SwissHabs Posted April 8, 2011 Share Posted April 8, 2011 Hello, Here are the taxes that pay our Canadiens in Montreal an a comparaison with other franchises. http://swisshabs.blogspot.com/2011/04/limposition-des-joueurs-dans-la-nhl.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlbalr Posted April 8, 2011 Share Posted April 8, 2011 Hello, Here are the taxes that pay our Canadiens in Montreal an a comparaison with other franchises. http://swisshabs.blo...ans-la-nhl.html Though the rates are high, the graphic doesn't take into effect any of the personal deductions available to the players (such as basic personal amount, spousal, child, etc). For someone like Darche (making the minimum), this would drop another $20,000+ off taxable income, yielding a savings of $10,000 or more, which, if you were to recalculate total taxes relative to income, it would affect the flat 48.22% rate. (I just finished doing some tax returns yesterday hence why this is in my head.) I'm not too familiar with the US system so without factoring in these available deductions, you can't quite get the full picture. Still, it's a good reference table to have when the inevitable argument of "Why didn't ____ sign with the Habs?" comes up, thanks for the link. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BCHabnut Posted April 8, 2011 Share Posted April 8, 2011 In the US, you can write off mortgage interest paid. That is huge. Most of these guys probably don't need mortgages though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TurdBurglar Posted April 8, 2011 Share Posted April 8, 2011 Id this federal and provincial tax? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BCHabnut Posted April 8, 2011 Share Posted April 8, 2011 I would say definitely both. I'm in the top tax bracket in Alberta, and my taxes are about 40% Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlbalr Posted April 8, 2011 Share Posted April 8, 2011 Id this federal and provincial tax? Yep, both appear to be factored in...at least for the Canadian teams. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chicoutimi Cucumber Posted April 8, 2011 Share Posted April 8, 2011 Interesting that the Habs pay basically the same as the Rangers, but the latter is a haven for UFAs while taxes are traditionally cited as one factor that works against Montreal. I suppose New York City has its own massive appeal, an appeal that Montreal can't really match despite its superior bagels and smoked meat. Also we are only marginally worse (3%) than LA, San Jose and Anaheim, also teams that seem to be perfectly attractive to UFAs. Equally interesting: for all that Canadians like to THINK they pay higher taxes than Americans, this graphic suggests something quite different. Don't tell the Conservatives and their right-wing allies that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BTH Posted April 8, 2011 Share Posted April 8, 2011 Interesting that the Habs pay basically the same as the Rangers, but the latter is a haven for UFAs while taxes are traditionally cited as one factor that works against Montreal. I suppose New York City has its own massive appeal, an appeal that Montreal can't really match despite its superior bagels and smoked meat. Also we are only marginally worse (3%) than LA, San Jose and Anaheim, also teams that seem to be perfectly attractive to UFAs. Equally interesting: for all that Canadians like to THINK they pay higher taxes than Americans, this graphic suggests something quite different. Don't tell the Conservatives and their right-wing allies that. Apart from taxes, Montreal also suffers from cold weather, French, and crazy media. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Helmethead Posted April 9, 2011 Share Posted April 9, 2011 But Montreal has a lower cost of living and plenty of pure laine honeys.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeLassister Posted April 9, 2011 Share Posted April 9, 2011 Apart from taxes, Montreal also suffers from cold weather, French, and crazy media. ###### off ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kiwihab Posted April 9, 2011 Share Posted April 9, 2011 I've always thought it would be a good idea to make the salary cap an "after tax" cap. I.e the cap is calculated on salaries after taxes are paid. I thought that would take the whole tax thing out of the equation in terms of attracting ufa's. Obviously the owners in high tax areas would have to pay more so I guess that may be a reason why they don't do it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chicoutimi Cucumber Posted April 9, 2011 Share Posted April 9, 2011 I've always thought it would be a good idea to make the salary cap an "after tax" cap. I.e the cap is calculated on salaries after taxes are paid. I thought that would take the whole tax thing out of the equation in terms of attracting ufa's. Obviously the owners in high tax areas would have to pay more so I guess that may be a reason why they don't do it. A good idea and a good explanation of why this idea likely will not come to pass. In truth, I don't think the Habs ARE unattractive to free agents anymore. While I have no doubt that SOME players are scared away by all the insanity, Montreal is the BOMB when you're doing well, and the fact remains we had no trouble running the table on UFAs in 2009-10. The real problem for the previous decade was most likely that the Habs just plain sucked ass. Since we now have a rep as a team that reliably makes the playoffs and is always competitive, I don't see UFA appeal as too big an issue going forward. Perhaps the only difference is that UFAs make the Canadiens compensate for the tax differential in their contracts, which they presumably don't do in places like NY. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TurdBurglar Posted April 10, 2011 Share Posted April 10, 2011 What I find misleading about that statistic is Carey Price is playing taxes. He's a member of the first nations, therefore tax exempt in Canada. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeLassister Posted April 10, 2011 Share Posted April 10, 2011 What I find misleading about that statistic is Carey Price is playing taxes. He's a member of the first nations, therefore tax exempt in Canada. Depends if he lived long enough on a "réserve" to be included. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TurdBurglar Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 It looks like he never lived on the reserve at all, he's non-status native according to wiki. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fromage Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 (edited) Depends if he lived long enough on a "réserve" to be included. never needed to live on a reserve to benefit from it. also nhl'ers file tax returns with every city/state that they play in because they are a paid on a per-day basis. so a habs player will not declare all of his salary in Quebec. Edited April 12, 2011 by fromage Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saskhab Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 Non-Status might be because he's the child of a white dad and an aboriginal mom. I can't remember all the details, but there was an incredibly sexist clause built into the original Indian Act about who qualifies for status Indians, and basically it meant that it was okay for an aboriginal male to marry a non-aboriginal and have his kids carry on being status Indians, but not for an aboriginal female. This has been a very contentious issue and that could be the reason for Price's non-status. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wamsley01 Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 Non-Status might be because he's the child of a white dad and an aboriginal mom. I can't remember all the details, but there was an incredibly sexist clause built into the original Indian Act about who qualifies for status Indians, and basically it meant that it was okay for an aboriginal male to marry a non-aboriginal and have his kids carry on being status Indians, but not for an aboriginal female. This has been a very contentious issue and that could be the reason for Price's non-status. My friends children are 25% native and have a status card and he has never lived on a reserve. If Price wanted a status card, he could likely get one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeLassister Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 never needed to live on a reserve to benefit from it. How old are you ? My friends children are 25% native and have a status card and he has never lived on a reserve. If Price wanted a status card, he could likely get one. Gotte be the Xth generation of native to receive a status card automaticaly, Passed that Xth generation, you have to be living one full year on a reserve. Well, that's what twins friends of mine with 25% of native blood told me a few years ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BCHabnut Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 How old are you ? Gotte be the Xth generation of native to receive a status card automaticaly, Passed that Xth generation, you have to be living one full year on a reserve. Well, that's what twins friends of mine with 25% of native blood told me a few years ago. You aren't tax exempt just for being a status Indian. The money has to be earned on the reserve in order to be exempt. I believe it is that way across Canada. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BCHabnut Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 Non-Status might be because he's the child of a white dad and an aboriginal mom. I can't remember all the details, but there was an incredibly sexist clause built into the original Indian Act about who qualifies for status Indians, and basically it meant that it was okay for an aboriginal male to marry a non-aboriginal and have his kids carry on being status Indians, but not for an aboriginal female. This has been a very contentious issue and that could be the reason for Price's non-status. This is absolutely correct. The purpose of this would appear sexist, but I believe it was in an effort to reduce the number of status Aborigionals. When you think about it, how many Native dudes have you meant with caucasian wives? I have seen several Native women with caucasian husbands. This was probably even more prolific during the time that the Indian act was written. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fromage Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 How old are you ? 20 years old. never was a poor choice of words. i meant never under the current rules. i have many natives in my family in both the US and Canada. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeLassister Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 20 years old. never was a poor choice of words. i meant never under the current rules. i have many natives in my family in both the US and Canada. ok , I was asking just to see if you could tell me if what my friends told me was correct. That if you are passed, let's say, the 5th native generation, you have to go live on a reserve for a full year to benefit the taxes exemption ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BCHabnut Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 I believe that your father must be a Status indian in order for you to qualify in the first place, as Saskhab said, so it doesn't matter how many generations are removed in this case. Also, as I said, the money must be earned on the reserve in order to recieve tax ememption for it. The idea that your native buddy that sits across from you is tax exempt, is incorrect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fromage Posted April 14, 2011 Share Posted April 14, 2011 (edited) ok , I was asking just to see if you could tell me if what my friends told me was correct. That if you are passed, let's say, the 5th native generation, you have to go live on a reserve for a full year to benefit the taxes exemption ? only 1 of your parents has to be status natives in order for the offspring to become one so generation doesn't matter. you can only gain the status if there is a consecutive lineage in your family of status natives, meaning if either your mother or your father are status natives, you're eligible, but if neither of them are, regardless of how you can prove your native lineage, it won't fly. i wouldn't know much about taxes exemptions, that's not typically something i discuss with my native family. unfortunately, i do not qualify for status native Edited April 14, 2011 by fromage Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.