxes.
You can use any justification you want, but that's what the net effect. Give the rich guy more money to pay an "unfair tax burden."
Isn't that on the owner to pay more money in the outlined scenario? So a billionaire owner is allowed to pay more money to a millionaire player and the state receives more in taxes as a result.
What? No. There is a salary cap. What people are arguing is that the salary cap should be increased in a few states so they can pay their players more.
Again, you guys are tone deaf. Do you understand the national anti-NY, anti-CA bias in sports in the first place because of the unfair competitive advantages those states have in sports without a real salary cap. Now, you are bitching about fairness because it is impacting your area. The hypocrisy is stunning.
This is all moot. The owners are not stupid enough to attempt this because of the firestorm it would create (plus, most other teams would not benefit from this).
Quote:
I know exactly what people are arguing.
They are arguing that a player who was given a 4-year, $120 million contract extension should get millions more in order to pay higher NJ taxes.
You can use any justification you want, but that's what the net effect. Give the rich guy more money to pay an "unfair tax burden."
Isn't that on the owner to pay more money in the outlined scenario? So a billionaire owner is allowed to pay more money to a millionaire player and the state receives more in taxes as a result.
I don't understand how he doesn't get this. The state actually realizes more income tax, the athlete more money, and the only "loser" is the owner who essentially is sheltering his money from taxes.
A real eye opener here.
:LMAO
Quote:
In comment 15845793 Eric from BBI said:
Quote:
I know exactly what people are arguing.
They are arguing that a player who was given a 4-year, $120 million contract extension should get millions more in order to pay higher NJ taxes.
You can use any justification you want, but that's what the net effect. Give the rich guy more money to pay an "unfair tax burden."
Isn't that on the owner to pay more money in the outlined scenario? So a billionaire owner is allowed to pay more money to a millionaire player and the state receives more in taxes as a result.
What? No. There is a salary cap. What people are arguing is that the salary cap should be increased in a few states so they can pay their players more.
Again, you guys are tone deaf. Do you understand the national anti-NY, anti-CA bias in sports in the first place because of the unfair competitive advantages those states have in sports without a real salary cap. Now, you are bitching about fairness because it is impacting your area. The hypocrisy is stunning.
This is all moot. The owners are not stupid enough to attempt this because of the firestorm it would create (plus, most other teams would not benefit from this).
They have that advantage because there is no salary cap and the companies are doing just like any other multi state company does and adjusts pay to locality because they can. What we are talking about is maybe a bump in salary cap that reflects local tax burdens which is like 0-15% depending on state. The only sport that doesnt have a salary cap is baseball which is extremely local dependant on revenue and why the big market teams have a massive advantage and outspend teams by double.
Quote:
in hockey
But to please Eric, instead of raising the cap for tax state teams like California and NY, you can lower the cap for no tax state teams like Miami and Tampa
So if the cap is 200M, make the cap 185M for Miami, Tampa, Dallas, ...
Would Eric be ok with that? It takes money away from rich people
Brooks is right. The cap is about 1) making sure owners don't spend themselves into oblivion and 2) ensuring competitive balance. They should have incorporated a tax adjustment into the cap from the beginning.
If the landscape was like it was today they almost assuredly would have. Back when it started though local advertising and the opps where a massive part of the comp package. Now its mostly salaries.
Quote:
in hockey
But to please Eric, instead of raising the cap for tax state teams like California and NY, you can lower the cap for no tax state teams like Miami and Tampa
So if the cap is 200M, make the cap 185M for Miami, Tampa, Dallas, ...
Would Eric be ok with that? It takes money away from rich people
Brooks is right. The cap is about 1) making sure owners don't spend themselves into oblivion and 2) ensuring competitive balance. They should have incorporated a tax adjustment into the cap from the beginning.
That does make sense.
Yeah, that'll go over well.
I agree with you in principle, Eric...but.
How is this any different than giving NFL owners an unfair advantage over ordinary citizens in a state when the owners demand a new stadium? The citizens in New Jersey were STILL paying for the bonds for the old Giants stadium years after it was demolished. And it's not just NJ, other states have had to do the same thing (the latest being New York with the new Bills Stadium).
Pretty much all the studies I've seen show that public funding of Stadiums results in a net negative for that community. You never make back the money spent on a building that expensive that's only open less than 60 days a year. And you end of paying the taxes on that debt for years. But the same politicians that make those deals keep getting elected.
I think it's actually worst when the business end of sports does this to make more money. A player leaving a team does not have anywhere never the devastating impact on a community that a sports team leaving does.
As Stadiums Vanish, Their Debt Lives On - ( New Window )
Yea, I get that. It would be a salary cap adjusted for each team based on the state income tax rate. That's not a tax break. You're giving teams in states with higher income tax an option to match the take home pay of athletes in income tax free states. I don't know who is getting harmed in that scenario other than billionaire owners who would be allowed to pay more. The "more" here is tax revenue for the state.
This exact point has been brought up many, many, many times in similar threads but the average BBI-er doesn't retain the information.
A real eye opener here.
:LMAO
Is he still here? Can we talk about him now?
Quote:
a Tax exemption for professional football players or some kind of reinbursement. It really is an unfair advantage being used here.
So you want to give professional athletes, who already make millions, an unfair advantage over ordinary citizens who live in that state?
Yeah, that'll go over well.
Giving tax breaks to these guys is an absurd notion.
Though the NFL giving cap variance based on state tax rates would not be a terrible idea if the cap is there to level the playing field.
Though as someone who does a lot of tax returns, there are some states that have really stupid state tax rules and rates. If given any other option I can't understand why someone would choose to live and work in some of them.
Quote:
is actually beneficial for the tax base.
It doesn't give athletes any tax advantage.
It gives a team an ability to pay more in salary to attract an athlete, which then translates to more taxes collected for the state.
Indirectly, yes it does.
You are basically saying a millionaire deserves more money so he can better "afford" to pay his taxes.
Where can I sign up for that? I'd like more money so I can better pay my taxes.
Giving employees cost of living increases depending on companies operating in multiple states isn't an unheard of thing.
I once got a pct increase to take a position that moved me from TX to CT. One that would go away if I transferred back to TX or to another state with a lower COL.
Quote:
It's almost always about the money. The NFL is a business.
These guys only play for so long.
I get that money matters a lot. But when you make as much as a star NFL player makes, you can invest in hedge funds and lucrative real estate deals and make MONEY. You're already in that club. What difference does a couple of million in state taxes really buy you?
Taxation to the level we pay in the US is theft, whether you make $100k or $50 million.
I did a gig overseas where most of my federal income tax was exempt, but state taxes weren't.
After first year I was able to exempt the state taxes from NY, but the Florida based coworkers never had to worry. Definitely was jealous of that, over a few thousand.
Could only imagine if millions were at stake.
Quote:
In comment 15845470 Eric from BBI said:
Quote:
It's almost always about the money. The NFL is a business.
These guys only play for so long.
I get that money matters a lot. But when you make as much as a star NFL player makes, you can invest in hedge funds and lucrative real estate deals and make MONEY. You're already in that club. What difference does a couple of million in state taxes really buy you?
Taxation to the level we pay in the US is theft, whether you make $100k or $50 million.
I did a gig overseas where most of my federal income tax was exempt, but state taxes weren't.
After first year I was able to exempt the state taxes from NY, but the Florida based coworkers never had to worry. Definitely was jealous of that, over a few thousand.
Could only imagine if millions were at stake.
The US has one of the lowest tax rates in the developed world. The problem is most of it ends up in the hands of the military-industrial complex as opposed to something like healthcare.
The US clawing taxes from expats is an interesting phenomena, but like 150k of it is exempt at the federal level (no capital gains exemption which makes sense as they definitely want the people that took advantage of the situation here with the dollar as the reserve currency to stay and keep tax residence) It is a bit screwy that states are allowed to collect taxes from you overseas.
The Rangers have to pay so much extra to a free agent to equal the money Tampa can offer, its ridiculous
There should be some kind of sliding scale for the salary cap due to the differences in state taxes
Interesting take...or...tell our representatives to lower taxes. NY, NJ, CA, MA, Ill, high tax areas. Either change or move.
Dont penalize the other states.
As pointed out, this is no different than companies paying more in higher cost of living areas. It isn't subsidizing taxes, or subsidizing rent, or subsidizing entertainment. It's offering a wage competitive with lower cost of living areas.
What is being said is that teams in higher COL areas are being constrained in the (adjusted for COL-specifically taxes) salaries they can offer.
Twisting this into some social moral dilemma is going down the wrong path.
Why’s anyone surprised?
Except I don't think it's actually 7-8% vs. 0%. I know in MLB, players are taxed based on where they're playing that pay period. So if they have a road trip that takes them to Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, and Milwaukee, they're paying prorated state income taxes in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Wisconsin, etc. If the same is the case in the NFL, the Dolphins are a better choice than the Jets strictly for state income tax purposes, but you're still paying some state income tax into NJ (Jets), NY (Bills), MA (Patriots) - three of the higher state income taxes in the country - before even considering their other road games.
Again, not claiming that the financial impact of state income tax is insignificant; just that the savings aren't as simple as Florida has no state income tax so Dolphins players pay no state income taxes.