Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
You know, it would have been better if you simply had admitted that you had been mistaken. You would have saved alot of face. But now, you are officially on the list of idiots like Rdean, Truthmatters, and National Socialist.
Agent's Take: A guide to NFL postseason pay - CBSSports.com
Peyton Manning will see a big reduction in his per-game pay in the playoffs.
Compensation for players in the playoffs is much different than it is during the regular season. Playoff money comes from a league pool instead of from NFL teams. There is a specific amount for each playoff round where each eligible player gets paid the same.
Most players take a significant paycut in the playoffs because their salaries have no bearing on what they make in the postseason. Players typically receive their entire salary over the course of the 17-week regular season. For example, Peyton Manning made almost $900,000 per week during the regular season from his $15 million base salary but will receive $23,000 for the Denver Broncos' divisional playoff game, just like the rest of his teammates.
LOL
It is like you are trying to confuse yourself.
The contracts are written to ensure that the player is going to play in them but the player won't risk much of their compensation based on making it to the game.
None of this really matters because from the standpoint of the state of NJ they have someone getting paid a big salary and working a certain number of days in their state. Bonuses tied to the work in NJ are totally irrelevant.
You know, it would have been better if you simply had admitted that you had been mistaken. You would have saved alot of face. But now, you are officially on the list of idiots like Rdean, Truthmatters, and National Socialist.
Agent's Take: A guide to NFL postseason pay - CBSSports.com
LOL
It is like you are trying to confuse yourself.
The contracts are written to ensure that the player is going to play in them but the player won't risk much of their compensation based on making it to the game.
None of this really matters because from the standpoint of the state of NJ they have someone getting paid a big salary and working a certain number of days in their state. Bonuses tied to the work in NJ are totally irrelevant.
More and more links of facts and proof provided to you and you STILL demand you are correct while citing nothing. Even going as far as demanding that you dont have to cite anything because we should all just know.
Funny that you are completely alone in this argument. It is likely because you are incorrect in just about every damn thing that you haves stated. This is beyond even TM that is TOUGH to do.
You are on JoeB level. I am starting to pity you
None.
I typically agree with you about 99.9% of the time, but we'll have to agree to disagree on this. The Thunder play 2 blocks away from my office. I have to "escape" downtown on games which isn't easy for all of the folks coming in for the game.
Thunder economic impact estimate tops $64 million for the current season. | News OK
Ever hear of the broken window fallacy? You know the one, where spending to fix broken windows supposedly stimulates the economy, but it is actually just redirecting spending that would have been better if it went to something else? Stadiums work the same way.
Why Cities Subsidize Sports
The economic rationale for cities' willingness to subsidize sports facilities is revealed in the campaign slogan for a new stadium for the San Francisco 49ers: "Build the StadiumCreate the Jobs!" Proponents claim that sports facilities improve the local economy in four ways. First, building the facility creates construction jobs. Second, people who attend games or work for the team generate new spending in the community, expanding local employment. Third, a team attracts tourists and companies to the host city, further increasing local spending and jobs. Finally, all this new spending has a "multiplier effect" as increased local income causes still more new spending and job creation. Advocates argue that new stadiums spur so much economic growth that they are self-financing: subsidies are offset by revenues from ticket taxes, sales taxes on concessions and other spending outside the stadium, and property tax increases arising from the stadium's economic impact.
Unfortunately, these arguments contain bad economic reasoning that leads to overstatement of the benefits of stadiums. Economic growth takes place when a community's resourcespeople, capital investments, and natural resources like landbecome more productive. Increased productivity can arise in two ways: from economically beneficial specialization by the community for the purpose of trading with other regions or from local value added that is higher than other uses of local workers, land, and investments. Building a stadium is good for the local economy only if a stadium is the most productive way to make capital investments and use its workers.
Sports, Jobs, & Taxes: Are New Stadiums Worth the Cost? | Brookings Institution
Ahh Emma....
Did you want to make a fool of yourself again? I can't wait until you make another argument that has no basis in reality.
I thought this was a thread about how the NFL is a "nonprofit" entity.
But NJ's tax is pretty retarded.
Yet another reason to have the Super Bowl in Florida!
Ahh Emma....
Did you want to make a fool of yourself again? I can't wait until you make another argument that has no basis in reality.
This is why I firmly believe that there should be a federal law that prevents a person from being subjected to income tax liability by two states at the same time.
This is why I firmly believe that there should be a federal law that prevents a person from being subjected to income tax liability by two states at the same time.
I live this pain quarterly here in KC and couldn't agree with you more.
This is why I firmly believe that there should be a federal law that prevents a person from being subjected to income tax liability by two states at the same time.
I live this pain quarterly here in KC and couldn't agree with you more.
Kansas gives credits to taxes paid in other jurisdictions.
I live this pain quarterly here in KC and couldn't agree with you more.
Kansas gives credits to taxes paid in other jurisdictions.
Yeah? So?
Kansas gives credits to taxes paid in other jurisdictions.
Yeah? So?
So wait, are you actually suggesting that you should only have to pay taxes to one state ever?
I apologize, it appears your point was dumber than I anticipated.
Yeah? So?
So wait, are you actually suggesting that you should only have to pay taxes to one state ever?
I apologize, it appears your point was dumber than I anticipated.
It appears that you have no fucking idea what you're talking about. Firstly I made no point, I agreed with someone else. Secondly I live in Missouri. Thirdly I run a business that services both sides of the border and local taxes are a royal pain in the ass.
Last but not least, negged
So wait, are you actually suggesting that you should only have to pay taxes to one state ever?
I apologize, it appears your point was dumber than I anticipated.
It appears that you have no fucking idea what you're talking about. Firstly I made no point, I agreed with someone else. Secondly I live in Missouri. Thirdly I run a business that services both sides of the border and local taxes are a royal pain in the ass.
Last but not least, negged
Missouri has the same law.
I am sorry the paperwork is hard.
I am just curious how do you think states should source income for their income taxes?
It appears that you have no fucking idea what you're talking about. Firstly I made no point, I agreed with someone else. Secondly I live in Missouri. Thirdly I run a business that services both sides of the border and local taxes are a royal pain in the ass.
Last but not least, negged
Missouri has the same law.
I am sorry the paperwork is hard.
I am just curious how do you think states should source income for their income taxes?
It might be a good start to only tax income from within the state. It's unforgivable for a state to tax income you made elsewhere that has already been taxed.
Missouri has the same law.
I am sorry the paperwork is hard.
I am just curious how do you think states should source income for their income taxes?
It might be a good start to only tax income from within the state. It's unforgivable for a state to tax income you made elsewhere that has already been taxed.
The income tax has to be sourced and then distributed. When it is sourced and distributed to the state they are not a resident of they receive a credit in their state of residence for taxes paid to other jurisdictions.
This is not a matter of double taxation but of distributing his income to the various states in which he worked.
It might be a good start to only tax income from within the state. It's unforgivable for a state to tax income you made elsewhere that has already been taxed.
The income tax has to be sourced and then distributed. When it is sourced and distributed to the state they are not a resident of they receive a credit in their state of residence for taxes paid to other jurisdictions.
This is not a matter of double taxation but of distributing his income to the various states in which he worked.
Missouri has the same law.
I am sorry the paperwork is hard.
I am just curious how do you think states should source income for their income taxes?
It might be a good start to only tax income from within the state. It's unforgivable for a state to tax income you made elsewhere that has already been taxed.
The income tax has to be sourced and then distributed. When it is sourced and distributed to the state they are not a resident of they receive a credit in their state of residence for taxes paid to other jurisdictions.
This is not a matter of double taxation but of distributing his income to the various states in which he worked.
