Sebybbq : “Stop acting like you know better than anyone! You have your opinion and you’re always bashing on everyone. Your always right its a common think i found out about you so do a introspective of yourself before and be open minded a little bit some other people here know hockey too its not because you not agree on a thing that they are wrong“

probably an overpayment

GMs are greedy. Rather give an overpayment than offend the other team

palat has a full nmc, doesnt make sense to go from tax free florida to heavily taxed california for a worse team.

to contextualize your comment: mark stone signed a $76m deal in vegas. nevada does not have state taxes.

if he had signed in california instead, he would have paid an extra $570k in state taxes over the entire life of the contract. that's a difference of less than 1% over the life of the contract. he sees about $34m of that after income tax, jock tax, escrow, agent fees, accounting, etc. so even by that metric, he's only losing 1.5% of his take-home pay to state taxes.

basically, taxes don't matter nearly as much as you think they do. especially if the player has a competent accountant (which they all do, because they're ****ing rich). location, probability of success, coaching, management are all way more important factors (and infinitely more likely reasons why palat would want to stay in tampa than a 1% raise)

I think you have your math wrong... using cap friendlys income tax calc. stone is losing 13.09% in state taxes to california. Quick google search says any earner making more than 1m in income pays 13.3% (comes out to roughly 1.5m per year) not to mention housing costs significantly more in california as it does elsewhere. Not sure how you got 570k total over 8 years. Now, do i agree with you saying there are work arounds to lower the effective tax rate? absolutely... but to say its a difference of 71,250 per year in taxes is just wrong.

you know forbes did a whole piece on the intricacies of the state tax difference, right?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/ryanlake/2019/03/07/mark-stone-hits-the-tax-jackpot-in-vegas/#5ba70911748c

right but im not sure how he thinks the state comes last in terms of getting its revenues. it goes federal then state then jock then escrow then agent. you dont get to just take your income and allocate it however you want. he would end up playing roughly 50 games in california at 13.3% thats 770k a year in taxes. i dont know where he gets 71k he has got to be off a zero some where. basically 5.7m of his 9.5 aav would be allocable to california. 5.7* 13.3% is 770k.

the way escrow works with the league is weird. it isn't a payment to the league, it's a salary deduction. players don't usually get much of this back. in 2015-16 (the most recent number we know), players paid in 13.8% of their salaries in escrow and got back 3.2%.

in addition to that, marginal tax rates means a player's per year salary isn't all taxed at the same rate. marginal tax brackets still apply and shield a lot of a player's income unless they're making a lot of money (like stone)

either way you're a guy on the internet, and the forbes contributor is a writer for a financial magazine. no offense to you, i'm sure you're great, but i'm gonna trust that guy

as a tax accountant... i think i understand how marginal tax works. what i dont understand is how his california state tax is .75% of his aav when their highest marginal rate is 13.3%. Sure just a guy on an internet but i feel like forbes is doing something wrong with the math. maybe missing a zero or something because thats legit theft if the difference is only 72k. Players wouldnt be taking millions less AAV to play/live in a tax free state other than the girls, fame, and drugs.