|
|
Post by Skilly on May 28, 2004 17:56:44 GMT -5
Call me crazy, but I don't think the trainers, scouts, or secretaries are making over a million bucks a year... When people talk about not subsidizing hockey, they say so because they don't want to subsidize millionaire athletes. Nobody says they don't want to subsidize the Habs travelling secretaries. Only the players are overpaid. Now back to hockey. Only the players are overpaid? Gainey, Boivin, Gauthier, Savard, Jarvis, Julien, Green, Gillete even are employees of the Habs that are overpaid with respect to the rest of society. Until I get a list of all these 8,000 directly affected jobs (with salary structure) we will have to agree to disgree what is considered overpaid. Most trainer have a diploma in sports medicine or something along that lines. So I would venture he makes more about $100,000 (in any case he makes more than me), and therefore I would call him over paid since I would do it for free. I never said they were not worth saving, nor did I say they are menial. I said (or tried to say) they do not provide the economic boom as thousands of federal government jobs. The federal government did not care about the thousands of jobs they just cut which probably provided a bigger ecominc boost to places like Grand Falls, NL then these jobs will to Montreal. Again you misunderstand me. This arguement started talking about the economic impacts of the strike. Not NHL hockey for now and evermore. If the strike happens next year, Brisebois' income will be taxed by the federal government because he is still under contract and it will be paid (if a lock-out). And if there is no hockey next year, the Bell center will still have to pay property taxes. The $200 million would be missed more so over a 20 year span, but for next year (strike/lock-out) the figure is mis-leading because some of it will be recouped by municipalities. Try buying a commercial building and telling your city council "I am sorry there is no occupant of that building so I don't owe you taxes". Go on vacation to the Caribbean for a year and say to your council "hey I wasn't even living there that year" Of course you still have to pay taxes. You own it. The council doesn't care how you develop it (as long as you comply with zoning) that's your problem, but if you own it you pay taxes on the assessment value. As for the bankrupt scenario. Gillete Enterprises may declare bankruptcy and George can not be responsible for the debt of the company (as long as the company is incorporated), but it isn't as easy as you propose. First, he would have to file for a financial restructuring proposal, and his creditors would have to agree to this plan. If not the company goes bankrupt and George has to sell of the companies assests to pay the creditors. So you better hope the Habs are not on that list of company assests. I am well aware of the lotteries, and I hoped you would bring it up. Revenue from sport lotteries should go to the team to a greater extent than the government. These are the only "government dollars" that should go to teams. |
|
|
|
Post by blaise on May 28, 2004 18:11:30 GMT -5
The average salary in MLB is $2.5M and that in the NHL is $1.9M. The total revenues in MLB are much greater than those in the NHL. Can any plausible conclusion be drawn other than that NHL players are generally overpaid relative to the gate receipts and TV fees? That applies not only to the Jagrs, Yashins, and Holiks but also to the players in the $1-2M range and even those below $1M.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on May 28, 2004 22:45:22 GMT -5
Well, like I said, I have no counter-argument for that. That's a philosophical debate on the best way to run a country, and if you take that position, then no-way, no-how should governments get involved. I would point out however, that there is no government in the world that is as strict as you are.. What? WAHT?? You have no argument? IMPOSSIBLE! As for strict, of course I am strict. I was trained by Mistress Wanda... The people I do disagree with however, are those who say that "governments should prop up private industries - just not the NHL." That's a knee-jerk reaction, in my opinion, that doesn't take into account all the facts. Last night, before the hockey game, the CBC ran a one-hour special documentary on - get this - the 2004 Newfoundland and Labrador Civil Servant strike. Yep, your tax payer's money going to civil servants making a documentary on civil servants demanding more money. THIS is where I take issue. People look at these wastes - at governments throwing money at huge conglomerates like GM, IBM, Air Canada, you know the list, most aren't even Canadian, people look at this and say, "meh." In general, the reason they need money thrown at them is because they are so horribly run, in sick, sick industries. The government gave literally millions of dollars to GM (like they need the money) so that 1,250 workers could continue to make non-selling Firebirds and Camaros. Thats a waste, anyway you cut it. People thought that was a good idea, and indeed, there was genuine outrage that the government "didn't do more." But god forbid a trifle amount get thrown at an NHL hockey team... Needless to say, you are reinforcing my point. The more money goverment has, the more way the special interest groups and politicians find ways to spend it. The field I work in has been classified by the Canadian government as "Research and Development." As such, my company receives a subsidy of $15,000 for every employee working here. For those of you keeping track at home, that’s about 95% of my salary. The building we work in was built by the SITQ, which builds prestigious office space in and around Montreal. SITQ was founded and is 93% owned by the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec (CDP), which is the Quebec government's pension plan. My company pays very little rent here, as the Quebec government, along with the City of Laval, is trying to attract investors to its new Science and Technology sector. My company is a wholly owned subsidary, with its office in Sunnyvale, California. Our parent company is in Japan. We sell virtually nothing in the Canadian market, wtih most of our customers being in Asia, or Europe. Waste like this is slowing down my progress to the billionaires club. How do you expect me to enjoy my jet if I know that my money is squandered like this? All seriousness aside, the system is inherently corrupt. The political machines require money to shake out the votes and the people who supply that money expect return on investment. Vicious circle…. Now, back to the CBA. The NHL and NHLPA are trying to win the hearts of the fans. The NHLPA knows that no agent can oversell the “need” to have a player unless there is public support for him. They are desperately trying to point fingers at each other while not really closer to a solution. Maybe, just maybe, there is a silver lining. If the shut down last a year, the probability of bankruptcies increases by four or more teams. That means the restribution of talenmt and that can only be better for of us. Also...... I wish that fans could display their displeasure. As it stands now, it does not reach the ears of the NHL and NHLPA. All they are concerned about is their pockets and the hell with the fans. Unless of course, people stay away in droves.... |
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on May 29, 2004 4:04:52 GMT -5
Most trainer have a diploma in sports medicine or something along that lines. So I would venture he makes more about $100,000 (in any case he makes more than me), and therefore I would call him over paid since I would do it for free. Maybe I'm missing something, but so what if they're earning over $100,000? That's money that they pay taxes on and that they can spend. How does the fact that they are well paid lessen the economic impact of them losing their jobs, and why does it make it ok to take their jobs away? Also, they may make a lot more than the average person but they're not really overpaid as long as the market supports it. |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on May 29, 2004 18:25:21 GMT -5
Governments are there to redistribute the wealth and make things equitable.
They rob from the ritch and give to the poor.
They give money to Indians (indigenous peoples to be politically correct).
They give money to the handicapped.
They give money to visible minorities.
They try to make the playing field more equitable.
If movies are made in Hollywood the Canadian economy doesn't get benefits; sooooo........... they give subsidies to movie producers and actors (many of whom earn considerably more than hockey players) to encourage having movies made here vs Toronto, Vancouver or Hollywood.
Canadien teams are simply asking for the same treatment that professional teams get in US cities. Supply and demand. If a player pays less in taxes in the US (and at $5M per season that's a lot of taxes) the incentive is to go to the US all other things being equal.
If US teams get a break on municipal taxes, they have more money to pay players. With the exception of Boston, Toronto and Detroit, NHL teams are not getting rich on their profits. Why should the Canadiens pay more in taxes than ALL the US teams combined?
Don't give them charity. Just give them an equal chance.
We give money to amateur athletes to swim, run and jump. Why? Because in order for them to compete against Russians, Americans and Germans, they need to get the same level of training. Give the NHL teams the same break as the US teams get, no more and no less.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on May 29, 2004 22:23:52 GMT -5
Governments are there to redistribute the wealth and make things equitable. They rob from the ritch and give to the poor. They give money to Indians (indigenous peoples to be politically correct). They give money to the handicapped. They give money to visible minorities. They try to make the playing field more equitable. If movies are made in Hollywood the Canadian economy doesn't get benefits; sooooo........... they give subsidies to movie producers and actors (many of whom earn considerably more than hockey players) to encourage having movies made here vs Toronto, Vancouver or Hollywood. Canadien teams are simply asking for the same treatment that professional teams get in US cities. Supply and demand. If a player pays less in taxes in the US (and at $5M per season that's a lot of taxes) the incentive is to go to the US all other things being equal. If US teams get a break on municipal taxes, they have more money to pay players. With the exception of Boston, Toronto and Detroit, NHL teams are not getting rich on their profits. Why should the Canadiens pay more in taxes than ALL the US teams combined? Don't give them charity. Just give them an equal chance. We give money to amateur athletes to swim, run and jump. Why? Because in order for them to compete against Russians, Americans and Germans, they need to get the same level of training. Give the NHL teams the same break as the US teams get, no more and no less. Why should MY company pay municipal taxes? I want the same treatment for MY COMPANY. After all, I could easily argue that my product is exported and it bring income INTO the country. On the other hand, hockey redistributes existing monies. Just because some American cities chose not to collect a fair share of taxes from arenas, it does not mean that we should do the same thing here. Equality or nothing. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on May 30, 2004 12:03:20 GMT -5
Maybe I'm missing something, but so what if they're earning over $100,000? That's money that they pay taxes on and that they can spend. How does the fact that they are well paid lessen the economic impact of them losing their jobs, and why does it make it ok to take their jobs away? Also, they may make a lot more than the average person but they're not really overpaid as long as the market supports it. The same can be said for the players. I questioned the number of so called "over-paid" employees. The term "overpaid" is relative. Overpaid by what standard. Of those jobs currently being discussed (8,000 direct jobs) more than 1000 I would venture I would consider overpaid, maybe more. Someone else would probably say none are overpaid. But of those 8,000 jobs how many stay in Montreal/Calgary/Vancouver to spend it? Does Andrei Markov live year round in Montreal, Koivu?, the trainer? ..... in some cases yes some stay year round .... in some cases no. So the number to me is misleading. And if I can some how find fault (in my own mind I know) and lower the number to economic impact jobs (seasonal hockey jobs) to 6,000 - 7,000 related to hockey, Then I have a hard time supporting it when the federal government just cut thousands of jobs which help the local ecomomies greatly, but now they are forced to move and help other local economies instead. |
|
|
|
Post by PTH on May 30, 2004 14:09:19 GMT -5
I questioned the number of so called "over-paid" employees. The term "overpaid" is relative. Overpaid by what standard. Of those jobs currently being discussed (8,000 direct jobs) more than 1000 I would venture I would consider overpaid, maybe more. Someone else would probably say none are overpaid. But of those 8,000 jobs how many stay in Montreal/Calgary/Vancouver to spend it? Does Andrei Markov live year round in Montreal, Koivu?, the trainer? ..... in some cases yes some stay year round .... in some cases no. So the number to me is misleading. Well, who cares where they spend it when 40-50% stays in the province through income tax ? I'd far rather have 40-50% of the money spend on entertainment come back to the government as taxes than to see just about none of it go, as it would if hockey were simply replaced by more people going to movies (which is what happened in Quebec City) and the big bucks were going to stars in the US, in which case we get no income tax on the overpaid people, and only equal GST and PST as on the tickets. I'm not overly in favour of governents helping out private enterprise, but we need to do a rational analysis of the alternatives, and all the consequences that come from them occuring. As to the 11 000 jobs, I think we have to take that number for what it's worth - an evaluation from a decent in-depth study of hockey; I don't think we should say it's really less than that because that's how we see it/want it to be. To me we either take that number and go with it, or just ignore it - unless someone can actually go through the methodology of the original study and find fault in it. |
|
|
|
Post by PTH on May 30, 2004 14:13:01 GMT -5
Why should MY company pay municipal taxes? I want the same treatment for MY COMPANY. After all, I could easily argue that my product is exported and it bring income INTO the country. On the other hand, hockey redistributes existing monies. Just because some American cities chose not to collect a fair share of taxes from arenas, it does not mean that we should do the same thing here. Equality or nothing. I wonder if the Canadian government could go after the US for not respecting the Free Trade Agreement with the non-taxing of the US Arenas.... but that would get a lot of lawyers involved given how each team has a different coporate structure... |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on May 31, 2004 8:42:26 GMT -5
Now back to hockey. Only the players are overpaid? Gainey, Boivin, Gauthier, Savard, Jarvis, Julien, Green, Gillete even are employees of the Habs that are overpaid with respect to the rest of society. Until I get a list of all these 8,000 directly affected jobs (with salary structure) we will have to agree to disgree what is considered overpaid.
The 8000 employees quote come from a government study (see John Manley’s signature on it), why would they inflate it? They have nothing to gain, and as we saw by the backlash against them, everything to lose.
Most trainer have a diploma in sports medicine or something along that lines. So I would venture he makes more about $100,000 (in any case he makes more than me), and therefore I would call him over paid since I would do it for free.
But this just disproves your point. How can you say the trainer is overpaid, and then say its because he has a sports medicine degree? If over $100,000 is what sports trainers get, then its not overpaid, now is it? I don’t think NHL trainers get significantly more than regular trainers, and if anything, in Canada they get less. I went to school with a girl (McGill) who studied physiotherapy (was the Redmen’s trainer for a couple of years) and when she graduated, she was immediately offered a $50,000 (US) job in Texas. Her money left. The US pays A LOT more for anything medically related than Canada does.
I never said they were not worth saving, nor did I say they are menial. I said (or tried to say) they do not provide the economic boom as thousands of federal government jobs. The federal government did not care about the thousands of jobs they just cut which probably provided a bigger ecominc boost to places like Grand Falls, NL then these jobs will to Montreal.
But you haven’t made your point. Again, this is a government report. They had nothing to gain from it. It would have been a lot easier for them to say “NHL teams have little economic impact, let them go, spend the money elsewhere.” But they didn’t. Why is that? Could it not be that its actually true, that NHL teams do in fact have a huge economic impact? You say the jobs are seasonal, they are overpaid, and it doesn’t have any economic impact, but this report flies directly in the face of that.
Again you misunderstand me. This arguement started talking about the economic impacts of the strike. Not NHL hockey for now and evermore. If the strike happens next year, Brisebois' income will be taxed by the federal government because he is still under contract and it will be paid (if a lock-out). And if there is no hockey next year, the Bell center will still have to pay property taxes. The $200 million would be missed more so over a 20 year span, but for next year (strike/lock-out) the figure is mis-leading because some of it will be recouped by municipalities.
Actually no. The argument started talking about the economic impact of NHL hockey, and whether or not a strike to save hockey was worthwhile, and whether or not the government should get involved to end the strike, because of its economic impact. See Piston’s comments.
Brisebois will not be paid next year in the event of a lockout. In fact, the NHL annulled a couple of contracts because they had clauses that said they WOULD be paid in the event of a work stoppage (Mike Peca, and I think Darius Kaspiritus). The players may have contracts, but their Union doesn’t, and they work for the Union.
The $200 million would be missed over the 20 year span. That is exactly the point. Nobody is talking about government aid just for next year. In fact, that report was published in 1999, 5 years ago.
As for the money being recouped, how do you know? What if Gillette says “you know what, it would cost me $3 million to demolish the building, and declare it a park, after which I would pay $1 million a year in taxes, if not less (get it declared a heritage site or something. In the meantime, its costing me $9 million a year with an empty arena…. Kaboom!” There goes all that municipal tax.
Try buying a commercial building and telling your city council "I am sorry there is no occupant of that building so I don't owe you taxes". Go on vacation to the Caribbean for a year and say to your council "hey I wasn't even living there that year" Of course you still have to pay taxes. You own it. The council doesn't care how you develop it (as long as you comply with zoning) that's your problem, but if you own it you pay taxes on the assessment value.
The problem is in the zoning regulations, thus affecting the assessment value. The Bell Centre pays more municipal tax than any other building in Montreal, because it’s the only building of its kind in Montreal. The Olympic Stadium is government owned (yep, it is) and pays ZERO taxes. If Gillette re-classifies it, turn it into condos or something, maybe a park, then the tax bill drops, if not disappears. If the team goes, the ability to charge them taxes as an international entertainment industry goes with it.
The city makes its money BECAUSE it is the Montreal Canadiens, NHL hockey team. If it is any other entity, they don’t get that money.
As for the bankrupt scenario. Gillete Enterprises may declare bankruptcy and George can not be responsible for the debt of the company (as long as the company is incorporated), but it isn't as easy as you propose. First, he would have to file for a financial restructuring proposal, and his creditors would have to agree to this plan. If not the company goes bankrupt and George has to sell of the companies assests to pay the creditors. So you better hope the Habs are not on that list of company assests.
That’s the point though. If Gillette does go bankrupt, and sells the team, why would it stay in Montreal? We’re talking about saving the team here, that’s been the point all along. So he bankrupts his “Gillette Entertainment Group.” Big deal. In the meantime, the Habs have moved to Las Vegas. The assumption here is that Gillette is losing money anyways, he has no hope of ever making money, and it would be much better to cut his losses and run. THAT’S exactly why people think the government should help out. To stop them from leaving.
I questioned the number of so called "over-paid" employees. The term "overpaid" is relative. Overpaid by what standard. Of those jobs currently being discussed (8,000 direct jobs) more than 1000 I would venture I would consider overpaid, maybe more. Someone else would probably say none are overpaid.
But again, you are assuming, with no basis for your assumption. I look at a government report, and see the direct opposite of what you are saying.
But of those 8,000 jobs how many stay in Montreal/Calgary/Vancouver to spend it? Does Andrei Markov live year round in Montreal, Koivu?, the trainer? ..... in some cases yes some stay year round .... in some cases no. So the number to me is misleading.
Again, you’re talking about the 25 players. The trainer does in fact stay in Montreal. He lives here. So does Dr. Mulder, Rollie Melanson, Claude Julien, the travelling secretaries, the marketing guys, the receptionist, accountants, janitors, electricians, plumbers, and so on. These are Canadian jobs. Not NHL jobs. The only NHL jobs are the players, and maybe the coaches. Of that 8000, only the players live elsewhere, and in some cases, not even then. Many players live year round in the city they play in.
And if I can some how find fault (in my own mind I know) and lower the number to economic impact jobs (seasonal hockey jobs) to 6,000 - 7,000 related to hockey, Then I have a hard time supporting it when the federal government just cut thousands of jobs which help the local ecomomies greatly, but now they are forced to move and help other local economies instead.
But why would you find fault? Again, this was a government study, that had no reason to find in favour of the NHL. If anything, they should have looked long and hard to REJECT any government aid, because that would help them greatly in the polls. Instead, they took an unpopular position, and got hammered in the polls because of it. Granted, they caved, but wouldn’t it have been much easier for them to say “no economic impact, no aid?”
I ask you this one simple question; why did the government recommend aid for the NHL as an industry? You say there is no economic impact, the public clearly doesn’t want it, why would they recommend it?
Could it not be because its actually a good idea?
|
|
|
|
Post by rhabdo on May 31, 2004 8:56:12 GMT -5
The thread seems to have drifted away from player compensation to the overall economic impact of hockey. The key argument is how much owners can afford to pay players. Hockey ranks a very lowly fourth among North American team sports and doesn't compare in popularity to certain other types of sports, yet the players think they're in the same echelon as major league baseball because they're big frogs in a small puddle north of the border. We shouldn't automatically be on their side because there isn't much doing on the Montréal sporting scene when the Canadiens aren't playing and we're getting antsy.
|
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on May 31, 2004 18:35:53 GMT -5
Too much to respond to. But good point rhabdo.
Again, and no one has answered the question. The federal government in April just went through what is called "programme revue". I work for the provincial government here in Newfoundland and we also went through a "programme revue". Basically that is a fancy way of saying, "all jobs are on the cutting block and we want all directors to find a way to save X amount of dollars". My wife escaped the federal chopping block, and I escaped the provincial one. We were lucky but I had friends in both cases that wer enot so lucky and some even had to move away. One friend had to go to the NWT. So my question is:
Why should I throw my tax paying dollars at saving Quebec, BC, Ontario, and Alberta entertainment industries when there was no effort by the federal government to save the jobs they just cut?
Afterall, the thousands of jobs lost here in Newfoundland (about 1,000 federal jobs and 700 and counting daily provincial jobs) do more to the Newfoundland economy then any jobs in the rest of the country. My friend in the NWT is doing NL no good now.
Granted if I lived in these provinces I may have a different outlook, but before the federal government (I don't care what the provincial governments do) goes throwing money around, I would hope they would bring back the people they laid off if the money was available before subsidizes NHL hockey.
Now, the Toronto Maple Leafs and St. John's Maple Leafs are currently at odds over extending the contract for AHL hockey here. The issue? Well it is similar (not quite the same I admit) to the Habs situation. St. John's has the highest AHL franchising fee in the AHL. It is close to $1.7 million. The City of St. John's wants to have that fee lowered. The reason? If there is a hockey team in the arena the city loses approx. $700,000 a year, if no team they lose approx. $50,000 I believe. And the reason is the franchise fee. The city would like it to be lowered to about $1.0 million to bring it in line with other (newer) AHL teams (afterall St. John's is one of the oldest AHL teams). Are we looking for government handouts to keep the team here? No.
I would suspect that we have just as many jobs affected as an NHL team (but I am willing to say less, afterall there are less fans so less ushers would be needed). But these hundreds of jobs to city with a population of 90,000 (and the highest unemployment rate in the country) mean more to the local economy than thousands mean to NHL cities with populations of 4-5 million.
Once you subsidize one thing, where do you stop. Because why is one provinces economy considered more important than anothers.
A side note should be made here. If I was asked to subsidize NHL hockey I would. If every working Canadian gave 1 dollar a year that would be over 15 million dollars there. But you have to be able to see the other side of the coin sometimes in life .... and this is one of those times.
Child poverty, hunger, homelessness, etc are all issues that are rampant in Canada and need to be addressed before we subsidize NHL hockey ...... and if we do it for NHL why not AHL ..... the Major junior ....etc ...
|
|
|
|
Post by rhabdo on May 31, 2004 19:02:07 GMT -5
The net effect of a governmental subsidy would be to enable NHL owners to heap additional looneys on players who are overpaid as it is. Salaries must be reduced or capped.
|
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on May 31, 2004 19:16:37 GMT -5
The net effect of a governmental subsidy would be to enable NHL owners to heap additional looneys on players who are overpaid as it is. Salaries must be reduced or capped. totally agree |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on May 31, 2004 20:47:14 GMT -5
Child poverty, hunger, homelessness, etc are all issues that are rampant in Canada and need to be addressed before we subsidize NHL hockey .... But where does the money that is used to fight child poverty, hunger, homelessness etc. come from? By the government's own estimates, NHL hockey brings in at least $200 million to the state coffers. That's $200 million they can use to fight the noble battles you speak of. If the teams go, then they take their $200 million with them, and that's $200 million LESS for the government to give to social causes. The question is, then, do you give the NHL a small subsidy, and take home $180 million instead of $200 million, or do you stand on principle and take home nothing? The net effect of a governmental subsidy would be to enable NHL owners to heap additional looneys on players who are overpaid as it is. From a government standpoint, this would be the best possible thing. Its private money, after all, not even Canadian in some cases. If Patrice Brisebois is paid a more "reasonable" $100,000 a year, then the government gets $40-50,000 in taxes. Hardly anything. But if Brisebois is paid $4 million, then the government gets $2 million. A million here, a million there, and pretty soon you're talking real money... Say the government gives the Montreal Canadien $10 million to direct towards player salaries. They would end up getting at least half that back in income tax alone, never mind the extra benefits that come with an NHL team. It makes good economical sense. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jun 1, 2004 7:43:47 GMT -5
Say the government gives the Montreal Canadien $10 million to direct towards player salaries. They would end up getting at least half that back in income tax alone, never mind the extra benefits that come with an NHL team. It makes good economical sense. Why doe it make good economic sense? They can give ME (or other entrepreneurs) the ten million and I will open a factory that will employ 500 people. The factory will have a payroll of at least $15 million and pay the government $5 million in taxes. It will create products for EXPORT sales in the 50 million dollar range. Money coming INTO the country, not redistributed existing monies. The company will make 15 million in profits and pay at least 7 million in taxes. Then add all the spin-off jobs to sub suppliers and the local economy. Unlike the "here today, gone tomorrow" mercenaries, entrepreneurs will do the same thing next year...and the year after that... and the year AFTER that.......and so on.... Should I go on? Supporting stinking rich mercenaries and owners who whose world revolves around a kids game is not an intelligent use of tax dollars. (BTW, guess what the government did for ME when I started my company? They audited me. They wanted to make sure I did not "steal" on my traveling expenses. They even said, and I quote "did you really have to travel to generate new business?". And here we want to give away money to filthy rich people.) |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jun 1, 2004 17:49:26 GMT -5
But where does the money that is used to fight child poverty, hunger, homelessness etc. come from? By the government's own estimates, NHL hockey brings in at least $200 million to the state coffers. That's $200 million they can use to fight the noble battles you speak of. If the teams go, then they take their $200 million with them, and that's $200 million LESS for the government to give to social causes. The question is, then, do you give the NHL a small subsidy, and take home $180 million instead of $200 million, or do you stand on principle and take home nothing? From a government standpoint, this would be the best possible thing. Its private money, after all, not even Canadian in some cases. If Patrice Brisebois is paid a more "reasonable" $100,000 a year, then the government gets $40-50,000 in taxes. Hardly anything. But if Brisebois is paid $4 million, then the government gets $2 million. A million here, a million there, and pretty soon you're talking real money... Say the government gives the Montreal Canadien $10 million to direct towards player salaries. They would end up getting at least half that back in income tax alone, never mind the extra benefits that come with an NHL team. It makes good economical sense. We are moving closer to neutral ground on this issue. There is one problem I see with your vision of utopia. Governments redistribute money around and you never know where the money that is being spent is going. I see it everyday. If the government gets an additional $200 million in taxes by subsidizes NHL hockey and they spend that money on social issues then I do not think the majority of Canadians would have a problem with that. However, we do not know what they spend the money on. The budgets they lay down get manipulated all the time. For instance, I see money being taken from one fund to help another project all the time, and the public knows it happens also, but they are never sure what the governement is doing with the money. The government just pissed away $200 million with the sponsorship scandal (do we want that to happen to this $200 million?). Public perception is everything, and with governments across the country reducing payrolls, cutting jobs, stripping collective contracts, wage rollbacks, wage freezes, hire freezes ...... the last thing most Canadians want to see is for their taxes to go to an overpaid industry that got themselves into this mess in the first place. What you say might make economical sense, but it doesn't make ethical, moral, or common sense. And to tell the truth I don't think the government is all that concerned with losing $200 million (if that is indeed the true number **) when they are working with a surplus especially. If the were thay would have been louder before this. And like HA said - they could spend that money otherways and jump start the economy and gain just as much money. ** I question the validity of the number by the very fact it was a government report. I am dealing with governments all the time and I know how the system works. More often than not reports are slanted to reach an intended audience. For instance, a government report in Ontario released figures on the state of the Ontario's financial future. The report was erroneous to the tune of 5 billion dollars. Pricecooperwaterhouse released a report for the government of NL on its financial situation (same guy that did Ontario's by the way). He was told by government to include everything but the kitchen sink to make it look bleak. When he released his report it stated that NL had a 890 million deficit. Included in that was 220 million for all future student loans that have the potential not to be paid (come on not one student is going to pay back their loan?), they include debts of 2 of NL most influential companies that could pay their debt off themselves if they wanted to, etc. Government reports can be manipulated, I would wan't tp ananlyze it myself before saying the number makes sense. |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Jun 1, 2004 20:28:35 GMT -5
Of course government reports are manipulated. Try reading the Daughter of Time.
But why would the government inflate numbers for the NHL? Unless they are ridiculously stupid (not out of the realm of possibility) they had to have known that the public would not look favorably upon NHL subsidies. So to even suggest them would cost them precious poll points (as it did).
They had absolutely NOTHING to gain. In fact, if they were going to manipulate the numbers, they would manipulate them downwards so that they wouldn't have to make the subsidy suggestion. If the NHL brings nothing to the Canadian economy, then they don't have to give them any money, the public is happy, everybody gets re-elected. Why would they say otherwise? So why would they say its $200 million if it were less?? THAT doesn't make any common sense.
As for governments losing money all the time, that's a problem with the government, not with the NHL. I could just as easily say "nobody should pay any taxes, because nobody knows where their money goes." Same logic. For all I know my paltry income tax went into that very same sponsorship scandal you speak of. Does that give me the right to stop paying taxes?
|
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Jun 2, 2004 4:24:44 GMT -5
For all I know my paltry income tax went into that very same sponsorship scandal you speak of. Does that give me the right to stop paying taxes? Sure, why not? Are democratic governments not based on being "elected by the people, for the people"? If one's representatives are misrepresenting one, recourse to strong public protest should be clearly understood to be an option. Unless of course one is of the view that the government is an alien dictatorship, therefore not "of the people", and must be feared on pain of punishment in any case. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jun 2, 2004 18:27:41 GMT -5
Of course government reports are manipulated. Try reading the Daughter of Time. But why would the government inflate numbers for the NHL? Unless they are ridiculously stupid (not out of the realm of possibility) they had to have known that the public would not look favorably upon NHL subsidies. So to even suggest them would cost them precious poll points (as it did). They had absolutely NOTHING to gain. In fact, if they were going to manipulate the numbers, they would manipulate them downwards so that they wouldn't have to make the subsidy suggestion. If the NHL brings nothing to the Canadian economy, then they don't have to give them any money, the public is happy, everybody gets re-elected. Why would they say otherwise? So why would they say its $200 million if it were less?? THAT doesn't make any common sense. As for governments losing money all the time, that's a problem with the government, not with the NHL. I could just as easily say "nobody should pay any taxes, because nobody knows where their money goes." Same logic. For all I know my paltry income tax went into that very same sponsorship scandal you speak of. Does that give me the right to stop paying taxes? Unless I am missing something here, or I totally misunderstand you, or I am totally lost ...... didn't the government have all those taxes on player's salary that you mentioned to gain? Doesn't the government have the clawbacks on the entertainment that they put towards equalization to gain (not all that gets dispersed to the provinces)? If the NHL contributes so much money to the Canadian economy as you say, the report says, etc ..... wouldn't it be in the best interest of the Canadian government to keep the salary's high, and the taxes flowing? Isn't this a gain? |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Jun 2, 2004 20:54:24 GMT -5
Unless I am missing something here, or I totally misunderstand you, or I am totally lost ...... didn't the government have all those taxes on player's salary that you mentioned to gain? Doesn't the government have the clawbacks on the entertainment that they put towards equalization to gain (not all that gets dispersed to the provinces)? If the NHL contributes so much money to the Canadian economy as you say, the report says, etc ..... wouldn't it be in the best interest of the Canadian government to keep the salary's high, and the taxes flowing? Isn't this a gain? Exactly. Thanks for making my point. Its in the best interests of the Canadian government to do all they can to ensure NHL money stays in Canada. In my opinion, if that means giving a little back to the teams, to ensure they don't depart for redder, whiter, and bluer pastures, then I am all for it. |
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Jun 2, 2004 21:07:15 GMT -5
Exactly. Thanks for making my point. Its in the best interests of the Canadian government to do all they can to ensure NHL money stays in Canada. In my opinion, if that means giving a little back to the teams, to ensure they don't depart for redder, whiter, and bluer pastures, then I am all for it. I think Skilly's point was, what if it means inflating the numbers that they feed the public? |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Jun 3, 2004 8:01:07 GMT -5
I think Skilly's point was, what if it means inflating the numbers that they feed the public?And my point was, why would they do that?If, as Skilly says, the $200 million isn't really $200 million, but more like $100 million, and if, as Skilly also says, $100-200 million is really nothing to a government, why would they inflate the numbers? What do they gain by inflating the numbers? * the income tax money isn't high ("only" $100 million, which is nothing according to Skilly) * public perception is dead-set against it * the government would, and did, take a serious hit in the polls * if, by inflating the numbers, they were able to convince people it was worth supporting the NHL, they'd end up losing money anyways - there is no money being brought into the country by the NHL (if there was, they wouldn't have to inflate the numbers), so why give them money to stay? Its lose-lose. So why do it? Why inflate the numbers, just so they can give more money away? According to Skilly there is no economic benefit, and what little benefit there is, is meaningless to the government anyways. So why tick off your voting public, just to give more money away? Makes no sense. The only reason I can think of as to why a government would recommend something, EVEN THOUGH they KNEW they were going to take a HUGE political hit by doing so, is that is actually a good idea. As for the numbers being inflated, quick, in-my-head math would suggest that isn't the case. * 6 teams * average payroll of about $40 million US each * 6 x 40 = 240.... American. * 240 x 1.40 (estimated exchange rate) = $336 million Canadian * $336 million x 55% tax bracket = $184 million Canadian Income Tax That's on the players alone. That doesn't count coaches, GMs, presidents, ushers, accountants, marketing personnel, secretaries, janitors and so on. So I don't think the $200 million is inflated whatsoever. |
|
|
|
Post by blaise on Jun 3, 2004 9:51:31 GMT -5
Exactly. Thanks for making my point. Its in the best interests of the Canadian government to do all they can to ensure NHL money stays in Canada. In my opinion, if that means giving a little back to the teams, to ensure they don't depart for redder, whiter, and bluer pastures, then I am all for it. There aren't many red-white-blue pastures to depart to (Dallas? Seattle?), and the Canadian teams might be lining up behind some existing ed-white-blue teams in their quest for those precious few new venues. |
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Jun 3, 2004 13:58:21 GMT -5
And my point was, why would they do that?Because the NHL does bring in revenue, but perhaps not as much as they are saying. Let's say $200M is the correct figure. Wouldn't the job of selling the tax break to the public be a little easier if they could somehow inflate that to $300M? As I see it, the government has essentially 3 jobs: (1) determine what (they think) needs to be done, (2) sell the public on it so that they can be re-elected, and (3) do it. Steps 1 and 3 are the ones that actually matter, but step 2 is the one that really matters to them, and they will do whatever they can get away with to make that step work. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jun 3, 2004 17:18:43 GMT -5
Because the NHL does bring in revenue, but perhaps not as much as they are saying. Let's say $200M is the correct figure. Wouldn't the job of selling the tax break to the public be a little easier if they could somehow inflate that to $300M? As I see it, the government has essentially 3 jobs: (1) determine what (they think) needs to be done, (2) sell the public on it so that they can be re-elected, and (3) do it. Steps 1 and 3 are the ones that actually matter, but step 2 is the one that really matters to them, and they will do whatever they can get away with to make that step work. EXACTLY!!! In BC's scenario , to me at least, it is in the government's best interest to inflate these numbers. Let's say that the actually number is $50 million for a minute (a very gross under estimation). Would anyone support subsidizing an industry for $50 million to the Canadian economy. Probably not. But if they inflate the numbers. Count ridiculous stuff like towards the final number (NHL contributes to the forestry industry because they use 10,000 sticks a year - even though 70% of the league uses composite). And they come up with a booming figure like $200-$300 million in 4 of this provinces then they could probably sway the average voter that it is worth a shot. You leave out one aspect though in your analogy. Some of these NHL owners are good friends with the politicians, maybe the politicians wanted to help their friends and presto - a reason to inflate. Also the tax calculation. Where does this 55% come from. Typically, about 25% of my salary is deducted for income tax on my cheque. Then every April when I pay my taxes, I am only taxed federally on my taxable income at 16%. The more you donate to polictical parties, charities, child care, RRSP/mutual funds etc the more you can deduct. So they are not taxed on the 40 million you quote, because that is their total income and not their taxable income. Now they make more so more will obviously go to income tax. 55% could be right, I won't argue that .... but they can also afford to recoup a great portion of that through the means I have stated to reduce their taxable incomes immensely. |
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Jun 3, 2004 17:47:18 GMT -5
You leave out one aspect though in your analogy. Some of these NHL owners are good friends with the politicians, maybe the politicians wanted to help their friends and presto - a reason to inflate. I thought of that too, but I'm not sure if it would be worth the potential damage to a politician's career to help their friends in a way that goes totally against public opinion. John Manley was the minister who wanted to subsidise the NHL teams and he was lambasted in the media for it, and then lost credibility when he flip-flopped on the issue. It probably wouldn't have made enough difference, but maybe if it werent' for that he would be the prime minister right now. Edit: On second (third?) thought, I guess it could still provide some extra motivation.... |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Jun 3, 2004 17:47:28 GMT -5
Because the NHL does bring in revenue, but perhaps not as much as they are saying. Let's say $200M is the correct figure. Wouldn't the job of selling the tax break to the public be a little easier if they could somehow inflate that to $300M? But that still doesn't answer why they would do it. If the economic benefits are neglible, why bother? Why inflate numbers, and take a big political hit, if the net economic gain is small, and even smaller once the subsidies are factored in? Wouldn't that just be counter-productive? EXACTLY!!! In BC's scenario , to me at least, it is in the government's best interest to inflate these numbers. Let's say that the actually number is $50 million for a minute (a very gross under estimation). Would anyone support subsidizing an industry for $50 million to the Canadian economy. Probably not. So why would the government want to do it? They knew they were going to get crucified in the public's eyes, why bother if the benefits are minimal? Politicians will protect their friends, yes, but they will protect their own behinds first. Possibly losing an election to protect a small, $50 million industry would not be high on their list of things to do. Also the tax calculation. Where does this 55% come from. Typically, about 25% of my salary is deducted for income tax on my cheque. Then every April when I pay my taxes, I am only taxed federally on my taxable income at 16%. The more you donate to polictical parties, charities, child care, RRSP/mutual funds etc the more you can deduct. So they are not taxed on the 40 million you quote, because that is their total income and not their taxable income. Now they make more so more will obviously go to income tax. 55% could be right, I won't argue that .... but they can also afford to recoup a great portion of that through the means I have stated to reduce their taxable incomes immensely. Well, by your own calculations, aren't you being taxed at 41%? Is it a stretch to think an NHL player would be taxed at 14%more than you? As for contributions, there is a limit. You can't claim your entire salary as a political donation... |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jun 3, 2004 18:05:15 GMT -5
So why would the government want to do it? They knew they were going to get crucified in the public's eyes, why bother if the benefits are minimal? Politicians will protect their friends, yes, but they will protect their own behinds first. Possibly losing an election to protect a small, $50 million industry would not be high on their list of things to do. I believe, (rightly or wrongly is up for debate) that the government wanted to help NHL teams because they thought Canadians wanted hockey to stay in Canada. Then when they came out with a plan to help, Canadians turned on them because as much as we like to think we are defined by the very fabric of hockey, only 2 million viewers watch and 120,000 attend the games out of 30,000,000. I do not think the government knew they were going to get crucified .... they just underestimated how many Canadians are passionate about hockey. No no no ..... that's not how it works at all. You don't just add the numbers. I get taxed at 25% every 2 weeks. Then I get taxed at 16% the amount of my taxable income that I failed to pay taxes on all year. It is possible to go to your employer and request more or less be taken out of your income tax deduction. At the end of the year you will still pay taxes (16%) on your taxable income. It is quite possible NHL players are taxes at 55%. I am not arguing that number. They make more so they pay more ..... yes 55% could be right ..... I would have estimated about 40%. But they can lower that dramatically. The rich find ways around tax laws because they can afford the tax lawyers. You think Donald Trump doesn't find ways to write off income?? |
|
|
|
Post by blaise on Jun 3, 2004 18:55:41 GMT -5
Much of the latter part of this thread has been devoted to the tax situation in Canada. Is it impertinent to point out that 24 of the NHL teams play in the US?
|
|
