Gordon Hayward To Meet With Jazz, Heat, And Celtics In Coming Week

[Moranis]

They have no state income tax.  Living in Miami in the winter is way better than Boston or Utah. . .   
The Heat are real competition for any of the major free agents and can't just be disregarded.

I actually did the math on this a while ago, including the annual raises of his deal and so forth. It starts out with savings of $1.5 million per year.  But in the final season, it's a little over $2 million in savings.

Another way to look at it is this:

• The state tax in Mass. is 5%.
• State tax in Florida is 0%.
• Guess what rate an NBA agents charges their clients?  5%
• That means that the tax savings of signing in Florida instead of Boston equates to getting your agent for free.

I can definitely see the attraction of that.

Well, there it is, our chances of signing Hayward GONE.

Screw taxes!

There's a missing factor in your math, MetroGlobe.  Players pay income tax based upon the state in which they work.  That means Hayward would pay no income tax on home games and other games that take place in no-income-tax states.  BUT, he will pay taxes on road games taking place in states that have an income tax.  That makes the math much more complicated but an approximation is that your calculated tax savings should be cut in half.

Utah is 5% so there isn't much difference between staying in Utah and going to Massachusetts (5.2%) in that regard, but clearly Florida and Texas teams have a big advantage with their 0% state tax (Washington, Nevada, South Dakota, Wyoming, and Alaska all also have no state tax, but don't have teams).

[celticinorlando]

What can Utah offer other than money that they haven't already shown him? They cannot get another star to play with him...they cannot beat GS, SA or Houston as they are currently constructed. So what if they resign George Hill...he is not getting them over the top.

As for Boston, they can sell him on being a major part in winning the East and getting to the Finals. They can sell him as being a key factor in attracting PG to staying in Boston. They can sell him on becoming a well known player instead of that guy in Utah.

Plus Brad Steven's system is made for him. Combine this with the fact his wife wants a change, tells me this is Boston's to take home. My guess is the pitch will blow him away. Again, there is nothing Utah can sell him on basketball wise. He is not getting out of the second round with them.

[tarheelsxxiii]

My main question in all of this hoopla is whether Boston needs to recruit our other local heroes as part of the pitch this time around.

[Donoghus]

They have no state income tax.  Living in Miami in the winter is way better than Boston or Utah. . .   
The Heat are real competition for any of the major free agents and can't just be disregarded.

I actually did the math on this a while ago, including the annual raises of his deal and so forth. It starts out with savings of $1.5 million per year.  But in the final season, it's a little over $2 million in savings.

Another way to look at it is this:

• The state tax in Mass. is 5%.
• State tax in Florida is 0%.
• Guess what rate an NBA agents charges their clients?  5%
• That means that the tax savings of signing in Florida instead of Boston equates to getting your agent for free.

I can definitely see the attraction of that.

Well, there it is, our chances of signing Hayward GONE.

Screw taxes!

There's a missing factor in your math, MetroGlobe.  Players pay income tax based upon the state in which they work.  That means Hayward would pay no income tax on home games and other games that take place in no-income-tax states.  BUT, he will pay taxes on road games taking place in states that have an income tax.  That makes the math much more complicated but an approximation is that your calculated tax savings should be cut in half.

Utah is 5% so there isn't much difference between staying in Utah and going to Massachusetts (5.2%) in that regard, but clearly Florida and Texas teams have a big advantage with their 0% state tax (Washington, Nevada, South Dakota, Wyoming, and Alaska all also have no state tax, but don't have teams).

MA is 5.1%, not 5.2%.  ST CG at 12%.

[saltlover]

They have no state income tax.  Living in Miami in the winter is way better than Boston or Utah. . .   
The Heat are real competition for any of the major free agents and can't just be disregarded.

I actually did the math on this a while ago, including the annual raises of his deal and so forth. It starts out with savings of $1.5 million per year.  But in the final season, it's a little over $2 million in savings.

Another way to look at it is this:

• The state tax in Mass. is 5%.
• State tax in Florida is 0%.
• Guess what rate an NBA agents charges their clients?  5%
• That means that the tax savings of signing in Florida instead of Boston equates to getting your agent for free.

I can definitely see the attraction of that.

Well, there it is, our chances of signing Hayward GONE.

Screw taxes!

There's a missing factor in your math, MetroGlobe.  Players pay income tax based upon the state in which they work.  That means Hayward would pay no income tax on home games and other games that take place in no-income-tax states.  BUT, he will pay taxes on road games taking place in states that have an income tax.  That makes the math much more complicated but an approximation is that your calculated tax savings should be cut in half.

Utah is 5% so there isn't much difference between staying in Utah and going to Massachusetts (5.2%) in that regard, but clearly Florida and Texas teams have a big advantage with their 0% state tax (Washington, Nevada, South Dakota, Wyoming, and Alaska all also have no state tax, but don't have teams).

MA is 5.1%, not 5.2%.  ST CG at 12%.

It's even more complicated than that, of course, because you can deduct state income taxes from your federal taxes, so at Hayward's tax bracket, that's nearly a 40% discount off his MA income taxes, making it closer to a 3% difference than 5% difference.

Additionally, if he establishes some sort of residency in a no-tax state (say, neighboring NH), and gets a signing bonus in his new deal, he can claim that income in the no-tax state.  Signing bonuses can be up to 15% of the total value of the deal, so it would be yet another way to reduce his tax burden, and bring it closer in line with Florida.

[Donoghus]

They have no state income tax.  Living in Miami in the winter is way better than Boston or Utah. . .   
The Heat are real competition for any of the major free agents and can't just be disregarded.

I actually did the math on this a while ago, including the annual raises of his deal and so forth. It starts out with savings of $1.5 million per year.  But in the final season, it's a little over $2 million in savings.

Another way to look at it is this:

• The state tax in Mass. is 5%.
• State tax in Florida is 0%.
• Guess what rate an NBA agents charges their clients?  5%
• That means that the tax savings of signing in Florida instead of Boston equates to getting your agent for free.

I can definitely see the attraction of that.

Well, there it is, our chances of signing Hayward GONE.

Screw taxes!

There's a missing factor in your math, MetroGlobe.  Players pay income tax based upon the state in which they work.  That means Hayward would pay no income tax on home games and other games that take place in no-income-tax states.  BUT, he will pay taxes on road games taking place in states that have an income tax.  That makes the math much more complicated but an approximation is that your calculated tax savings should be cut in half.

Utah is 5% so there isn't much difference between staying in Utah and going to Massachusetts (5.2%) in that regard, but clearly Florida and Texas teams have a big advantage with their 0% state tax (Washington, Nevada, South Dakota, Wyoming, and Alaska all also have no state tax, but don't have teams).

MA is 5.1%, not 5.2%.  ST CG at 12%.

It's even more complicated than that, of course, because you can deduct state income taxes from your federal taxes, so at Hayward's tax bracket, that's nearly a 40% discount off his MA income taxes, making it closer to a 3% difference than 5% difference.

Additionally, if he establishes some sort of residency in a no-tax state (say, neighboring NH), and gets a signing bonus in his new deal, he can claim that income in the no-tax state.  Signing bonuses can be up to 15% of the total value of the deal, so it would be yet another way to reduce his tax burden, and bring it closer in line with Florida.

Oh yeah,  for sure.  State income taxation is a maze of rules & regulations.  Each state seemingly providing a different headaches.  You got Credit for Taxes Paid to Other States rules, daily allocation of income rules, different rates, different types of income included/excluded from income, tax base rules, etc.

All sorts of headaches but helps pay the bills.

[JBcat]

We aren't talking about somone making 75k. Do you think it really matters for someone making 30 mil a yea for state taxes?  The difference isn't going to affect their lifestyle.

[MetroGlobe]

There's a missing factor in your math, MetroGlobe.  Players pay income tax based upon the state in which they work.  That means Hayward would pay no income tax on home games and other games that take place in no-income-tax states.  BUT, he will pay taxes on road games taking place in states that have an income tax.  That makes the math much more complicated but an approximation is that your calculated tax savings should be cut in half.

Incorrect.  I did factor this in, but didn't want to bore everyone with the details.  It's not half the savings, but rather just a tiny portion that has to be paid to those states because you are only taxed for the actual days you are in those states working.  Out of a 365 year, you're only in those states for like 90 or so days.  And the daily rate is fairly small compared to what you pay when you actually live there.  Here is one article on this issue that I used in my calculation:

http://www.slamonline.com/nba/state-taxes-nba-free-agency/#QKRvY6dAzk8jRzEt.97

tl;dr the tax savings are not halved because of road games, but rather fractioned.

[tankcity!]

I'm betting he picks the Celtics. It's too tempting for him not to play with Paul George. People should post the Amick Article. George is willing to resign with us, Spurs, and Cavs.

[Surferdad]

There's a missing factor in your math, MetroGlobe.  Players pay income tax based upon the state in which they work.  That means Hayward would pay no income tax on home games and other games that take place in no-income-tax states.  BUT, he will pay taxes on road games taking place in states that have an income tax.  That makes the math much more complicated but an approximation is that your calculated tax savings should be cut in half.

Incorrect.  I did factor this in, but didn't want to bore everyone with the details.  It's not half the savings, but rather just a tiny portion that has to be paid to those states because you are only taxed for the actual days you are in those states working.  Out of a 365 year, you're only in those states for like 90 or so days.  And the daily rate is fairly small compared to what you pay when you actually live there.  Here is one article on this issue that I used in my calculation:

http://www.slamonline.com/nba/state-taxes-nba-free-agency/#QKRvY6dAzk8jRzEt.97

tl;dr the tax savings are not halved because of road games, but rather fractioned.

Good to know.  So there's an incentive to fly in/fly out quickly.

[ETNCeltics]

Some states base an athlete's taxable income on the # of games, not the # of days. And some states have a special tax just for athletes.

The state tax in Utah and Mass is virtually the same, so there's no big difference unless he's considering the Heat (except all the extra games in CA that a WC player pays probably adds up). If he's in Florida, he could probably expect to pay an avg. state tax of probably about 1/4 to 1/2 of what he's paid before. So if he averaged 5% before, and say it'll be 2% now, over a 4 yr contract, that's a difference of maybe $3 million.

Not insignificant, but you wouldn't think it would be a huge factor in his decision.

[mef730]

My main question in all of this hoopla is whether Boston needs to recruit our other local heroes as part of the pitch this time around.

#sendsaltlover

We aren't talking about somone making 75k. Do you think it really matters for someone making 30 mil a yea for state taxes?  The difference isn't going to affect their lifestyle.

Yes, I do. People learn to spend to their means (or save to their means, for the smart ones). Could he live as good a lifestyle at $15m per year as he could at $30m? Yup. But, if taxes were all that mattered, why should you give up the extra state tax?

Mike

[saltlover]

My main question in all of this hoopla is whether Boston needs to recruit our other local heroes as part of the pitch this time around.

#sendsaltlover

We aren't talking about somone making 75k. Do you think it really matters for someone making 30 mil a yea for state taxes?  The difference isn't going to affect their lifestyle.

Yes, I do. People learn to spend to their means (or save to their means, for the smart ones). Could he live as good a lifestyle at $15m per year as he could at $30m? Yup. But, if taxes were all that mattered, why should you give up the extra state tax?

Mike

Haha.

"Gordon, I remember where I was when you missed that shot vs. Duke" probably isn't the best pitch, huh?

As for the difference in salaries, if I were his advisor, I'd tell him this:

"You'd probably make about 2% less choosing Boston over Miami.  So the question is, do you like Boston 2% more?"  Money is a means to acquiring happiness, not the ultimate goal (for most).  If he'd be happier in Boston, that's the better choice, since affordability isn't a question at his income level.  If he thinks it's a wash from which place he'd be, then he should take the money.

[gift]

Some states base an athlete's taxable income on the # of games, not the # of days. And some states have a special tax just for athletes.

The state tax in Utah and Mass is virtually the same, so there's no big difference unless he's considering the Heat (except all the extra games in CA that a WC player pays probably adds up). If he's in Florida, he could probably expect to pay an avg. state tax of probably about 1/4 to 1/2 of what he's paid before. So if he averaged 5% before, and say it'll be 2% now, over a 4 yr contract, that's a difference of maybe $3 million.

Not insignificant, but you wouldn't think it would be a huge factor in his decision.

Just curious, do you know if guys are taxed if they travel with the team but don't play. For instance, if they are injured? What if they don't travel with a team for a road trip. Do they save on those taxes?

[ederson]

We aren't talking about somone making 75k. Do you think it really matters for someone making 30 mil a yea for state taxes?  The difference isn't going to affect their lifestyle.

Yes, I do. People learn to spend to their means (or save to their means, for the smart ones). Could he live as good a lifestyle at $15m per year as he could at $30m? Yup. But, if taxes were all that mattered, why should you give up the extra state tax?

Mike

1.5m is not a small amount by all means but i cannot imagine that a player who will either way sign a 100m contact and seriously wants to win considers it important enough and select a marginally play off team instead of the Celtics

I don't want that kind of players on my team