.... courtesy of California's jock tax. And I'm not talking about some third string fullback. Even Cam Newton is losing money by playing in the Super Bowl.

If the NFL had any stones they'd ban jock tax states from getting the Super Bowl.


http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/cam-ne...not-alone/

Wow.

I don't understand why California thinks they are entitled to a tax on the players income that was not earned in the state. If anything the tax should be limited to monies earned while in state.

When I was in trucking California was a pain in the ass to deal with. The have more strict emissions standards that prevent older trucks (pre-2012) from even entering the state without paying a tax. When I had an older truck enter the state, they paid a tax on how long and how many miles they were expected to run while in California. Seems like the players tax should work the same way.

Oh California, lol.

200 have you ever looked into the CNG semi trucks. Smiths Dairy in Ohio crossed over their entire fleet. They were kicking ass when diesel went crazy a couple of years back. I bet now it wouldn't be worth the switch. Diesel is under 2 bucks here.

(02-05-2016 09:44 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  200 have you ever looked into the CNG semi trucks. Smiths Dairy in Ohio crossed over their entire fleet. They were kicking ass when diesel went crazy a couple of years back. I bet now it wouldn't be worth the switch. Diesel is under 2 bucks here.

Its right at $2 here as well. Still high in NYC and S FL where my family's trucks stay. CNG is great and the cost to switch over is starting to come down. Problem still lies is availability, especially off the interstate.

(02-05-2016 04:49 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  I don't understand why California thinks they are entitled to a tax on the players income that was not earned in the state. If anything the tax should be limited to monies earned while in state.

When I was in trucking California was a pain in the ass to deal with. The have more strict emissions standards that prevent older trucks (pre-2012) from even entering the state without paying a tax. When I had an older truck enter the state, they paid a tax on how long and how many miles they were expected to run while in California. Seems like the players tax should work the same way.

is what happens when voters and fans of gubberment elect browns and awnolds....

toss in the 4th largest economy of libtards and it's not hard to figure....

not all in the west are morons.....there are those that choose and those that cannot escape such on a whim....sometimes it takes a little time

(02-05-2016 10:45 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(02-05-2016 09:44 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  200 have you ever looked into the CNG semi trucks. Smiths Dairy in Ohio crossed over their entire fleet. They were kicking ass when diesel went crazy a couple of years back. I bet now it wouldn't be worth the switch. Diesel is under 2 bucks here.

Its right at $2 here as well. Still high in NYC and S FL where my family's trucks stay. CNG is great and the cost to switch over is starting to come down. Problem still lies is availability, especially off the interstate.

the crux of change defined....

(02-05-2016 09:16 PM)Pyrizzo Wrote:  Oh California, lol.

they did generate this one as a gem.....gold is the only reason they now matter.....the irony is waving bye-bye to the gold standard and the welcome mat to central banking....one created another...

This is an issue the players union should strike over. If California won't repeal it, have the NFL announce that it will move the Rams back to Saint Louis, the Raiders to San Antonio, the 49ers to Salt Lake City, and the Chargers to Memphis.

This seems illegal if they aren't taxing other members of the company and the owner.

OK...California is going to reap the large economic benefit of hosting the largest one day sporting event in the world and is going to tax the players? Id like to crotch kick every legislator that voted for this. This is infuriating. The players should hire an attorney and sue the State of California. I cant see how they can tax a person on income not made while in their state.

(02-06-2016 09:30 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  OK...California is going to reap the large economic benefit of hosting the largest one day sporting event in the world and is going to tax the players? Id like to crotch kick every legislator that voted for this. This is infuriating. The players should hire an attorney and sue the State of California. I cant see how they can tax a person on income not made while in their state.

I think that is what they are doing. Taking their entire income and multiplying it by the fraction of time in the state.

I wonder what would have happened if both teams had called a joint press conference after the conference championship games and said, no, we aren't playing unless the law is changed. That would have provoked some mad scrambling.

I wonder if it would come up in collective bargaining that no more Super Bowls could be held in states with this law. Or maybe just a simple requirement that owners reimburse players for such taxes. That would pretty much ensure the same result.

(02-05-2016 04:49 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  I don't understand why California thinks they are entitled to a tax on the players income that was not earned in the state.

Probably for the same reason the United States think it is entitled to a tax on citizens income that was earned in another country.

(02-06-2016 09:05 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  This seems illegal if they aren't taxing other members of the company and the owner.

In my eyes it isn't a matter of legality. Just a question of why the state feels they are entitled to a cut of money based on the entire years salary and not just what was earned in state.

(02-06-2016 09:53 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I wonder what would have happened if both teams had called a joint press conference after the conference championship games and said, no, we aren't playing unless the law is changed. That would have provoked some mad scrambling.

I wonder if it would come up in collective bargaining that no more Super Bowls could be held in states with this law. Or maybe just a simple requirement that owners reimburse players for such taxes. That would pretty much ensure the same result.

The players union should be on top of this and advise their players refuse to pay this. I think putting this on public display would end this nonsense. It is outrageous.

(02-06-2016 10:22 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(02-06-2016 09:05 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  This seems illegal if they aren't taxing other members of the company and the owner.

In my eyes it isn't a matter of legality. Just a question of why the state feels they are entitled to a cut of money based on the entire years salary and not just what was earned in state.

I think they are seeing the two as the same. If you earned $100,000 in year and spend 10% of your time in California doing it, then the state feels that they should be able to tax that $10,000.

(02-06-2016 02:20 AM)chargeradio Wrote:  This is an issue the players union should strike over. If California won't repeal it, have the NFL announce that it will move the Rams back to Saint Louis, the Raiders to San Antonio, the 49ers to Salt Lake City, and the Chargers to Memphis.

yet, the end result is smear the fk'n queer....

and you bought it....