Knicks · Why was Dallas so much more attractive than NY? (page 5)

SwishAndDish13 wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

SwishAndDish13 wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

mreinman wrote:Were they in that much better shape starting the free agent process?

Do we still think that Texas does not seem more attractive than NY?

I understand that Jordan was from there but many players are from the NY area and that does not seem to pull them back here.

Wes Mathews was a great signing.

Lin would be a good get.

People talk about money, but the issue is Melo. They would make up for more than the tax offset in endorsements in the NYC area. And it's not just about Nike. The NBA has made it clear, no one wants to play with Melo.

Nobody has been interested in playing with LeBron for less money since he left Miami. Rather interesting.

We weren't asking people to play for less money. We were ready to offer the max to the likes of Gasol, Jordan and Aldridge. They just didn't care to come here.

But it was less. No state income tax in Texas. NY state/city is almost 13 %. Posted an article above. Also, Jordan and Aldridge are from Texas. Gasol stayed with his team.

Solid article you posted above. The only thing I didn't get was why they focused on the 5th year so much. Without that we were paying him less every year despite being able to pay him more and an increasing rate. People used that with LeBron then he opted out so he made more by going to Miami.

I don't know much about the jock tax but this article came up in a search about LeBron's options prior to the decision in 2010.

In the NBA, each player's per-game salary is computed, and whenever a team is on the road, the players must pay whichever tax rate is higher, the home state's or the away state's.

How does this work out for LeBron if he chooses to play in either Miami or Cleveland? First let's consider all of his 41 home games in either city. Because Florida has no income tax, LeBron's home game income tax liability is zero. On the other hand, were LeBron to play in Cleveland, he would pay Ohio's progressive tax with a top rate of 5.925% plus Cleveland's flat income rate of 2% on all 41 home games. On LeBron's Cleveland salary of about $244,000 a game, LeBron would be paying $9,900 in tax on each game he plays for the Cavaliers, compared to zero playing for Miami. In other words, James would be losing almost all of his salary advantage for playing with Cleveland, and that is only for half of his games.

So now let's consider jock taxes paid on the road. There are 6 places that effectively have no jock tax: Florida, Texas, Washington D.C., Illinois, Toronto and Tennessee (Illinois has a jock tax but it is retaliatory and therefore doesn't apply to athletes from Florida, while Tennessee has a jock 'fee' and it cannot be credited on state income tax forms). Because of Ohio's income tax laws, LeBron would be forced to pay Ohio and Cleveland's income taxes for each game played in those no-jock-tax locations if he were to play for Cleveland. But Florida would charge him no income tax while he was there. So that's another Miami advantage for 10-to12 games per year, during which LeBron, as a Cav, would be forced to pay roughly $211,000 ($2,600 per game) in income taxes that he wouldn't have to pay if he joins Miami.

Therefore, even though LeBron's salary would be $10,000 more per game if he stayed in Cleveland, he would be paying $12,500 more in taxes. The rest of the road games are pretty much a wash between the two cities. When playing in California, New York and other destinations, players from Ohio and Florida pay the same, the tax rate of the state they're visiting.

Of course these numbers are only estimates and do not account for the possibility of playoff games, possible increases in state tax rates or changes in the NBA salary cap. It should also be noted that if you include LeBron's 6th year as a Cavalier, the tax benefits of playing for Miami would only cut Cleveland's salary advantage by about two-thirds.

So Miami has a clear tax advantage, but what about some other possible destinations for LeBron, like Chicago, New York, New Jersey and Los Angeles? Although Illinois has a low, flat income tax rate of 3%, Chicago athletes are at a distinct disadvantage because Illinois is the only state that does not permit their resident athletes to credit jock taxes they've paid against their own state income tax liability. That means that these athletes pay 3% of their income to Illinois, plus any jock taxes levied against them. If LeBron were to go to Chicago, he would pay the same amount that he would pay in Miami, plus 3% of his earnings. At $234,000 a game, for 5 years, LeBron would be paying over $7,000 more per game in taxes for Chicago then he would for Miami. As far as New Jersey, Los Angeles and New York go, each state has a much higher state income tax than Cleveland, with the top rates being 8.97% in New Jersey, 10.55% in California, and 12.62% in New York City. Although, this may not matter much for the Knicks, who say that the city of New York would make LeBron a billionaire.

I have a bad feeling that amidst all of the free agent 'summits' LeBron has been attending and Family Guy episodes he has been starring in, he hasn't had time to calculate his income tax liability in each state and figure out which team can offer him the most money. Someone should really hurry up and inform him before he announces his decision tonight, in case he wants to change his mind.

For more on jock taxes, see http://www.taxfoundation.org/jock-taxes#article.

http://taxfoundation.org/article/state-j...

SwishAndDish13 wrote:

smackeddog wrote:

mreinman wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

mreinman wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

mreinman wrote:it really does look like the state tax in texas may be playing a bigger role than we think

He'd take home about 2 mil less of that 80 mil if he were in NY. That seems unlikely. You're observing the outcome (NY didn't get free agents) and inferring a highly unlikely cause IMO. Although I doubt money was the issue at all, the cost of living differences between NYC and Dallas are WAY bigger than the tax issues.

I was not inferring anything from players not coming to NY. NY Stinks and is a shytty place to play when they stink.

OK - then I misunderstood your comment before.

But how about Texas over another City with a reasonable cost of living?

Why doesn't every person in America live in the same state? It's just individual preference- some players go for money, some because they enjoy certain states, some because they are from there, it's nothing new.

Opportunity cost. The job market in many of these regions is not great. Your rhetorical question is not directly related though. Comparing the average worker to an NBA basketball player is apples to oranges. The same job is cost adjusted in most US firms. It makes logical sense. They only usually allow people to keep salaries in forced moves as an incentive.

If everyone on this board became a gifted ball player over night, do you really believe we'd all go to exactly the same team (if the knicks weren't available of course)? Some would go for the money, some would go where they felt they were the best fit, some would go where there friends are, some would go for their hometown, some would go where they get more playing time, some would go where they have the best chance of winning.

meloshouldgo wrote:

SwishAndDish13 wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

mreinman wrote:Were they in that much better shape starting the free agent process?

Do we still think that Texas does not seem more attractive than NY?

I understand that Jordan was from there but many players are from the NY area and that does not seem to pull them back here.

Wes Mathews was a great signing.

Lin would be a good get.

People talk about money, but the issue is Melo. They would make up for more than the tax offset in endorsements in the NYC area. And it's not just about Nike. The NBA has made it clear, no one wants to play with Melo.

Nobody has been interested in playing with LeBron for less money since he left Miami. Rather interesting.

We weren't asking people to play for less money. We were ready to offer the max to the likes of Gasol, Jordan and Aldridge. They just didn't care to come here.

gasol loves memphis, Aldridge and Jordan are from Texas and wanted to play there. But sure, lets pretend they chose their destination due to a hatred of Melo

smackeddog wrote:

SwishAndDish13 wrote:

smackeddog wrote:

mreinman wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

mreinman wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

mreinman wrote:it really does look like the state tax in texas may be playing a bigger role than we think

He'd take home about 2 mil less of that 80 mil if he were in NY. That seems unlikely. You're observing the outcome (NY didn't get free agents) and inferring a highly unlikely cause IMO. Although I doubt money was the issue at all, the cost of living differences between NYC and Dallas are WAY bigger than the tax issues.

I was not inferring anything from players not coming to NY. NY Stinks and is a shytty place to play when they stink.

OK - then I misunderstood your comment before.

But how about Texas over another City with a reasonable cost of living?

Why doesn't every person in America live in the same state? It's just individual preference- some players go for money, some because they enjoy certain states, some because they are from there, it's nothing new.

Opportunity cost. The job market in many of these regions is not great. Your rhetorical question is not directly related though. Comparing the average worker to an NBA basketball player is apples to oranges. The same job is cost adjusted in most US firms. It makes logical sense. They only usually allow people to keep salaries in forced moves as an incentive.

If everyone on this board became a gifted ball player over night, do you really believe we'd all go to exactly the same team (if the knicks weren't available of course)? Some would go for the money, some would go where they felt they were the best fit, some would go where there friends are, some would go for their hometown, some would go where they get more playing time, some would go where they have the best chance of winning.

Agreed. But the player movement is showing that this has become a very real factor. I do not believe it is realistic to ignore that anymore. It is certainly not and will never be the only factor but putting teams at a competitive disadvantage isn't fair either. They just reversed the old situation which isn't progress at all.

CrushALot, thanks for that article. It explained the difference. Jock tax is actually higher that paying income based on where it is earned as you pay the higher of your state or the state you're playing in.

SwishAndDish13 wrote:

smackeddog wrote:

SwishAndDish13 wrote:

smackeddog wrote:

mreinman wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

mreinman wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

mreinman wrote:it really does look like the state tax in texas may be playing a bigger role than we think

He'd take home about 2 mil less of that 80 mil if he were in NY. That seems unlikely. You're observing the outcome (NY didn't get free agents) and inferring a highly unlikely cause IMO. Although I doubt money was the issue at all, the cost of living differences between NYC and Dallas are WAY bigger than the tax issues.

I was not inferring anything from players not coming to NY. NY Stinks and is a shytty place to play when they stink.

OK - then I misunderstood your comment before.

But how about Texas over another City with a reasonable cost of living?

Why doesn't every person in America live in the same state? It's just individual preference- some players go for money, some because they enjoy certain states, some because they are from there, it's nothing new.

Opportunity cost. The job market in many of these regions is not great. Your rhetorical question is not directly related though. Comparing the average worker to an NBA basketball player is apples to oranges. The same job is cost adjusted in most US firms. It makes logical sense. They only usually allow people to keep salaries in forced moves as an incentive.

If everyone on this board became a gifted ball player over night, do you really believe we'd all go to exactly the same team (if the knicks weren't available of course)? Some would go for the money, some would go where they felt they were the best fit, some would go where there friends are, some would go for their hometown, some would go where they get more playing time, some would go where they have the best chance of winning.

Agreed. But the player movement is showing that this has become a very real factor. I do not believe it is realistic to ignore that anymore. It is certainly not and will never be the only factor but putting teams at a competitive disadvantage isn't fair either. They just reversed the old situation which isn't progress at all.

You still have the potential for larger marketing deals and global branding in NY. At least enough to offset a 10% tax

smackeddog wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

SwishAndDish13 wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

mreinman wrote:Were they in that much better shape starting the free agent process?

Do we still think that Texas does not seem more attractive than NY?

I understand that Jordan was from there but many players are from the NY area and that does not seem to pull them back here.

Wes Mathews was a great signing.

Lin would be a good get.

People talk about money, but the issue is Melo. They would make up for more than the tax offset in endorsements in the NYC area. And it's not just about Nike. The NBA has made it clear, no one wants to play with Melo.

Nobody has been interested in playing with LeBron for less money since he left Miami. Rather interesting.

We weren't asking people to play for less money. We were ready to offer the max to the likes of Gasol, Jordan and Aldridge. They just didn't care to come here.

gasol loves memphis, Aldridge and Jordan are from Texas and wanted to play there. But sure, lets pretend they chose their destination due to a hatred of Melo

Yes, you can contribute making excuses or you can wake up and smell the coffee. The data shows what it shows. Few players say anything good about playing with Melo after leaving his teams. And no one is beating down the door to come play with him. Almost everyone that leaves a team with Melo on it does better the following season.

But yeah let's keep blaming the income tax system

mreinman wrote:Were they in that much better shape starting the free agent process?

Do we still think that Texas does not seem more attractive than NY?

I understand that Jordan was from there but many players are from the NY area and that does not seem to pull them back here.

Wes Mathews was a great signing.

Lin would be a good get.

its simple...it comes down to free agents WONT come to a bad team. but on top of that dallas is warmer than ny and no income taxes

Well I guess Dallas isn't the destination we thought it was, nor is Parsons the free agent whisperer we thought.

Actually listening to ESPN Radio and the Herd talking about how Dallas is a hard sell for free agents, so perhaps the meme that Dallas > NY isn't that accurate.

DrAlphaeus wrote:Well I guess Dallas isn't the destination we thought it was, nor is Parsons the free agent whisperer we thought.

Actually listening to ESPN Radio and the Herd talking about how Dallas is a hard sell for free agents, so perhaps the meme that Dallas > NY isn't that accurate.

And he went to a state with an even higher state income tax than NY!

Bonn1997 wrote:

DrAlphaeus wrote:Well I guess Dallas isn't the destination we thought it was, nor is Parsons the free agent whisperer we thought.

Actually listening to ESPN Radio and the Herd talking about how Dallas is a hard sell for free agents, so perhaps the meme that Dallas > NY isn't that accurate.

And he went to a state with an even higher state income tax than NY!

I saw an interesting thing on twitter that NBA players have to pay road tax for all their road games - half their salary is based on out of state taxes, so the state income tax isn't as huge an advantage as people make it out to be. Still an advantage, but it gets overblown.

Knicks officially signed all three of their FA though.

Bonn1997 wrote:

DrAlphaeus wrote:Well I guess Dallas isn't the destination we thought it was, nor is Parsons the free agent whisperer we thought.

Actually listening to ESPN Radio and the Herd talking about how Dallas is a hard sell for free agents, so perhaps the meme that Dallas > NY isn't that accurate.

And he went to a state with an even higher state income tax than NY!

He was retained there. It can only be offset by offering the extra year as evidenced by the article(s) CrushALot provided. Even with the salary increased allowed for teams retaining their own player, it is actually a decent amount less.

crzymdups wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

DrAlphaeus wrote:Well I guess Dallas isn't the destination we thought it was, nor is Parsons the free agent whisperer we thought.

Actually listening to ESPN Radio and the Herd talking about how Dallas is a hard sell for free agents, so perhaps the meme that Dallas > NY isn't that accurate.

And he went to a state with an even higher state income tax than NY!

I saw an interesting thing on twitter that NBA players have to pay road tax for all their road games - half their salary is based on out of state taxes, so the state income tax isn't as huge an advantage as people make it out to be. Still an advantage, but it gets overblown.

Knicks officially signed all three of their FA though.

Athletes are at a disadvantage to the average citizen when it comes to income tax cross-state. Tax is determined based on the higher of state you live in vs the state you are playing-in. Players in NY and Cal will always pay the highest tax rate, which I was surprised to learn. I assumed they just paid where income was earned like most, but not the case.

SwishAndDish13 wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

DrAlphaeus wrote:Well I guess Dallas isn't the destination we thought it was, nor is Parsons the free agent whisperer we thought.

Actually listening to ESPN Radio and the Herd talking about how Dallas is a hard sell for free agents, so perhaps the meme that Dallas > NY isn't that accurate.

And he went to a state with an even higher state income tax than NY!

He was retained there. It can only be offset by offering the extra year as evidenced by the article(s) CrushALot provided. Even with the salary increased allowed for teams retaining their own player, it is actually a decent amount less.

Maybe the Clippers can give him an extra 10 years to make up for the cost of living

Not looking so attactive now are they..

Bonn1997 wrote:

SwishAndDish13 wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

DrAlphaeus wrote:Well I guess Dallas isn't the destination we thought it was, nor is Parsons the free agent whisperer we thought.

Actually listening to ESPN Radio and the Herd talking about how Dallas is a hard sell for free agents, so perhaps the meme that Dallas > NY isn't that accurate.

And he went to a state with an even higher state income tax than NY!

He was retained there. It can only be offset by offering the extra year as evidenced by the article(s) CrushALot provided. Even with the salary increased allowed for teams retaining their own player, it is actually a decent amount less.

Maybe the Clippers can give him an extra 10 years to make up for the cost of living

They evened it out. Not sure what your issue is.

SwishAndDish13 wrote:

crzymdups wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

DrAlphaeus wrote:Well I guess Dallas isn't the destination we thought it was, nor is Parsons the free agent whisperer we thought.

Actually listening to ESPN Radio and the Herd talking about how Dallas is a hard sell for free agents, so perhaps the meme that Dallas > NY isn't that accurate.

And he went to a state with an even higher state income tax than NY!

I saw an interesting thing on twitter that NBA players have to pay road tax for all their road games - half their salary is based on out of state taxes, so the state income tax isn't as huge an advantage as people make it out to be. Still an advantage, but it gets overblown.

Knicks officially signed all three of their FA though.

Athletes are at a disadvantage to the average citizen when it comes to income tax cross-state. Tax is determined based on the higher of state you live in vs the state you are playing-in. Players in NY and Cal will always pay the highest tax rate, which I was surprised to learn. I assumed they just paid where income was earned like most, but not the case.

Are you sure about that? My friend is a wrestler and he said that he has to go through hell and back come tax time because he's taxed at where he performs.

SwishAndDish13 wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

SwishAndDish13 wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

DrAlphaeus wrote:Well I guess Dallas isn't the destination we thought it was, nor is Parsons the free agent whisperer we thought.

Actually listening to ESPN Radio and the Herd talking about how Dallas is a hard sell for free agents, so perhaps the meme that Dallas > NY isn't that accurate.

And he went to a state with an even higher state income tax than NY!

He was retained there. It can only be offset by offering the extra year as evidenced by the article(s) CrushALot provided. Even with the salary increased allowed for teams retaining their own player, it is actually a decent amount less.

Maybe the Clippers can give him an extra 10 years to make up for the cost of living

They evened it out. Not sure what your issue is.

They evened what out? You know that they didn't give him the extra year, right?
The issue: The differences in state income tax are microscopic compared to many other issues, including cost of living. The league has already decided they don't want to adjust salaries for state income tax anyway. This is just bitter Knick fans complaining about something that probably isn't even one of the top 100 reasons for our team's struggles.

Bonn1997 wrote:

SwishAndDish13 wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

SwishAndDish13 wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

DrAlphaeus wrote:Well I guess Dallas isn't the destination we thought it was, nor is Parsons the free agent whisperer we thought.

Actually listening to ESPN Radio and the Herd talking about how Dallas is a hard sell for free agents, so perhaps the meme that Dallas > NY isn't that accurate.

And he went to a state with an even higher state income tax than NY!

He was retained there. It can only be offset by offering the extra year as evidenced by the article(s) CrushALot provided. Even with the salary increased allowed for teams retaining their own player, it is actually a decent amount less.

Maybe the Clippers can give him an extra 10 years to make up for the cost of living

They evened it out. Not sure what your issue is.

They evened what out? You know that they didn't give him the extra year, right?
The issue: The differences in state income tax are microscopic compared to many other issues, including cost of living. The league has already decided they don't want to adjust salaries for state income tax anyway. This is just bitter Knick fans complaining about something that probably isn't even one of the top 100 reasons for our team's struggles.

I was unaware and don't care. It has never been an issue in retaining players, but a city with higher income tax has yet to sign a UFA that wasn't a retention under the current CBA. Maybe a coincidence, but more that likely it is not. I'm not bitter. Just not irrationally angry like you.

CP3 gave Jordan his hug and everything was all set. Maybe he got some briefcase money too. All good. Non-issue in my book.

I wasn't referring specifically to you with the "bitter" comment - I used it before you replied to me too.
I'm not sure what you mean about UFAs signing. Are you saying teams like the Knicks, Clippers, Nets, Trail Blazers, Lakers, this year's NBA Champions, and others with high state taxes have never signed another team's player for a reasonable price?

Bonn1997 wrote:

SwishAndDish13 wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

SwishAndDish13 wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

DrAlphaeus wrote:Well I guess Dallas isn't the destination we thought it was, nor is Parsons the free agent whisperer we thought.

Actually listening to ESPN Radio and the Herd talking about how Dallas is a hard sell for free agents, so perhaps the meme that Dallas > NY isn't that accurate.

And he went to a state with an even higher state income tax than NY!

He was retained there. It can only be offset by offering the extra year as evidenced by the article(s) CrushALot provided. Even with the salary increased allowed for teams retaining their own player, it is actually a decent amount less.

Maybe the Clippers can give him an extra 10 years to make up for the cost of living

They evened it out. Not sure what your issue is.

They evened what out? You know that they didn't give him the extra year, right?
The issue: The differences in state income tax are microscopic compared to many other issues, including cost of living. The league has already decided they don't want to adjust salaries for state income tax anyway. This is just bitter Knick fans complaining about something that probably isn't even one of the top 100 reasons for our team's struggles.

Yup, it's a sign of desperation and complete refusal to acknowledge reality when people go grasping for straws like this.