THN: What a NHL player pays in taxes depending on team

[sureLoss]

https://thehockeynews.com/news/hocke...-on-their-team

Based on a player making a base salary of $3 million, using 2023 tax rates, and the 24/25 schedule. Read the article for their full list of assumptions.

[Knut]

The reality is about 300k difference between top and bottom. Thats not an egregious premium for the higher tax markets and can offset pretty easily.

Lifestyle and winning is more of the driving force IMO.

[stemit14]

Originally Posted by Knut

The reality is about 300k difference between top and bottom. Thats not an egregious premium for the higher tax markets and can offset pretty easily.

Lifestyle and winning is more of the driving force IMO.

Have not read the article but won’t the difference (as an % of the total income) increase with top players who are making closer to $10 million AAV? In those cases, I think the tax differences will play more of a role. I agree though that lifestyle and winning can still play the biggest role with lots of players (both star players and average NHLers.

[Buff]

Originally Posted by Knut

The reality is about 300k difference between top and bottom. Thats not an egregious premium for the higher tax markets and can offset pretty easily.

Lifestyle and winning is more of the driving force IMO.

Edmonton is screwed.

[Robbob]

At first glance, is there a reason besides Edmonton being no good, that they are taxed more than Calgary?

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Robbob

At first glance, is there a reason besides Edmonton being no good, that they are taxed more than Calgary?

Yeah...Edmonton is paying slightly more in federal tax on both the Canadian and US side. Seems strange. Maybe the US has a built in cleaning fee associated with getting rid of the stench, that applies specifically to Edmonton? Similar to renting an AirBnB?

[YyjFlames]

Originally Posted by Knut

The reality is about 300k difference between top and bottom. Thats not an egregious premium for the higher tax markets and can offset pretty easily.

Lifestyle and winning is more of the driving force IMO.

It's nearly $400k and on a three year contract at $3m a year, it's well over a million. On an 8-year, 10 million contract, it's $10m in the player's pocket (Tkachuk, for example, is taking home $5m more in Florida than if he had stayed in Calgary with the deal he signed).

Winning and lifestyle are important, but that's a lot of cake to think that it's not a big deal.

This is a fantastic piece. Old school informative journalism.

[Slava]

It's interesting, but there are also strategies available to reduce that tax impact and bring these percentages very close.

[sureLoss]

Originally Posted by Robbob

At first glance, is there a reason besides Edmonton being no good, that they are taxed more than Calgary?

I believe slight schedule differences. For example, Edmonton plays 2 games on the road vs the Kings this year while the Flames play only 1.

Say there are 82 games in a season and 41 of them are played at home and the other 41 games are played on the road. NHL players pay income tax on the income they earned for home games to their local taxing authorities. The 41 games they play on the road, assuming they are out of state or province, they have to pay taxes to the state or province that they play their road games in.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Knut

The reality is about 300k difference between top and bottom. Thats not an egregious premium for the higher tax markets and can offset pretty easily.

Lifestyle and winning is more of the driving force IMO.

For a small contract, for one year.

This really comes into play for UFAs, where they can decide where they want to play, so let's look at a typical UFA contract of $7M X 7 or approximately $50M for easy math. On a contract of that size, a player takes home $3M more (12.7%) in FLA than CGY, and $6M more (27.1%) than MTL. That is a pretty significant difference.

I would posit that a large percentage of people would move for a 27% raise. Especially when all of the tax advantaged cities (other than SEA), are also among the nicest for weather.

[mogg]

I did not expect Seattle to be anywhere near the bottom, let alone last.

[Roof-Daddy]

13% is a pretty big swing from top to bottom.

Matthew probably laughs at Brady.."I pay 13% less tax than you and walk around in flip flops"

Pretty huge advantage

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by mogg

I did not expect Seattle to be anywhere near the bottom, let alone last.

Yeah, that was a surprise. I definitely would've thought Washington would be closer to the other coastal states.

[Rtown]

I’ve always said the solution is pretty simple. Team by team salary cap. Using these numbers Montreal should be allowed to spend 13% more than Seattle on salaries. Takes money out of the equation when choosing teams and makes it more about flip flops vs chaud chiens.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Rtown

I’ve always said the solution is pretty simple. Team by team salary cap. Using these numbers Montreal should be allowed to spend 13% more than Seattle on salaries. Takes money out of the equation when choosing teams and makes it more about flip flops vs chaud chiens.

I get the sentiment and it would seem fair, but since the cap is based on a percent of hockey generated revenue, it would be pretty messy and not really doable. Unless the extra 13% or whatever was to come right out of the owner's pocket, which maybe some crazy owners would do, but I doubt most would.

[Robbob]

Originally Posted by Roof-Daddy

13% is a pretty big swing from top to bottom.

Matthew probably laughs at Brady.."I pay 13% less tax than you and walk around in flip flops"

Pretty huge advantage

I think the only thing Brady has is he gets paid in US and spends in CAN for a few months out of the year, it probably doesn't make that much of a difference, but he has that.

[dammage79]

So 40 percent minimum in deductions.
I'm all for taxing the rich but c'mon, nobody should pay over 50 percent of their income. That's wild to me.

[Rtown]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I get the sentiment and it would seem fair, but since the cap is based on a percent of hockey generated revenue, it would be pretty messy and not really doable. Unless the extra 13% or whatever was to come right out of the owner's pocket, which maybe some crazy owners would do, but I doubt most would.

Oh I get it. My solution may be simple but figuring out how to achieve it sure isn’t.

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

Originally Posted by mogg

I did not expect Seattle to be anywhere near the bottom, let alone last.

Yup. This is why I've argued the whole tax narrative is BS since players aren't flocking here.

The other thing to consider is that the 300K the player saves is basically all from the provincial vs state tax delta. And living in Seattle with the cost of living, you'll lose all of that if you buy a house etc...

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by Table 5

Yeah, that was a surprise. I definitely would've thought Washington would be closer to the other coastal states.

Washington State is an outlier for a blue state as it doesn't have state income taxes.