11/21/24
March 29, 2010
Tennessee Charges More 'Jock Tax' Than Players Earn: When Detroit plays a road game tonight in Nashville, 17 Red Wings players will pay more in Tennessee's "jock tax" than they will earn playing the game, according to Detroit defenseman Brian Rafalski. "It's a tax rate of over 100%," he said. "It's just not a fair tax."
I'm surprised the NHL and NBA player unions haven't taken this to court yet. Studying options, well, let's just say either the lawyers are negotiating behind the scenes to get a change or else there's something strange going on between the unions and lawyers.
posted by billsaysthis at 03:41 PM on March 29, 2010
Surely this tax would cost more to legislate, collect and enforce than it would generate in revenue?
posted by owlhouse at 04:47 PM on March 29, 2010
The Nashville hockey team is well-named, it would seem.
This thing just smells bad. And it's outrageous. It is a municipal levy that does not affect the Titans, and money goes directly to the city. There is apparently no state agency involvement or oversight.
It has to be due to the fact that the Preds have been on a yellow brick road with Nashville since day one, with the city paying a hefty portion of their league initiation fee and absorbing operating losses at the arena as well.
There must be people anxious to recoup those tens of millions any way they can. Player by player, game by game.
This affects the Canadian teams as well without any greater legal ramifications or dispute from them?
posted by beaverboard at 05:18 PM on March 29, 2010
"Oh, here he comes. What is it now, Quimby?"
"Nothing, nothing. Only the, er, city has just passed another tax on puffy directing pants."
"But I don't wear puffy pants!"
"I meant a tax on, er, not wearing puffy pants."
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 06:46 PM on March 29, 2010
I understand to a degree what Tennessee's intent is. In my home state of Minnesota, we do have a state income tax, and thus, any player from any team who plays here is subject to that tax, since he earned part of his income here. So since A-Rod plays 3 of his 162 games in Minnesota each year, that makes a portion of his income taxable. (If this is considered 1/54th of his income -- I don't know if that is how it is calculated -- this would be almost $520,000 each year that could be taxed.) Tennessee wants the same benefit without imposing a state income tax, and it wouldn't be so bad if they were doing it sensibly. But forcing players to pay more than they are actually making while in the state makes no sense.
Of course, many sports teams benefit from taxing outsiders. One of the most "evil genius" methods is how Houston paid for Minute Maid Park: a rental car tax. Tourists and business travelers end up paying for a new stadium. It is something I'm surprised other teams haven't tried.
posted by TheQatarian at 08:51 PM on March 29, 2010
Of course, many sports teams benefit from taxing outsiders. One of the most "evil genius" methods is how Houston paid for Minute Maid Park: a rental car tax. Tourists and business travelers end up paying for a new stadium.
Assuming that these kinds of separate taxes aren't fungible. But of course they are, in terms of how total revenue is collected and used.
posted by owlhouse at 08:57 PM on March 29, 2010
If you take money out of a car renter by making him pay a special Major League Baseball corporate welfare tax, it's not like there's no impact at all on the locals. People who rent cars are away from home, so they are more likely to spend money on restaurants, hotels, gas and prostitutes who offer room service. The tax means they spent less on those things.
posted by rcade at 09:19 PM on March 29, 2010
Prostitutes?
posted by yzelda4045 at 10:29 PM on March 29, 2010
The whole car rental/hotel/airport taxation system is well used to fund just about every possible program out there. As owlhouse already pointed out, the fungibility of the tax dollars reduce the impact. If the city had taxed food more, or taxed everything slightly more, it evens out in the end. What is misguided is that almost every city imposes outrageous taxes on items that tourists tend to use. As to say, "see, we're not taxing you, we're taxing all of these out of towners", but since every city does it, we all pay in the end. And, since we let the politicians get away with it, we just empower them to continue.
But, enough about taxation in general. I find the system that Nashville is using to be more of fee than a tax. They're basically charging for the right to conduct business in their state. The other 17 states that tax visiting players do so on a % of their income earned. In Minnesota, Joe Mauer pays more MN income tax than A-Rod does, which is only fair. In Nashville, because they cap the amount at $7500, a home team player pays the same as a visiting player does. That's a fee, not an income tax. I do have a huge issue with it, beyond that the amount may be unreasonable. States charge other businesses and/or individuals fees for the right to conduct business within their borders, so why not athletes?
posted by dviking at 10:33 PM on March 29, 2010
Prostitutes?
You mean you don't order prostitutes when you go out of town?
Me ... neither.
posted by rcade at 10:38 PM on March 29, 2010
I'm pretty sure you could fix this by having all other states which have NHL franchises impose a 100% tax only on Nashville Predators players when they visit.
Plus, a brutally invasive strip search.
posted by wfrazerjr at 11:22 PM on March 29, 2010
What about playoff games? Since a player's salary is paid in full whether the team makes the playoffs or not, they essentially play the playoffs for free. Isn't it illegal to tax a volunteer?
posted by MeatSaber at 11:29 PM on March 29, 2010
The power tax is the power to kill something.
Holy shit, is Rafalski citing Marbury v. Madison? Nice work.
posted by tahoemoj at 12:19 AM on March 30, 2010
Unfortunately, it's Stephon Marbury.
posted by yerfatma at 08:56 AM on March 30, 2010
owlhouse,
That must've been a subconscious allusion, because I didn't even make that connection until you mentioned it...
posted by MeatSaber at 12:00 PM on March 30, 2010
I'm all for lower tax rates to begin with, and as the article notes, a state can't charge taxes on income not earned in that state, which is essentially what this is doing. Such a tax needs to be a percentage rate, not a flat number.