Lakers Going After Hurley

[avid1010]

Why are people assuming that if you throw enough money at Hurley, he will accept it?

There is no doubt that some of the jobs Shaka has been offered this year are millions per year more than he is making at Marquette.  Do you really think that if they doubled or tripled those offers, he would have taken one of them?

Both Shaka and Hurley know that their families will never have to worry about money again.  For both of them, I believe that the job itself would still have to be something that they really wanted.

I don't know about any of that...but a wealthy person that is going to gross 2 or 3x more $ in California isn't foolish for moving there from a fiscal side of things. 

[avid1010]

I agree with this analysis.

Why does this not surprise me.  Herman makes $1 million a year in South Dakota...he's not moving to California for $3 million a year because they have high taxes

[Uncle Rico]

Why does this not surprise me.  Herman makes $1 million a year in South Dakota...he's not moving to California for $3 million a year because they have high taxes

He's an idiot, so always do the opposite

[Scoop Snoop]

Excerpts from a story by Peter Thamel, ESPN:

Planning the next 20 years in college, of course, comes with no certainty considering how much seismic change we've seen in the past five. Hurley would need to essentially re-recruit a new roster every year, deal with the vagaries of revenue sharing and NIL and hope the Big East can continue to swing with the two power conferences.

(Hurley has not hid his disdain for the portal, summarized by this fetal position picture.)

UConn doesn't have the ability to pay like the Lakers do, but it will be as fully committed as it possibly can be. The university's identity is wedded to big-time basketball. But over the next decade, when the Big East television contract is inevitably dwarfed by the SEC's and Big Ten's, could that become harder to do?

[Uncle Rico]

Excerpts from a story by Peter Thamel, ESPN:

Planning the next 20 years in college, of course, comes with no certainty considering how much seismic change we've seen in the past five. Hurley would need to essentially re-recruit a new roster every year, deal with the vagaries of revenue sharing and NIL and hope the Big East can continue to swing with the two power conferences.

(Hurley has not hid his disdain for the portal, summarized by this fetal position picture.)

UConn doesn't have the ability to pay like the Lakers do, but it will be as fully committed as it possibly can be. The university's identity is wedded to big-time basketball. But over the next decade, when the Big East television contract is inevitably dwarfed by the SEC's and Big Ten's, could that become harder to do?

Thamel is a bad big-picture guy and his coaching predictions/thoughts are often bizarre and wrong.  I'll never forget him saying Michigan would likely hire Steve Addazio and not Jim Harbaugh a decade ago and was adamant about it.

However, the questions posed here are legitimate.  The Big East will not be able to command the type of dollars the two behemoths will.  The one thing often missed, though, in these thought exercises is, all these moves revolve around football when it comes to money and TV.

Schools committed to basketball will be able to compete in this new landscape because it will almost always play second fiddle to football.  It's a different creature.  That matters.  Rutgers basketball is vastly better than football but all their desires lie in gridiron glory.  We can go down the list.  Very few schools in the new behemoths put basketball first.  That matters

[BallBoy]

I am not sure if they actually passed it. However, California was trying to put an exit tax on wealthy people who move out of California. It would be foolish for a wealthy person to move to California.

A quick google search would tell you this would have no impact to no real impact. 1st it only applies to people/businesses who make $30M or greater per year. Then you only pay .4% on the amount over that number. Even with endorsements Hurley wouldn't make over $30m/year and if he did his value add on that delta alone would more than cover his losses due to taxes.

Also Federal taxes are consistent no matter where you live it is just the state tax that is different so for every extra million he received he would only lose the delta between CT and CA taxes which is a small percentage of each million dollars.

The payday far exceeds any downside from taxes.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

It feels like the longer this goes on, the more likely he is to stay.

Supposedly a decision one way or the other is supposed to come today.

[79Warrior]

Hurley has stated multiple times he would like to coach in the NBA someday.

And yes, I think if teams tripled Shaka's money he'd be Smart to take it.

Foolish for a wealthy person to move to CA? There are a lot of foolish rich people in the world then.

Yep. Not to mention since when is CT a low tax state?

[TSmith34, Inc.]

A quick google search would tell you this would have no impact to no real impact. 1st it only applies to people/businesses who make $30M or greater per year. Then you only pay .4% on the amount over that number. Even with endorsements Hurley wouldn't make over $30m/year and if he did his value add on that delta alone would more than cover his losses due to taxes.

Also Federal taxes are consistent no matter where you live it is just the state tax that is different so for every extra million he received he would only lose the delta between CT and CA taxes which is a small percentage of each million dollars.

The payday far exceeds any downside from taxes.

No, California is always bad because it is liberal, so it must always be spoken of as completely terrible in all ways. This is a rule. San Francisco is bad, greater California is bad. That's why it only grew GDP 6.1% last year. It's awful, as everyone knows.

[TSmith34, Inc.]

Yep. Not to mention since when is CT a low tax state?

CA tax burden: 10.40%
CT tax burden: 10.04%

Overall cost of living is higher in CA, so he definitely shouldn't go there and triple his salary.

[The Sultan]

I believe cost of living is pretty far down the list of things Hurley is thinking about with this potential move.

[Uncle Rico]

I believe cost of living is pretty far down the list of things Hurley is thinking about with this potential move.

School districts is probably his biggest concern

[Jay Bee]

CA tax burden: 10.40%
CT tax burden: 10.04%

Overall cost of living is higher in CA, so he definitely shouldn't go there and triple his salary.

Source?

[oldwarrior81]

not sure state taxes would be a determining factor...

I found California income tax at 12.3% for those earning over $1m
Connecticut shows as 6.99% if making over $1m
For $15m a year earnings, thats about $750k difference

There are a few states showing 0% state income tax.  ie.. Florida, Texas, Tennessee, Washington
At $15m per, that's getting close to $2m a year in income tax savings.

That California wealth tax is a bit unique.   1% for net worth over $50m.  I wonder if tax assessors will be going door-to-door, or use property insurance valuations.   I'd guess some of those pieces of multi-million dollar artwork may end up hanging in their Idaho lodges.

[oldwarrior81]

not sure state taxes would be a determining factor...

I found California income tax at 12.3% for those earning over $1m
Connecticut shows as 6.99% if making over $1m
For $15m a year earnings, thats about $750k difference

There are a few states showing 0% state income tax.  ie.. Florida, Texas, Tennessee, Washington
At $15m per, that's getting close to $2m a year in income tax savings.

That California wealth tax is a bit unique.   1% for net worth over $50m.  I wonder if tax assessors will be going door-to-door, or use property insurance valuations.   I'd guess some of those pieces of multi-million dollar artwork may end up hanging in their Idaho ranches.

[TSmith34, Inc.]

Source?

https://wallethub.com/edu/states-with-highest-lowest-tax-burden/20494

Sorry, I got CT wrong. It's 10.08%

[avid1010]

not sure state taxes would be a determining factor...

I found California income tax at 12.3% for those earning over $1m
Connecticut shows as 6.99% if making over $1m
For $15m a year earnings, thats about $750k difference

There are a few states showing 0% state income tax.  ie.. Florida, Texas, Tennessee, Washington
At $15m per, that's getting close to $2m a year in income tax savings.

That California wealth tax is a bit unique.   1% for net worth over $50m.  I wonder if tax assessors will be going door-to-door, or use property insurance valuations.   I'd guess a few of those multi-million dollar artwork may end up hanging in their Idaho lodges.

The Tiger Woods approach may make sense if you can make the same amount no matter where you call home. 

[Jockey]

https://wallethub.com/edu/states-with-highest-lowest-tax-burden/20494

Sorry, I got CT wrong. It's 10.08%

For what is listed, I am pretty sure the numbers are accurate. But as someone who dopes a lot of traveling in this country, they are also very misleading.

Local taxes are generally much higher in states with 'lower' tax burdens.

Example: Tennessee is listed at 6.07% TOTAL tax burden. Of course that is not the actual case. Tennessee's combined state and local sales tax rate is 9.55%.

[WhiteTrash]

The Tiger Woods approach may make sense if you can make the same amount no matter where you call home.

You pay the tax where the money is earned. But for endorsement income, FLA is a good home.

[oldwarrior81]

doesn't the "Tax Burden" list take into account all residents, rather than just the ones making multiple millions?

I'm not sure what it has to do with the Hurley discussion, unless it's just a comparison to show that California is not much different when looked at as a whole.

That's why I showed state income tax for million dollar earners.

[Jay Bee]

doesn't the "Tax Burden" list take into account all residents, rather than just the ones making multiple millions?

I'm not sure what it has to do with the Hurley discussion, unless it's just a comparison to show that California is not much different when looked at as a whole.

That's why I showed state income tax for million dollar earners.

Exactly. TSmith doesn't understand.

Probably missed this part of their link, as well: " California has the highest individual income tax burden"

Nonetheless, their link isn't very relevant to the discussion. Not sure ze understand marginal tax rates, etc. Sad.

[Lennys Tap]

Exactly. TSmith doesn't understand.

Probably missed this part of their link, as well: " California has the highest individual income tax burden"

Nonetheless, their link isn't very relevant to the discussion. Not sure ze understand marginal tax rates, etc. Sad.

Only the tip of the iceberg of things "T Smith doesn't understand".

[TSmith34, Inc.]

Only the tip of the iceberg of things "T Smith doesn't understand".

Tell us more about the woke military Lenny

[The Lens]

California is dying, that's why real estate prices are falling.  Supply & demand. No one wants to live there.

[warriorchick]

For what is listed, I am pretty sure the numbers are accurate. But as someone who dopes a lot of traveling in this country, they are also very misleading.

Local taxes are generally much higher in states with 'lower' tax burdens.

Example: Tennessee is listed at 6.07% TOTAL tax burden. Of course that is not the actual case. Tennessee's combined state and local sales tax rate is 9.55%.

But you don't pay sales tax on 100% of your income, so actually,  that sounds about right.

Property taxes are super low in Tennessee as well.