• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Spurs Thread

That's awesome.
 
Forbes makes tax case for cp3 not losing as much as you think by going to the spurs (unsaid is mavs and Houston as well).

www.forbes.com/sites/anthonynitti/2017/06/26/how-the-trump-tax-plan-could-lure-chris-paul-to-the-san-antonio-spurs/amp/

One part of their argument is very real right now, the difference in Zero Texas state income tax on the bulk of his salary and endorsement money and the California state income tax (13%) on it.

The federal tax change part of their analysis is a lot weaker, because it requires that the federal tax law change to eliminate deductibility of state income taxes. Your guess is as good as mine as to whether that actually happens.

Currently the difference is about $25 million, not the $50 million it looks like in the raw numbers. and that number could be smaller if the federal code changes.

What is a better ring chasing chance worth?
 
One part of their argument is very real right now, the difference in Zero Texas state income tax on the bulk of his salary and endorsement money and the California state income tax (13%) on it.

The federal tax change part of their analysis is a lot weaker, because it requires that the federal tax law change to eliminate deductibility of state income taxes. Your guess is as good as mine as to whether that actually happens.

Currently the difference is about $25 million, not the $50 million it looks like in the raw numbers. and that number could be smaller if the federal code changes.

What is a better ring chasing chance worth?

Without the change in federal law the difference between what a Texas team can offer vs the Clippers, net of taxes, is actually about $35 million.

I also think there is a decent argument that in purely monetary terms, a championship is worth at least $35 million to Paul. Chris has ambitions after basketball and a championship will not only boost endorsements in the short term, it will provide additional opportunities in the long term.

A championship cements CP3 as an all time great, a top 15-20 player all time and a consensus top 3 PG. Without it, fair or not, many will rate his legacy one tier down with guys like Stockton, Malone, and Barkley.
 
So, CP2, Pau Gasol, and Kawhi Leonard ? Is that what you people are putting together as a championship team ?
 
HUH?? Highest tax rate in CA is 13.3%. A $210M supermax would net a theoretical savings of $28M. What RC is also missing is that players' salaries aren't completely taxed in the states where their franchises reside. The 41 road games are taxed at different rates in the states where the games are played. Thus he saves some additional money for earnings not in the state.

He will not save even $30M on his contract and that is not "about $35M" by any reasonable definition of the term.
 
Better shot than any other team he wants to join
 
HUH?? Highest tax rate in CA is 13.3%. A $210M supermax would net a theoretical savings of $28M. What RC is also missing is that players' salaries aren't completely taxed in the states where their franchises reside. The 41 road games are taxed at different rates in the states where the games are played. Thus he saves some additional money for earnings not in the state.

He will not save even $30M on his contract and that is not "about $35M" by any reasonable definition of the term.

Reading is hard. I said the difference between his Clippers contract and a max deal from a Texas team, net of taxes, would be ~$35 million, rather than the $50 million gross amount often quoted or the $25 million the article and deaconblue quoted (based on a tax reform provision that is unlikely to pass Congress)

From the article: "the real after-tax cost of the state taxes would be only $15.7 million." 50-15 = 35.
 
It's also apples and oranges. One is a four year deal versus a five year contract. It assumes he doesn't play a fifth year. If that's the case, you can't include the "earnings" in Year 5 from the Clippers' deal.

If Chris plays in Year 5 for the Spurs, he won't make the crazy number for the Clippers, but it's likely that he'll still be making at least $20-25M or he won't play.

Year 5 for the Clippers will be about $53M. If he only makes $20M in Year 5 for the Spurs, when you add the tax savings, the net difference will be in the $10-15M range NOT ~$35M. Even if he only makes $10M in year 5, his "loss" will max out at about $25M.
 
It's also apples and oranges. One is a four year deal versus a five year contract. It assumes he doesn't play a fifth year. If that's the case, you can't include the "earnings" in Year 5 from the Clippers' deal.

If Chris plays in Year 5 for the Spurs, he won't make the crazy number for the Clippers, but it's likely that he'll still be making at least $20-25M or he won't play.

Year 5 for the Clippers will be about $53M. If he only makes $20M in Year 5 for the Spurs, when you add the tax savings, the net difference will be in the $10-15M range NOT ~$35M. Even if he only makes $10M in year 5, his "loss" will max out at about $25M.

All true.

The article in question was only focused on guaranteed money so I didn't include a potential 5th year.

I do think CP3 will age well and barring a career ending injury (which are pretty rare) he can be confident that worst case scenario he can get the vet minimum from someone. Hitting free agency a year earlier also increases his odds of getting another multi-year deal.
 
i am skeptical that paul ends up with the spurs. however, for some reason i did not consider income outside of basketball and the state income tax savings. that's a nice boost but i don't think it would be enough.
 
Then there's no way there's a ~$35M difference.

I would be much more than stunned if Chris ever plays for anything like a veteran minimum contract. He can make much more than that in the private sector. Plus, doing so would lower his marketing value to sponsors, etc. The veteran minimum isn't even tip money for Chris. He'd rather retire than take it.

The only exception to what I said in the paragraph directly above this is if he signed a big last year contract and got bought out before signing for the minimum. In this case, he would still get paid the lion's share of the other contract and shouldn't be considered playing that year for the "veteran's minimum".
 
i am skeptical that paul ends up with the spurs. however, for some reason i did not consider income outside of basketball and the state income tax savings. that's a nice boost but i don't think it would be enough.

I think it could be argued that it could because of a move Chris could make more in off the court money with the Spurs than with an also ran Clippers. He'll be in the spotlight more.
 
Back
Top