State Taxes And The Salary Cap

[TuscanyTile2]

I saw a headline today about how "red states" are pushing for no income taxes.  There are already a couple of states like that (I think TX and FL) but if more adopt such measures, it would make life tougher for teams in blue states (like NY).  At some point, I have a feeling all the sports leagues are going to have to deal with this.  

[bitonti]

Mods lock this politics based thread please 

[Biggs]

Players shouldn't pay income tax, they should pay cap gain taxes like rich people. 

[Embrace the Suck]

7 minutes ago, Biggs said:

Players shouldn't pay income tax, they should pay cap gain taxes like rich people. 

You mean like everyone. I'll be paying capital gains on a 4k profit from a 13k investment over 3 years, and I'm not rich. 'Rich' people pay income tax also. They just have more income to play games with which we all play to a smaller extent.

[CTJetsFan]

Interesting point.

Not saying players shouldn't pay taxes, but maybe the league can adjust the cap #s for teams in states with higher income taxes vs states with no income tax.

[Creepy Lurker]

Just now, CTJetsFan said:

Interesting point.

Not saying players shouldn't pay taxes, but maybe the league can adjust the cap #s for teams in states with higher income taxes vs states with no income tax.

Bingo. It’s absurd that they don’t already do this. 

[Biggs]

4 minutes ago, CTJetsFan said:

Interesting point.

Not saying players shouldn't pay taxes, but maybe the league can adjust the cap #s for teams in states with higher income taxes vs states with no income tax.

The reality is it's a draft league, a capped league and a shared revenue league.  It's also a league exempt from anti-trust.  The NFL should contract the players for the teams.  Today they are located in NYC.  New York state and city taxes for all players.  Let the league move to a new venue if they want a lower tax rate.  

The idea that the NFL revenue and paychecks are coming from 32 different entities is nuts.  

[Hex]

7 minutes ago, CTJetsFan said:

Interesting point.

Not saying players shouldn't pay taxes, but maybe the league can adjust the cap #s for teams in states with higher income taxes vs states with no income tax.

That seems to me the best thing to do, but I do wonder if logistically it could be exploited by teams if that were to be put into place. Don’t know how so maybe it’s a moot point

[CTJetsFan]

6 minutes ago, Biggs said:

The reality is it's a draft league, a capped league and a shared revenue league.  It's also a league exempt from anti-trust.  The NFL should contract the players for the teams.  Today they are located in NYC.  New York state and city taxes for all players.  Let the league move to a new venue if they want a lower tax rate.  

The idea that the NFL revenue and paychecks are coming from 32 different entities is nuts.  

Isn't that how it works for all professional leagues in the US (players taxed where games are played and home state)?

Putting the tax question to the side, I think the OP meant that players may opt to play for teams in states with no income tax as they can pocket more.

If the league adjusted the cap for teams in high tax states, they could offer more to players to offset that discrepancy. And as a result, the state would be able to collect even more taxes from the player.

One issue I see with that is it could skew salaries at the positional level which is used to calculate franchise tag #s etc.

[TuscanyTile2]

39 minutes ago, bitonti said:

Mods lock this politics based thread please 

Political?  Have you been hanging out with NJ Meadwlands or something?  Maybe you're trying to join the "Outrage Committee"?

[extmenace]

It’s been an issue for a while. It will become more of an issue the bigger these contracts get for players. 
 

This is ball parking because I don’t remember the exact figure but Tyreeks contract was worth something like 8 million more in Miami than it was in NY. 

[TuscanyTile2]

17 minutes ago, CTJetsFan said:

Interesting point.

Not saying players shouldn't pay taxes, but maybe the league can adjust the cap #s for teams in states with higher income taxes vs states with no income tax.

16 minutes ago, Creepy Lurker said:

Bingo. It’s absurd that they don’t already do this. 

I agree it's surprising this issue hasn't been dealt with (or even brought up, to my knowledge).  I think that day is coming though.

Another thing to consider (though I'm not saying the league would/should ever try to account for this) would be cost-of-living considerations.  Buying a house in NJ is probably a lot more expensive than in some other states (e.g. Detroit).  You have to wonder how that factors in player decisions in FA.  Btw, I know that you can also potentially make more money on appreciation in NY vs Detroit.  But all the prices are more expensive.

[Larz]

Don’t they pay taxes based on the location of the game ?

these aren’t capital gains. Where did that come from? 😂

they can’t even look into forming an S corporation without making them owners. 

[Larz]

Also the cap numbers are pretax numbers 

wtf is this thread 😂

[Biggs]

11 minutes ago, CTJetsFan said:

Isn't that how it works for all professional leagues in the US (players taxed where games are played and home state)?

Putting the tax question to the side, I think the OP meant that players may opt to play for teams in states with no income tax as they can pocket more.

If the league adjusted the cap for teams in high tax states, they could offer more to players to offset that discrepancy. And as a result, the state would be able to collect even more taxes from the player.

One issue I see with that is it could skew salaries at the positional level which is used to calculate franchise tag #s etc.

It's discriminatory and would probably violate employee rights in more than a few states where NFL players get paid.  

[CTJetsFan]

Just now, Biggs said:

It's discriminatory and would probably violate employee rights in more than a few states where NFL players get paid.  

Corporations do it now. Some have regional salary ranges for the same job which I'm sure factors is based on cost of living (of which local income taxes are a part)

[Biggs]

3 minutes ago, CTJetsFan said:

Corporations do it now. Some have regional salary ranges for the same job which I'm sure factors is based on cost of living (of which local income taxes are a part)

If you pay employees different salaries when they do the same job you better be very careful how you do it.   I would think the State of PA wouldn't be very happy if they got less tax revenue because salaries were artificially manipulated to pay players less when they play in PA then when they play in NY State.  The players themselves may not like it.

[rex-n-effect]

23 minutes ago, Biggs said:

The reality is it's a draft league, a capped league and a shared revenue league.  It's also a league exempt from anti-trust.  The NFL should contract the players for the teams.  Today they are located in NYC.  New York state and city taxes for all players.  Let the league move to a new venue if they want a lower tax rate.  

The idea that the NFL revenue and paychecks are coming from 32 different entities is nuts.  

Generally state income tax attaches to the state where the work is performed no matter where the player is contracted or where the employer exists. The NFL can't override state law and Congress can't exempt them from state law. 

[bitonti]

22 minutes ago, TuscanyTile2 said:

Political?  Have you been hanging out with NJ Meadwlands or something?  Maybe you're trying to join the "Outrage Committee"?

If I blast you with both barrels for all the economic and political reasons behind taxes, this thread will be locked

for example the federal government "deletes" the money that it collects in taxes and "prints" the money it needs to spend 

 so if we really want to talk about it, the whole thing is smoke and mirrors 

what these threads end up being is so called small gov't conservatives and libertarians advocating against all taxation

 

[TuscanyTile2]

3 minutes ago, bitonti said:

If I blast you with both barrels for all the economic and political reasons behind taxes, this thread will be locked

for example the federal government "deletes" the money that it collects in taxes and "prints" the money it needs to spend 

 so if we really want to talk about it, the whole thing is smoke and mirrors 

what these threads end up being is so called small gov't conservatives and libertarians advocating against all taxation

Either that or it turns into a discussion of the salary cap.

[BCJet]

My understanding is that you get paid where you earn the wages so if the Jets play at the Texans, that game check does not have state taxes taken out of it (now its possible they do pay state taxes on it when they get paid and have to file for a refund but overall I think thats how it works).

So yea, there are 8/9 games where they would pay NJ taxes vs a player who plays in Texas wouldnt have that but i dont think the impact is quite what people make it out to be.

[TuscanyTile2]

22 minutes ago, Larz said:

Also the cap numbers are pretax numbers 

wtf is this thread 😂

It doesn't matter if the cap uses pre-tax numbers.  The key thing is that the players know there's going to be a difference in their income if they sign with the Jets as opposed to Miami, Tampa, Houston or Dallas (FL and TX having no state income tax).   That could affect their decision of where to sign, giving some teams an unfair advantage over others.

[OilfieldJet]

There are multiple reasons why a player may elect to take a job with a specific club; I am sure economics are one of them, but the state income level burden has got to be dwarfed by other considerations. I wonder how often a player receives offers from 2 teams that are so similar he starts to worry about the state tax burden? My guess is this is not a frequent thing.

[CTJetsFan]

13 minutes ago, Biggs said:

If you pay employees different salaries when they do the same job you better be very careful how you do it.   I would think the State of PA wouldn't be very happy if they got less tax revenue because salaries were artificially manipulated to pay players less when they play in PA then when they play in NY State.  The players themselves may not like it.

Either I'm not getting your point or we are just saying 2 different things.

It's happening today. I'm sure teams in NY, NJ & CA have to offer players more then they are offered in states like FL and TX to offset the cost of living and taxes. Didn't Tyreek Hill cite that as an example of why he chose Miami (besides being from there)? All I'm saying is maybe the league should look at the salary cap impact of that for those teams in areas where they have to pay more. Not give them a break on taxes or anything like that.

If you were offered the same job by a company in NY and in FL, wouldn't you ask for (or expect) more $ from the company to do the job in NY (all other things being equal)?

 

 

[bitonti]

29 minutes ago, TuscanyTile2 said:

Either that or it turns into a discussion of the salary cap.

i heard the salary cap wasn't real and doesn't matter

taxes didn't stop the NYJ from paying Aaron Rodgers like the best player in the league, did it? 

 

[bitonti]

14 minutes ago, CTJetsFan said:

It's happening today. I'm sure teams in NY, NJ & CA have to offer players more then they are offered in states like FL and TX to offset the cost of living and taxes. Didn't Tyreek Hill cite that as an example of why he chose Miami (besides being from there)?

this is a logical conclusion but taxes didn't stop the MA based Patriots from being a dynasty or prevent the Houston Texans from sucking 

[Joe Willie White Shoes]

A person is taxed based on where they work and/or live (depending on the state), not where the employer is located. The NFL can't determine how state income tax will be applied.  

[Joe Willie White Shoes]

How long before someone starts calling for running backs on blue state teams to be free agents every season because of - you know - fairness, freedom and conspiracy theories.  

[nj meadowlands]

Ah looky looky!  @TuscanyTile2 once again thinking he's clever by subtly injecting his pathetic politics into random "football" threads.  What a shock!

But don't you dare call him out on violating the one thing @Maxman has pleaded with us 1,000 times not to do.  He might accuse you of being on an "Outrage Committee" (cute) or "woke" or something.   Lol.  Jerkoff.

[nj meadowlands]

45 minutes ago, bitonti said:

what these threads end up being is so called small gov't conservatives and libertarians advocating against all taxation

 

He knows what he's doing. He's not nearly as clever as he thinks he is.

[Matt39]

I don’t think it makes much of an impact. The NFL is set up for teams to be able to hang onto to their best drafted players. The jobs are so high paying and limited it really only impacts a few free agents per season. You are always going to have guys like Tyreek who want to play in Florida because they’re from there. The amount of players from Florida alone is probably more impactful than money.

[EM31]

First of all the idea of a salary cap in the first place is to try and level the playing field for all teams.

This could be dealt with very quickly under the next CBA by stating that state income taxes owed by a player are not subject to salary cap limits.  Instant playing field leveler right there.

For anyone wanting to bring a "fairness" argument into the picture I would point out that revenue is, at the end of the day derived from eyeballs looking at advertisement and the vast majority of those eyeballs are in some metro area or other.  Cities have been subsidizing non metro areas for years.

[PFSIKH]

1 hour ago, CTJetsFan said:

Interesting point.

Not saying players shouldn't pay taxes, but maybe the league can adjust the cap #s for teams in states with higher income taxes vs states with no income tax.

That is a horrible idea.

Big market teams already have a financial advantage over smaller market teams.  This would give even more of an advantage.  

[Biggs]

50 minutes ago, CTJetsFan said:

Either I'm not getting your point or we are just saying 2 different things.

It's happening today. I'm sure teams in NY, NJ & CA have to offer players more then they are offered in states like FL and TX to offset the cost of living and taxes. Didn't Tyreek Hill cite that as an example of why he chose Miami (besides being from there)? All I'm saying is maybe the league should look at the salary cap impact of that for those teams in areas where they have to pay more. Not give them a break on taxes or anything like that.

If you were offered the same job by a company in NY and in FL, wouldn't you ask for (or expect) more $ from the company to do the job in NY (all other things being equal)?

 

 

I wouldn't work in FL for double the money.

[TuscanyTile2]

18 minutes ago, nj meadowlands said:

Ah looky looky!  @TuscanyTile2 once again thinking he's clever by subtly injecting his pathetic politics into random "football" threads.  What a shock!

But don't you dare call him out on violating the one thing @Maxman has pleaded with us 1,000 times not to do.  He might accuse you of being on an "Outrage Committee" (cute) or "woke" or something.   Lol.  Jerkoff.

Neither of the 2 instances (this being one of them) where you accused me of "talking politics" is accurate. Discussing the salary cap implications of state taxes is not "politics".  Neither is discussing the safety of a certain "medical intervention" (no matter how much you want it to be the case).  The NFL had (and probably still has) specific rules related to that medical intervention, btw, that could include forfeiting games and player pay.