SwishAndDish13 wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:CrushAlot wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:CrushAlot wrote:^^^^^The tax issue is becoming more prominent in the media. It is discussed a lot more on sports radio. Maybe that is because the fan base has more knowledge or because more ex execs are involved in the media.
I'd be shocked if this movement went anywhere. Besides the dozen or so reasons against it listed here, the league won't be able to sell the argument that places like New York and LA have it too hard and need a higher salary cap than everyone else. If you can't even convince a clear majority of Knicks fans, good luck convincing the fans of all teams outside NY and California. You'll have millions and millions of angry fans listing the reasons that even many Knicks fans are giving here.
What reasons are those? I glanced through the thread and saw two. One is that marketing opportunities could make up for an almost 13 % income tax rate for state/city and the other was that players would come if the team was better. If you accept that the extra income tax is a handicap then it makes it harder to make the team better. The marketing factor is barely a factor at this point. Guys in smaller markets are being marketed effectively.
Well these have been described in more detail throughout the thread but basically
1. Marketing
2. Many other factors like cost of living have an exponentially larger impact and would need to be addressed first
3. The league has done fine for 60 years without adjusting for state taxes, including over 30 years with a salary cap
4. You get benefits from those state taxes (as described earlier). You're providing them for free if you then adjust player salary too
5. The commissioner (who is elected by the owners) doesn't even want to do this
6. There is only occasional anecdotal evidence that this is actually hurting teams. You need stronger evidence.
7. Teams with high state tax rates are not struggling. The current league champions come from the state with the highest tax rate and the teams with the top 7 tax rates had a winning % significantly above .500 last year even counting the outlier Knicks.
8. The argument that teams in New York and LA need help and need a higher salary cap than the rest of the league looks bad. I'm sure there are more reasons too. Even if there weren't these reasons, the #s just aren't on your argument's side. The only teams that would benefit are in NY, California, and Oregon. You'll be upsetting too many people for every one person you're pleasing. I have no doubt that you and Swish will find arguments against each of these 8 points but you will have ten angry fans citing and convinced by these reasons for every one who is happy.
Point 3 - This shows a lack of understanding of how contract negotiations have changed over the last 30 years and the history of income earned reporting laws for reporting in the state in which it is earned.
Point 5 - Not an actual point as to why it is not an issue. Agreed that Silver has no desire to fix it.
Point 8 - This can be easily explained. Teams have manipulated it to add through FA, which is not feasible in high income states unless A) everybody wants to take less, which hasn't happened yet, ever. B) You get most of your players through the draft, which is when points 6 & 7 above work in your favor.
I never said taxes and the CBA were unchanged over that period. I have not seen compelling evidence that changes to the CBA and taxes have actually hurt teams in NY, California, and Oregon though (my point #6).
I expect that you can come up with arguments against each of the 8 points and I doubt I'll find them convincing. I provided the list because Crush asked for it, not to try to change your mind - I realize that that will definitely not happen.
7/10/2015 1:42 PM