JMMR Posted June 19, 2007 Share Posted June 19, 2007 Well I want him just so he can follow in the lead of Bonk and Bulis and represent the B of BTH. I don't think it would be wise to pay anyone more than we're paying Markov. Or atleast more than 6M. Will have t be Begin next year or Bouillon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beliveau1 Posted June 19, 2007 Share Posted June 19, 2007 (edited) Just let July 1 come around so this issue will die please. you wish.... They will be here in droves to bash them if he walks and they will be here in like numbers to condemn them for signing him. I can hear them already! 'We lost him for nothing when we could have traded him for something...' or.... 'Oh we paid far too much for his sorry defence and that all knowing and all defining horrible plus/minus number that he puts up...' and on & on & on & on Ad nauseam, to infinity & beyond - if, if , if , iffffffffff.................................... to the point I'll wish wish my aunt did have balls? Edited June 19, 2007 by beliveau1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShortHanded Posted June 19, 2007 Share Posted June 19, 2007 Well I want him just so he can follow in the lead of Bonk and Bulis and represent the B of BTH. I don't think it would be wise to pay anyone more than we're paying Markov. Or atleast more than 6M. so the H stands for Habs, right? but what does the T stand for? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Habitforming Posted June 19, 2007 Share Posted June 19, 2007 so the H stands for Habs, right? but what does the T stand for? He used to be Bulis the Habby, after Bulis left he became BTH. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fanpuck33 Posted June 19, 2007 Share Posted June 19, 2007 Souray will likely take that deal. Just not with us. The $15M the habs could offer is way less take home if you consider the taxes he would pay.In California however he would take home almost all of it 65% is almost all of it? His tax bracket in the US would have him pay 35% of his income. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMMR Posted June 19, 2007 Share Posted June 19, 2007 65% is almost all of it? His tax bracket in the US would have him pay 35% of his income. Thanks fanpuck! How many states have 0 income tax? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Athlétique.Canadien Posted June 19, 2007 Share Posted June 19, 2007 I am convinced (my theory) that the Souray hold up is not money but length of contract. We have the money to overspend for 6 million. I bet that's not the problem. Being handcuffed short term by 6 million isn't that bad. I bet Souray wants money + security. The latter is the killer I believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Posted June 19, 2007 Share Posted June 19, 2007 Your nuts. 6 million for Souray. You can get 2 solid Dman for that. The hold up is simply money. I know alot of people beleive what Souray says. He will take the money and run. He is no way worth 6 million. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Habitforming Posted June 19, 2007 Share Posted June 19, 2007 (edited) 65% is almost all of it? His tax bracket in the US would have him pay 35% of his income. No it isn't. California is 10.3 percent if over $1M Then he can file with the government for working out of country and get a large portion of the taxes he paid back. Edited June 19, 2007 by Habitforming Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShortHanded Posted June 19, 2007 Share Posted June 19, 2007 No it isn't. California is 10.3 percent if over $1M Then he can file with the government for working out of country and get a large portion of the taxes he paid back. Wow! that's ridiculous... let the average folk pay all the taxes and the millionaires pay barely anything... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Athlétique.Canadien Posted June 19, 2007 Share Posted June 19, 2007 (edited) Your nuts. 6 million for Souray. You can get 2 solid Dman for that. The hold up is simply money. I know alot of people beleive what Souray says. He will take the money and run. He is no way worth 6 million. Pishaw Edited June 19, 2007 by ATHLÉTIQUE.CANADIEN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simonus Posted June 19, 2007 Share Posted June 19, 2007 Wow! that's ridiculous... let the average folk pay all the taxes and the millionaires pay barely anything... its 10.3% in state taxes, on top of the fed tax. State taxes can be partially redeemed against the federal income tax, depending on whether you hit the Alternative Minimum Tax (which Souray almost certainly would). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
habanero Posted June 19, 2007 Share Posted June 19, 2007 Wow! that's ridiculous... let the average folk pay all the taxes and the millionaires pay barely anything... 10.3% is California state taxes on top of the 35% federal he'd pay. Millionaires pay no taxes if they can set up corporations, but I don't think hockey players can get away with this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simonus Posted June 19, 2007 Share Posted June 19, 2007 (edited) 10.3% is California state taxes on top of the 35% federal he'd pay. Millionaires pay no taxes if they can set up corporations, but I don't think hockey players can get away with this. depends on what kind of corp he would set up and whether he could, for tax purposes, assign his income directly to the corp (i wonder if the CBA even allows him to do this). Even if souray were able to setup an S Corp, he would still have to pay income taxes on his salary. If he setup a C Corp, he would be in a worse tax scenario. the advantage of setting up an S corp would be if he were able to get the corp to pay for some of his expenses without such payments being counted as wages (perhaps some of his travel, lodging, company car). Edited June 19, 2007 by simonus clarity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShortHanded Posted June 19, 2007 Share Posted June 19, 2007 its 10.3% in state taxes, on top of the fed tax. State taxes can be partially redeemed against the federal income tax, depending on whether you hit the Alternative Minimum Tax (which Souray almost certainly would). I see, thanks for explaining. Well then, 10.3 + 35 is over 45%... so it's not like he pays that litte in Cali then he'd pay here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
habanero Posted June 19, 2007 Share Posted June 19, 2007 I see, thanks for explaining. Well then, 10.3 + 35 is over 45%... so it's not like he pays that litte in Cali then he'd pay here. And he may already hate the traffic by now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simonus Posted June 19, 2007 Share Posted June 19, 2007 I see, thanks for explaining. Well then, 10.3 + 35 is over 45%... so it's not like he pays that litte in Cali then he'd pay here. some cities also have separate income taxes (not sure if any California cities do). But you can often deduct your state tax payments from your fed tax payments, thereby avoiding this aggregate rate. I'm sure, however that Souray would hit the Alternative Minimum Tax, which allows fewer tax loopholes, and as such would peg him around 28% in fed taxes + 10.3% in state taxes (state taxes are not deductible under the AMT). As such, he'd probably end up around 38%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoRvInA Posted June 28, 2007 Share Posted June 28, 2007 have you guys read the Souray fantasy dialogue with BG written by Robert L. something? which was posted on the home page? http://wwwrealitycheckeyesontheprize.blogs...and-gainey.html An interesting point he mentions regarding the utility of Souray in this or any team, vis a vis the length of his to be contract, will determine the type of contract Sheldon would sign on the doted line. In other words, for example even if BoB were to offer him 7 Mil for say... only two years... its in Souray's benefit that gets the same use he got last season 'PP use' (which would tend to register in the same point category output) which would improve or guarantee him a high demand when he's a free again in two years. Yet as Robert speculates.. Sheldon Souray requires some certainty on his role and what the level of play this NEW 2007-08 Habs team will be like when the new Big guns get (if they do get) hired! So this hypothetical dialog between the two parties envisions Souray having two main choices (not regarding the place where he lands Family wise): get a long term high valued deal and he then doesnt worry about what his use is or who he plays with. Or he gets a shorter deal but he gets some assurance what his role is and the team's (Habs or other) level of contender-ship is and possibly a security clause which would prevent him from being traded to any team that BG could deal him to. Interesting enough. the other point mentioned again is that the Habs can't offer him 4 years like Markov got its either 3 or 5 He could get 4 but that would no doubt mean he gets traded before that period ends... and if Sheldon does want a No trade clause that gets complicated It sure stinks tho... If Souray believes in the team wouldn't he or shouldn't he be content with say a 4 or 5 year deal with a No trade clause at 3-4 Mil a year? if he wants more than 5 mil he is forcing Gainey to give him a shorter contract. and that's probably whats making the terms hard to agree with. But can U blame Gainey? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MFT77 Posted June 28, 2007 Share Posted June 28, 2007 I thought that was a very interesting read. How much of that is true, only they know, but my hope is Souray gets resigned. 15 million for 3 years would be great. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Habsfan24 Posted June 28, 2007 Share Posted June 28, 2007 Come on Shelly sign today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fanpuck33 Posted June 28, 2007 Share Posted June 28, 2007 some cities also have separate income taxes (not sure if any California cities do). But you can often deduct your state tax payments from your fed tax payments, thereby avoiding this aggregate rate. I'm sure, however that Souray would hit the Alternative Minimum Tax, which allows fewer tax loopholes, and as such would peg him around 28% in fed taxes + 10.3% in state taxes (state taxes are not deductible under the AMT). As such, he'd probably end up around 38%. Thank you. So, what are the taxes like in Quebec? I can't imagine they'd be much more than the nearly 40% he'd pay in California. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mont Royale Posted June 28, 2007 Share Posted June 28, 2007 Thank you. So, what are the taxes like in Quebec? I can't imagine they'd be much more than the nearly 40% he'd pay in California. The top marginal tax rate in Quebec is 48.2%, one of the highest in Canada. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted June 28, 2007 Share Posted June 28, 2007 I hope all of you remember Souray gets tax exemptions in Canada (not sure about US, someone clarify please) since he's from native American descent. Apparently Souray is waiting from another offer from Bob. At this point, SOMEONE PICK UP THE PHONE ALREADY! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMMR Posted June 28, 2007 Share Posted June 28, 2007 Oh thats right it is better for Souray to sign in Canada for tax reasons thats amazing! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShortHanded Posted June 28, 2007 Share Posted June 28, 2007 I'd COMPLETELY forgotten about that too! Ha, so the tax excuse TOTALLY won't work with him then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts