How Big of an Advantage is "No State Income Tax" for the Rockets?

100% of Chris Paul's salary is not taxed at the 10.3 rate, by the way, and it's clear you're still not understanding the fiscal difference between playing home games in California (10.3% each) vs. playing home games in Texas. (0% each)

That you even think the typical road game Jock Tax is relevant here just underscores my point.

This was the whole premise of your thread, correct? You asked the question "if state income tax mattered" and then used as evidence road games, which don't matter.

The difference between the Clippers and the Rockets comes from those home games.

I don't know how else to explain this to you. I've tried about 5 different ways, so I'm done trying.

Again, I like your effort in the OP, and you're clearly bright to even be thinking about things like this, but you are severely wrong on a very basic level when it comes to this issue. In your shoes, I probably wouldn't have started a thread on the tax code if I wasn't aware of the fact that a home game is taxed in California just as readily as a road game in Oklahoma.

 

He accounted for it. You just can't read. First he took his would be Clippers salary and deducted state income tax for all 82 games.

Then he took his would be Rockets salary and deducted state income tax for what would be 31 road games in taxing jurisdictions.

He accounted for all those home games. You are really starting to piss me off, but lack of intelligence is unfortunately not going to get you banned, so welcome to the ignore list.

 

BeeBeard needs to stop posting. Maybe he's doing his best DaDakota impression.

 

Nice try, citing to Coon's FAQ, but he literally agrees with me:

He's talking about home games. You haven't responsibly accounted for this difference. You focused on road games instead.

 

While Texas has 1 of the highest property tax rates, it's over tax obligation is 1 of the lowest. Just having "no state income tax" isn't the only consideration. That's what makes it so difficult. Florida & Washington don't have state income taxes either. IDK what Oklahoma's overall tax obligation is, but can you imagine the hit the Sonic/Thunder players salaries took when they moved to OKC?!

 

Only Hawaii has a higher tax rate than California. Using 10.3 % probably gives a total which is 30-40% too high.

 

Coon is literally talking about the difference between playing home games for the Magic (remember, Florida is one of our no state income tax places just like Texas) vs. playing those home games for Los Angeles instead, and so the same contract offer from the Magic becomes more valuable.

It's you who has the reading problem. I'm positive at this point.

 

California just elected supermajority Democrats in both state houses and have a Dem governor. Income taxes on the highest earners are going to go up up up.

Only way to pay for public pensions.

 

IT IS THE SAME TAX. "Jock tax" refers to the phenomenon that the state taxes are collected where the game is played, which is something that affects athletes in particular, since they spend considerable time working outside their home state. Obviously the tax is far less if most of those games are played in a place that doesn't have the tax!

Oh my god dude, now you're even truncating whole sentences and copy pasting phrases from the FAQ to try to disguise this.

He's pointing out that the calculations for which state collects taxes (or doesn't as in Texas, Florida, etc.) uses a different unit than just games played. So we've attempted to use where the games are played in these calculations, but in real life it may come down to, say, "4 days spent working in Texas" for a two game home stand. Or "6 days spent working in California" for a 5 game Western Conference road trip. That's how they figure it.

You're pointing to text that has nothing to do with this.

 

You know, I take some responsibility for the state you're in now, backpeddling, frantically trying to find some three words strung together in the FAQ. That's not right. I should have just asked you why you didn't account for such and such instead of presenting your error like that, and putting you on the spot.

Most of what you had to say about, raises for example, was informative and interesting.

Your misunderstanding of how state income tax is collected? Not so much. Doesn't matter though.

So that's my bad. I appreciate your effort and your attention to detail otherwise.

 

Chris Paul can't sign a 5 year contract, his max is 4, as Griffin already has signed a 5 year

Teams are only allowed to sign one player to a post current CBA (which is how okc got around it, Durant signed his prior to the new CBA) 5 year contract.

 

Just put him on ignore.

Your OP was solid. It isn't perfect, which you admit to, but it would obviously be a major pain to do it perfectly. Definitely gets the point across.

 

That was for rookie contract extensions. As a Birds Rights FA they can give him 5 years. Veteran extensions are only up until 4 years, which is why more players are going to hit FA.

 

You are wrong, evidently STILL think that "the jock tax" is a wholly separate tax from state income tax or something, and then to disguise your error, you literally copy pasted an incomplete independent clause from the FAQ that had to do with duty days and not anything we are talking about in the least. That is kind of sad to be honest.

But you're not going to own any of that? I'll just put this guy on ignore hurf durfery so you can right on back to being shamefully wrong about this? *shrug* That's your call. I can't even begin to tell you how unconcerned I am.

 

I even complimented you and gave you a chance to re-emphasize what you did right instead of what you did wrong, and you spurned that so you could smugly tell another poster. "Yeah you're right, other poster, I *AM* right about this. This talk about my being wrong is just a derail."

I mean come on. What is this. lol