Massachusetts millionaire 9% tax another factor working against Pats in Free agency

[patfanken]

Ian liked your post, which was clearly political and clearly leftist, so I will blame him for the lack of consistency. I was under the impression that discussion of politics was not allowed. If it is great, but again why did he put a stop to political memes in the Meme thread?

BTW Ken, I clearly understood every word of your post. If you find the term "liberal" to be derogatory, my apologies. What term would you prefer? "Progressive"?

What I prefer would be a discussion on the TOPIC (or topicS since I tended to ramble that late. ), which was the concept that taxing the rich a little more (since they already pay the lowest taxes in the industrial world already might not be a bad idea given the state of the infrastructure these days among other expenses. In an age where it is easy for the rich to get richer, while the poor get poorer.

This ISN'T a liberal or conservative thing. The fact is that all men are NOT created equal in our economic system. You know it, just admit it. It has ALWAYS been my contention that it is in the best interests of the wealthy to take a fraction less to at least afford "hope" to the masses. In ANY society when the gap between rich and poor becomes too wide, it ALWAYS ends in violence. Just look at your history books.

BTW- there were an NUMBER of Billionaires who supported Elizabeth Warren surtax of incomes OVER $50MM/year It was 2% and add another 1% over a Billion. It was smart. It was money that would never be missed. It would raise about 3 TRILLION dollars over 5 years and allow for programs that would placate the masses. Only .05% of ONE percent would be affective. You'd think that would be a no brainer. I don't even think it got to a vote.

WB, I have a growing disdain for use of LABELS. When you lump people into a homogeneous groups, you tend to dehumanize them as individuals. There clearly ARE things where I should be considered a "liberal or progressive", but if you don't dismiss people as individuals you will find that MOST people will have more things in common than what divides us. TOLERANCE is the glue that allows us to exist as a society. In my opinion there is a concerted effort by some to cut away our tolerance by the use of fear. And when that tolerance is lost our democracy will be over.

 

[PATSNUTme]

I think that any player would be foolish of not to consider all factors, including tax burden, before deciding to make a move. That should be a factor, but not THE factor.

 

[lancerman]

Also for posterity, the states with the most millionaire households in order

1. California
2. Texas
3. New York
4. Florida
6. Illinois
7. New Jersey
8. Virginia
9. Ohio
10. Massachusetts.

So that doesn't really matter much either way when it comes to where the wealthy want to live. I don't think people realize this but for most people, when you are rich, you pay more for luxury. That's why states with the lowest tax burdens like the Dakotas and Alaska still rank at the bottom of millionaires living there. Nobody wants to be there. Will some it matter to some people... sure. Will other people not give a **** at all and choose what are perceived as higher quality of life states over lower taxes. Yeah.

Also let's be real, using Hill as an example is kind of silly because everyone knew Kansas City wasn't going to pay him as much as Miami. It wasn't like it was even and Hill said "oh lower taxes sorry KC". Miami had to sign a massive 120 million dollar extension to make the trade go through. He wasn't getting that in Kansas City. And then he *****ed and moaned that KC traded him and acted like they threw him away. To be even more frank, we've seen players come here and to the Packers at the discount because they thought they could win. Meanwhile we've seen Miami pay huge premiums for guys like Hill and Suh over the years despite the so called tax advantage. You also don't see the Texans or Cowboys getting any deals on players because of how much they will save in taxes.

 

[Jlaff]

What I prefer would be a discussion on the TOPIC (or topicS since I tended to ramble that late. ), which was the concept that taxing the rich a little more (since they already pay the lowest taxes in the industrial world already might not be a bad idea given the state of the infrastructure these days among other expenses. In an age where it is easy for the rich to get richer, while the poor get poorer.

This ISN'T a liberal or conservative thing. The fact is that all men are NOT created equal in our economic system. You know it, just admit it. It has ALWAYS been my contention that it is in the best interests of the wealthy to take a fraction less to at least afford "hope" to the masses. In ANY society when the gap between rich and poor becomes too wide, it ALWAYS ends in violence. Just look at your history books.

BTW- there were an NUMBER of Billionaires who supported Elizabeth Warren surtax of incomes OVER $50MM/year It was 2% and add another 1% over a Billion. It was smart. It was money that would never be missed. It would raise about 3 TRILLION dollars over 5 years and allow for programs that would placate the masses. Only .05% of ONE percent would be affective. You'd think that would be a no brainer. I don't even think it got to a vote.

WB, I have a growing disdain for use of LABELS. When you lump people into a homogeneous groups, you tend to dehumanize them as individuals. There clearly ARE things where I should be considered a "liberal or progressive", but if you don't dismiss people as individuals you will find that MOST people will have more things in common than what divides us. TOLERANCE is the glue that allows us to exist as a society. In my opinion there is a concerted effort by some to cut away our tolerance by the use of fear. And when that tolerance is lost our democracy will be over.

It always just a "little more". Or masquaraded as a "fair share". But "fair share" is always just a euphemism for more.

Too big a gap between rich and poor has historically been shown to cause issues. But I'm not so sure those issues will emerge again because the poorest of a nation only have last year's iPhone model.

And those fractions of people with all that wealth do get driven away. Wealthy people are often cheap as hell.

 

[Hawaiianpatsfan2]

We also don't have income tax here in WA state where im currently living.

Heres an article from 2019 (so it could have changed) ranking the worse to best teams to play for in terms of taxes. You have to remember, you pay taxes in the states you play away games.

Spolier, the pats are ranked 13th best.

Does Your Favorite NFL Team Have an Advantage in Free Agency Because of Taxes?

We rank all 32 NFL teams based on the estimated state and local tax burden on their players. Where does your team rank?

www.kiplinger.com

 

[Nunchucks]

"Fantastic schools" must be a real draw for those millionaires putting their kids in public schools. I hope the Pats are really emphasizing this to potential free agents.

Also have the best private schools

 

[IcyPatriot]

 

[Pape]

One thing to remember... There are only 32 teams and 1,696 active roster spots in the league... There are limited opportunities available to free agents... So, for the most part, as there are always exceptions to the rule, they are going to go where the money is, regardless of tax policy...

 

[1960Pats]

Like an oxymoron... Millionaire and tax... lol... taxes to Millionaires is like kyrptonite to superman.

Or term limits to Congress

 

[1960Pats]

The fact that this is labeled a "Fair Share Tax" is complete and total ********. God forbid people who have earned their money get to keep it.

Once our kids have graduated college we are outta here.

I tried for years to convince my wife to leave and she finally agreed in 2019. Now I'm working on the kids.

 

[1960Pats]

I think that any player would be foolish of not to consider all factors, including tax burden, before deciding to make a move. That should be a factor, but not THE factor.

Yes, everyone will have different reasons. If you had young kids you might choose a location with better schools. Some folks might choose money over anything else. I myself would like a nice warm location.

 

[1960Pats]

"Fantastic schools" must be a real draw for those millionaires putting their kids in public schools. I hope the Pats are really emphasizing this to potential free agents.

This reminds me of a discussion I had with a couple of friends 15 years ago. I was talking to them about the lack of a proper education in the public schools (they've only become worse since) and they both said that a kid can get an education anywhere. That's when I asked them why all three of their kids attended private schools as soon as they could. They had no answer because they knew the truth.

 

[PATSNUTme]

What I prefer would be a discussion on the TOPIC (or topicS since I tended to ramble that late. ), which was the concept that taxing the rich a little more (since they already pay the lowest taxes in the industrial world already might not be a bad idea given the state of the infrastructure these days among other expenses. In an age where it is easy for the rich to get richer, while the poor get poorer.

This ISN'T a liberal or conservative thing. The fact is that all men are NOT created equal in our economic system. You know it, just admit it. It has ALWAYS been my contention that it is in the best interests of the wealthy to take a fraction less to at least afford "hope" to the masses. In ANY society when the gap between rich and poor becomes too wide, it ALWAYS ends in violence. Just look at your history books.

BTW- there were an NUMBER of Billionaires who supported Elizabeth Warren surtax of incomes OVER $50MM/year It was 2% and add another 1% over a Billion. It was smart. It was money that would never be missed. It would raise about 3 TRILLION dollars over 5 years and allow for programs that would placate the masses. Only .05% of ONE percent would be affective. You'd think that would be a no brainer. I don't even think it got to a vote.

WB, I have a growing disdain for use of LABELS. When you lump people into a homogeneous groups, you tend to dehumanize them as individuals. There clearly ARE things where I should be considered a "liberal or progressive", but if you don't dismiss people as individuals you will find that MOST people will have more things in common than what divides us. TOLERANCE is the glue that allows us to exist as a society. In my opinion there is a concerted effort by some to cut away our tolerance by the use of fear. And when that tolerance is lost our democracy will be over.

I assume that by being tolerant, you mean that everyone has a right to express their point of view without a group trying to cancel them, get them fired, or lable them as the most vile and awful people, am I correct?

 

[Ivan]

As Curran pointed out.
9% in Massachusetts versus 0% in FLA or Texas.
Ring chasers need not apply any more, now that Brady is gone.
This is definitely a competitive disadvantage for NE.

For anyone making more than a million a year, Pats will have to make up the difference in salary.

Thanks for starting the discussion you absolutely knew would turn political. And don’t try to blame it on Curran.

 

[RobertWeathers]

I tried for years to convince my wife to leave and she finally agreed in 2019. Now I'm working on the kids.

My wife wants out and we will go wherever the kids go within reason. My kids have all said they want to live in a warm climate. I grew up in NH so it's easy for me to leave this state. I still like the change of seasons but not bitter cold or shoveling that wet, heavy crap we received yesterday.

Plus I want to golf year round and wear shorts and not have to wear a hat, winter golf gloves and not forced to hit low cuts all off-season lol.

 

[Sam Bam Cunningham]

As Curran pointed out.
9% in Massachusetts versus 0% in FLA or Texas.
Ring chasers need not apply any more, now that Brady is gone.
This is definitely a competitive disadvantage for NE.

For anyone making more than a million a year, Pats will have to make up the difference in salary.

Suggested fix.
NFL should allow differences in cap for each team based on differences in state income tax to level the playing field.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Suggested fix.
NFL should allow differences in cap for each team based on differences in state income tax to level the playing field.

I like it but good luck getting the owners to all agree to it.

 

[Ivan]

Suggested fix.
NFL should allow differences in cap for each team based on differences in state income tax to level the playing field.

Now this is an example of keeping the discussion about football and the issue, without bringing politics into it.

 

[PATSNUTme]

I have kept my political views out of here for years, and every long time poster here knows that. And I’m still holding off on letting them rip. But I’m Not going to sit here and continue to let extremist @ssholes like1960 spew their extreme right wing garbage over and over without calling him out on it. You f.ckers want this to be a political forum? Then have at it, I’ll respond in kind and get every thread you turn from football into politics locked. There are many places to talk politics, this isn’t one of them, despite the efforts by some here to make it one. Keep that up and they will get it right back in their ignorant pieholes.

It's been a while but when I was a mod here I was the biggest advocate for shutting down the political forum and keeping politics off the football forum.
However the OP asked a legitimate question, which has to be a factor considered by any of the top FA's. If the players agent or business manager does not consider tax factors they are not doing their jobs.
It certainly does not appear by 3 of your post that you are keeping your political views out of it.

 

[Ivan]

It's been a while but when I was a mod here I was the biggest advocate for shutting down the political forum and keeping politics off the football forum.
However the OP asked a legitimate question, which has to be a factor considered by any of the top FA's. If the players agent or business manager does not consider tax factors they are not doing their jobs.
It certainly does not appear by 3 of your post that you are keeping your political views out of it.

I haven’t stated a political view on any particular issue, I have taken a position on 1960 bringing his extreme political views into this thread. I also made it clear to the OP that there’s a legitimate football aspect to this discussion, but that the topic also invites those eager to bring politics into this forum, which is really bad for the forum overall. And had it been a newer poster who didn’t understand this I would have ignored it, but it wasn’t, instead is was someone who has been here for years and years and absolutely knows better than to do it, unlike 99% of those here, who don’t inject their political views into the threads in this forum, he does so on a regular basis, and I’m sick of him doing it, which I made clear. While many here have really strong political views , and those of us who have been here since there was a political forum know where we stand, we don’t bring them into play because we know it will ruin the discussion. 1960 knows this, he just doesn’t care, so whenever he sees an opening, which this topic provides, he makes sure to take his political shots. At this point I have let that slide for a long time, but now I’m sick of doing it, so when he does it I’m going to call him on it. Almost everyone here is keeping their political views out of here, regardless of the temptation, and he needs to do the same . There are many places to talk politics, Twitter, Reddit, and for people like 1960 I’m sure 4chan would suit him perfectly, but this is a Patriots site and a site to talk football in general, and he should respect that and stop dropping his political views into football discussions.