The NFL draft is just a few weeks away and free agency is winding down. Given off-season developments, it’s relevant to note all the attractions the Seattle Seahawks have to offer free agents (as the Washington Policy Center recently did).
A key advantage rears its head when players ask the club to “show me the money.” Washington State’s lack of a state income tax is often credited for granting a competitive advantage for attracting businesses. The same goes for professional athletes. When the free agent signing period opened, Forbes reported:
“While NFL GMs and coaches strategize their free agent game plan this week, the biggest advantage teams get may be decided in state legislatures.
“Free agency officially opens Tuesday, and a massive factor in where players sign are state income tax rates. Teams in states with low or no income tax have a huge advantage in that they can offer vastly more money to prospective free agents.”
But, if Washington Democrats get their way, the Seahawks would lose their competitive advantage. Democrats have long pushed for a state income tax.
As Shift reported, a state income tax is listed as a “guiding principle” for the Washington State Democrat Party. Democrat lawmakers propose state income tax bill during every legislative session.
It’s an unhealthy obsession that would have far-reaching , and very negative economic implications, even for our sports teams.
Go Hawks.
Bdad says
Hell no…
Stephen Serafin says
How many times do they need to hear SCREW U?
Chazz11bravo says
Unfortunately that the symbol that represents the number of times required resembles a sideways 8…
Donald Walker says
Well they have continually fought for a state income tax since I was younger. Remember the old saying,” Insanity is defined as an action repeated over and over again expecting different results.” So, they keep trying but the voting public keeps shooting them down. Dream on Olympia politicians…. Dream on.
7up98682 says
State Constitution says NO income tax, and the people will never, ever vote it in. So why publish crap like this anyway? It’s not going to happen. If the state needs more revenue, tax the politicians at 50% per. Plus cut the govt waste.
tensor says
So, is there any evidence that even one player ever chose the Hawks over the Giants, 49ers, Bears, &c. because of our lack of a state income tax? Or is this just another glib bit of “economic theory” which is well-suited for simplistic sloganeering, but has no substance behind it at all?
Clay Fitzgerald says
You really are an ignorant SOB, tensie!
loverofliberty says
After just a quick moment’s web search, I came across two articles that show state income taxes very likely factor into the decision who to play for. The agent who wrote this article here: http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-football/25091772/agents-take-why-ndamukongs-suhs-team-choice-could-come-down-to-taxes Also here: http://www.bankrate.com/finance/taxes/taxes-cost-professional-athlete.aspx#slide=4 A more thorough search would no doubt turn up more.
I’m fully aware Tensor will say neither article definitively says there is a causal link between income tax and where an athlete plays, and I’m not claiming they do; however, it’s clear enough it factors into the decisionmaking process. For an agent to not include this in his analysis would be a breach of his fiduciary duty. Zero percent income tax in Washington vs. 13% income tax in California. 13% is 13%, especially with large salaries. No glib, no simplistic sloganeering, and enough substance for even Tensor to not be able to deny.
tensor says
As the article makes clear, a state income tax is one of a very large number of factors which a player — and a player’s agent — should consider when deciding between competing offers. That was neither the assertion made in this post, nor the answer to my question.
The post states explicitly, in the title, that Washington state’s lack of an income tax is a “competitive advantage” for the Seattle Seahawks. That bald assertion sits rather poorly with the agent’s careful, nuanced discussion of many factors, not one of which is given the importance this post places upon a state’s income tax.
Finally, the agent clearly says that Washington state’s tax structure has absolutely nothing to do with this particular player’s chances of choosing the Hawks:
Seattle is included as a dark horse team only because of reports that Suh would like to play close to home. Suh is a Portland native.
loverofliberty says
Tensor, Tensor, Tensor. You’re trying to get away with obfuscation yet again. Reread your original post, then mine, and you’ll see I provided answers to your questions – although not the answers you wanted.
The agent’s “carefully nuanced discussion” you refer to includes comments about how state tax implications are “definitely part of the decisionmaking process” (although I acknowledge not THE factor) and “state income tax ramifications will be a consideration in evaluating contract offers.” State income tax is definitely an increasing part of the equation, no question about it.
Good effort, though, trying to muddle the effect of state income tax for a Seahawk while on the road, which has zero to do with this discussion. You missed the point entirely. The point is, of course, 13% of a California player’s salary is, well, 13%, isn’t it. Versus 0% for a Seahawk, Jaguar or Dolphin (at least for home games and games played in non state income tax locations). Pretty simple, really. And easy to understand for most.
By the way, where did Suh end up signing? Not Seattle, you’re right. With the Miami Dolphins. Florida state income tax rate? ZERO.
tensor says
Reread your original post, then mine, and you’ll see I provided answers to your questions – although not the answers you wanted.
Wrong. I asked if anyone had any evidence that even one player had ever chosen the Seahawks over another team because of Washington state’s lack of an income tax. Your linked articles did not answer this question. Therefore, the demonstrated total number of players the Seahawks have ever signed because of Washington state’s tax structure remains zero.
…how state tax implications are “definitely part of the decisionmaking process” (although I acknowledge not THE factor)…
I stated flatly it was a factor to consider. A “competitive advantage” would be a very significant factor, demonstrated to have tipped players’ decisions in a sufficient number of cases. We have no evidence this is the case.
State income tax is definitely an increasing part of the equation, no question about it.
Again, it’s *a* factor. You’ve given absolutely no evidence to show it is “an increasing part” of this decision-making process. That there is quite a bit of question about it is shown by your total inability to answer that very question.
The point is, of course, 13% of a California player’s salary is, well, 13%, isn’t it.
The agent’s point was that calculating the effects of a state’s income tax on a player’s net pay is far more complex than citing the figure from a single state. Therefore, your “13% is 13%” is exactly the type of simplistic sloganeering I criticized.
With the Miami Dolphins. Florida state income tax rate? ZERO.
Um, the article explicitly stated the only reason Seattle was under consideration was its proximity to Portland. Either you don’t know the meaning of the word “only,” or you’re simultaneously claiming the lack of a state income tax was — and was not! — a factor in this player’s decision.
When the evidence you freely choose to cite in favor of your point actually helps to disprove your point, you probably don’t have a valid point. Just sayin’.
loverofliberty says
Tensor, you’re a funny guy. The title of the article states a Seahawks competitive advantage (not THE, A competitive advantage) is lack of income tax. The article then provides links quoting several professional sports agents who, based on their extensive experience, say the same thing. They say, as industry experts, it is a major consideration. Meaning it’s not a trivial part of a “nuanced” discussion.
You try to twist it and goad others into proving it is THE reason. Which, of course, cannot be done. Had you read the articles about Suh, you would have seen he wanted to play for a big market team (which Seattle is not) and get top dollar, which lack of a state income tax helps attain.
While I’m not a sports agent or a CPA, it seems to me I’d rather play for a team in a no tax state and get dinged a per diem state income tax for several games vs. paying a state income tax for nearly all games (and get other states’ dings credited against my state’s huge ding if I were played for a team with a state income tax).
Tensor, we can agree on these 4 things:
1. Lack of a state income tax is definitely a factor in the negotiations as the title of the article states. Not THE factor, but A factor. Neither the article nor I have stated differently.
2. The several sports agents quoted and linked, experts in player negotiations, agree it is a major consideration. Providing the substance you were asking for in your original post.
3. Suh ended up with a major market team in a state that has no state income tax.
4. Your attempt to trying to switch the subject from saying a state income tax is “a” factor to “the” factor in negotiations ultimately didn’t work. Nice try.
Until next time.
tensor says
The article then provides links quoting several professional sports agents who, based on their extensive experience, say the same thing.
No, they say they believe it’s important. They provide zero examples of their clients actually agreeing with them, let alone of one choosing the Seahawks based upon this supposed advantage.
Now, I agree that informed opinion is greatly superior to the opinion constantly expressed by Shift’s anonymous front-page posters. However, it remains opinion, not fact. I was — and am — asking for fact, which I have yet to receive.
You try to twist it and goad others into proving it is THE reason.
That’s not what I wrote. I asked if we had any evidence that even one athlete had ever chosen the Seahawks based upon Washington state’s lack of an income tax. So far, we have none, and so the demonstrated — not believed, but actually demonstrated — value of this “competitive advantage” remains at zero.
Lack of a state income tax is definitely a factor in the negotiations as the title of the article states. Not THE factor, but A factor.
There’s a huge difference between “a factor in the negotiations” and “a competitive advantage.” We have seen evidence which suggests the former, and none which supports the latter.
The several sports agents quoted and linked, experts in player negotiations, agree it is a major consideration. Providing the substance you were asking for in your original post.
They agree their clients should consider it. They do not provide the only “substance” for which I asked: an example of a player choosing the Seahawks because of Washington state’s lack of an income tax.
Suh ended up with a major market team in a state that has no state income tax.
And which is not the Seahawks, so the relevance of this information to my original question is unclear. (Also unclear is why you keep ignoring that Seattle’s proximity to Portland was the “only” factor in Washington’s favor.)
Your attempt to trying to switch the subject from saying a state income tax is “a” factor to “the” factor …
I never tried to switch the subject from Washington state’s lack of an income tax; that subject is front and center in my original question. (I also never used the phrase, “the factor,” that was your doing.)
My question was, and remains: “So, is there any evidence that even one player ever chose the Hawks over the Giants, 49ers, Bears, &c. because of our lack of a state income tax?” Nothing in the original post, the linked article, the articles linked to the linked article, or in the links you have provided gives any evidence to answer my question. Over the franchise lifetime of the Seahawks, the total number of players demonstrated to have signed because of Washington state’s lack of an income tax stands firmly at zero.
Zero is therefore also the total lifetime demonstrated value of the “competitive advantage” which our state’s lack of an income tax has provided to the Seahawks.
Better luck next time!