
Via the NY Post:
“If Carmelo Anthony becomes a free agent next July, the Knicks might have to contend with Houston — and Texas’ lack of a state income tax.
“LeBron James, when he signed with the Heat, chose to play in a state — Florida — without a state income tax.”
The notion that James was avoiding state income tax was mentioned by some media outlets after the entire Miami saga, but I’ll be the first to admit that I didn’t really give it much thought thereafter.
But why not?
Athletes, like any other working man or woman out there, are reasonably focussed on bringing home the largest paycheck they possibly can. While big numbers are sexy and can make a player feel validated, the only thing that should matter to a person focused on making money is what he or she brings home at the end of the day.
So why shouldn’t playing in a city that boasts no state income tax be more attractive than playing in the bright lights of MSG, or the great streets of NYC, or any of the mantras we have dished out (me included) and digested (also, me) to convince ourselves that New York is a more attractive destination to free agent talent?
Of course there are elements like endorsement money and overall fame that comes from playing in a giant market like New York versus a paltry one in Houston. And sure, lifestyle plays a part — you ever spent a year in Houston? But if the stated goal is making money, how can you overlook the government’s rather large piece of your pie?
Will this become the new trend? I doubt it. Ultimately, I think athletes, for the most part, flock to the bright ligths and the big stage because they crave the glory and attention that comes with being a high profile member of our star-studded society.
But might some, say, more fiscally sophisticated athletes put a lower income tax into the mix when it comes time to decide where to sign? I don’t see why not.
At the end of the day, it would make the most cents…