THOUGHTS? Balanced Salary Cap.

[Insane_Flame]

I was just thinking about the Ben Bishop signing. I have heard opinions like if he were to have signed here it would have been around 6 million due to Calgary's higher income taxes. Do you guys think it would be reasonable for the league to offset individual cities salary caps based on that cities tax rates. So the higher the taxes paid, the higher the salary cap would be. Maybe I am missing something but it would seem like a fair way to keep the markets equally desirable, at least as far as money is concerned.

Just bored at work and daydreaming.

[Reaper]

Nope, nope, nope. Leave the taxation aspect to the individual governments. It is definitely not in the NHL's interest to start offsetting the salary cap based on local taxation. It would be like hitting yourself in the head with a hammer to get rid of a headache.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Insane_Flame

I was just thinking about the Ben Bishop signing. I have heard opinions like if he were to have signed here it would have been around 6 million due to Calgary's higher income taxes. Do you guys think it would be reasonable for the league to offset individual cities salary caps based on that cities tax rates. So the higher the taxes paid, the higher the salary cap would be. Maybe I am missing something but it would seem like a fair way to keep the markets equally desirable, at least as far as money is concerned.

Just bored at work and daydreaming.

Yeah but then you also have to factor in a ton of stuff. Federal and provincial income tax, Cdn dollar, property tax rates, local housing cost, etc.

[cal_guy]

Originally Posted by Insane_Flame

I was just thinking about the Ben Bishop signing. I have heard opinions like if he were to have signed here it would have been around 6 million due to Calgary's higher income taxes. Do you guys think it would be reasonable for the league to offset individual cities salary caps based on that cities tax rates. So the higher the taxes paid, the higher the salary cap would be. Maybe I am missing something but it would seem like a fair way to keep the markets equally desirable, at least as far as money is concerned.

Just bored at work and daydreaming.

The difference would be around $1.2 million and not $6 million.

[Insane_Flame]

Originally Posted by cal_guy

The difference would be around $1.2 million and not $6 million.

I never said 6mil would be the difference.

[Bill Bumface]

The second they do this, the government of Quebec comes up with a professional hockey player tax bracket at a rate of 80%.

[Insane_Flame]

Originally Posted by Bill Bumface

The second they do this, the government of Quebec comes up with a professional hockey player tax bracket at a rate of 80%.

Are you sure about that?

[ToraToraTora]

I've thought about this a bit myself, and I think it would be a decent idea if it were to be done properly, since it actually influences where players want to play or sign.

It would be complicated, but there are ways it could work, like setting the salary cap based in New York, then applying a multiplier to the cap based on different jurisdictions tax rates.

It doesn't have to be a perfect system (yes, property taxes, yadda yadda), but players are already paid in US dollars. They overcame that hurdle, no reason they can't do this. Especially since they were working with Canadian teams for some type of equalization (I think I remember that) 15 years ago when the Dollar differential was much greater.

If all they did was roughly equalize based solely upon federal and provincial/state income taxes, it wouldn't be too difficult to implement. Teams would be able to choose if they had the budget to spend additional cap money.

The real issue is getting buy in from teams in low tax jurisdictions. Which would effectively kill it. But I like the idea.

[the2bears]

Problem here is tax rates can change multiple times during the course of a contract. What do you do if the multiplier goes down in certain jurisdiction? The team would then be in violation of the cap and would have to shed some dollars?

[Insane_Flame]

Originally Posted by the2bears

Problem here is tax rates can change multiple times during the course of a contract. What do you do if the multiplier goes down in certain jurisdiction? The team would then be in violation of the cap and would have to shed some dollars?

Maybe just set it at the beginning of each season and let the chips fall where they lay during the season. Still better than the big discrepancy we see now. I mean look at the NBA. There was a reason those juggernauts went and played for Miami. I just think it gives an unfair advantage. I think there is something that could be worked out that obviously wouldn't completely tilt the scale but at least be a lot more fair than it is now. I hate seeing such good talents settle for crappy markets based on this type of thing. I am not really complaining, I just think it could be better.

[Jason14h]

There was a reason those juggernauts went and played for Miami.

Cause being a filthy rich NBA player would be awesome in Miami?

[DJones]

Zero chance this happens

[the2bears]

Originally Posted by Insane_Flame

Maybe just set it at the beginning of each season and let the chips fall where they lay during the season. Still better than the big discrepancy we see now. I mean look at the NBA. There was a reason those juggernauts went and played for Miami. I just think it gives an unfair advantage. I think there is something that could be worked out that obviously wouldn't completely tilt the scale but at least be a lot more fair than it is now. I hate seeing such good talents settle for crappy markets based on this type of thing. I am not really complaining, I just think it could be better.

But that still doesn't answer what happens if, due to contracts signed under one tax regime, those taxes change. A team could easily be over the cap. Or, what if you're at the cap and taxes increase. Can you now go out and sign more players?

Just seems to be a system with a lot of potential problems. I don't see an easy way at all to make it work.

[Insane_Flame]

Originally Posted by the2bears

But that still doesn't answer what happens if, due to contracts signed under one tax regime, those taxes change. A team could easily be over the cap. Or, what if you're at the cap and taxes increase. Can you now go out and sign more players?

Just seems to be a system with a lot of potential problems. I don't see an easy way at all to make it work.

Probably not an easy solution no. But what I was saying, lock in their cap at whatever the tax rate is at the beginning of the season and they cannot go over that.

[ToraToraTora]

Originally Posted by Insane_Flame

Probably not an easy solution no. But what I was saying, lock in their cap at whatever the tax rate is at the beginning of the season and they cannot go over that.

I think that's the best way. Lock in the cap hit at the tax rate when they sign. Then it's the same as if some player signs a long term deal that bites the team in the end when the cap goes down. There's no additional risk.

We all know that this will never happen, but it's kind of fun to think about it.

For some teams the difference would be huge. Montreal, Toronto or Ottawa would essentially be able to afford an additional Ovechkin, Kopitar, or Subban. The Flames or Oilers would only be able to get an additional Monahan.

The difference between an Ontario team (the worst) and Florida/Texas (the best) is $10.1 million. That's nuts.

http://gavingroup.ca/personal-income...in-nhl-cities/

[theTrumanShow]

Originally Posted by Insane_Flame

I was just thinking about the Ben Bishop signing. I have heard opinions like if he were to have signed here it would have been around 6 million due to Calgary's higher income taxes. Do you guys think it would be reasonable for the league to offset individual cities salary caps based on that cities tax rates. So the higher the taxes paid, the higher the salary cap would be. Maybe I am missing something but it would seem like a fair way to keep the markets equally desirable, at least as far as money is concerned.

Just bored at work and daydreaming.

That is the job of the agent. That's why they make the big bucks.

[Insane_Flame]

Originally Posted by ToraToraTora

I think that's the best way. Lock in the cap hit at the tax rate when they sign. Then it's the same as if some player signs a long term deal that bites the team in the end when the cap goes down. There's no additional risk.


We all know that this will never happen, but it's kind of fun to think about it.

For some teams the difference would be huge. Montreal, Toronto or Ottawa would essentially be able to afford an additional Ovechkin, Kopitar, or Subban. The Flames or Oilers would only be able to get an additional Monahan.

The difference between an Ontario team (the worst) and Florida/Texas (the best) is $10.1 million. That's nuts.

http://gavingroup.ca/personal-income...in-nhl-cities/

Exactly. "We all know that this will never happen, but it's kind of fun to think about it."

[ToraToraTora]

If we ditched all threads because it's something that will (likely) never happen, we might as well just lock the trade speculation thread.

[Bandwagon Surfer]

This is a downright silly idea. Where do you even draw the line because there is a lot more that taxes which affect the desirability of places to live.

In the end all these workarounds do is make it easier for regions to avoid fixing the fundamental problems which makes them more or less desirable. It is self defeating. The pressure should be on the region to fix whatever issues they need to (taxes/culture/traffic/discrimination/...whatever) in order to make the region more desirable to live in.

[Tiger]

I believe Calgary and Edmonton are still one of the lowest taxed teams in the league. working in the property taxes that players pay for the typical areas they live in.

http://www.taxpayer.com/media/CTF-Ho...sadvantage.pdf

this is from 2013/14 though so it has be raised and little for calgary/edmonton