Click here to watch the video of the event.

The post Donnybrook: Audrey Spalding Returns to KETC appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Just how rich does this make Albert? Well, one local sportscaster estimated today that if Albert bats five times each game next year for the Angels, he will be raking in a cool $30,000 each time he steps into the batter’s box. Not bad, huh?

But if it makes you feel any better, it may not be all win-win for our legendary No. 5. Consider income taxes. Missouri’s top personal income tax rate is 6 percent, which kicks in at $9,000 (he would have also paid an additional 1 percent earnings tax [click on policy study and scroll down to page 46] in Saint Louis). In comparison, California’s top rate is 10.3 percent for incomes above $1 million (of course it might not STAY that way). I am not the only one to notice the possible influence that income tax rates could have had on Albert’s decision (this was regarding the offer from the Miami Marlins).

However, at the margins, how much of a difference would these tax rates have made on Albert’s decision? First, consider that Albert will only have to pay this 10.3 percent top rate for games played in California. He will play a good chunk of his games in states with NO personal income taxes (Washington and Texas). Now, I am not an economist and there are other factors involved here, but just doing some back-of-the-envelope calculations for the home games, I found that Albert would pay slightly more than $4.6 million more in taxes over the life of his contract in Anaheim than Saint Louis. Considering the supposed $30 million to $40 million difference in value of the contracts, would the tax factor make that much of a difference? It is certainly possible (even though Albert did decide to leave). If the Angels had offered him the same amount as the Cardinals, the tax difference would cost Albert approximately $3.7 million.

Who is to say if the difference would matter, especially for a single individual who has to weigh many factors in his decision to move. However, if you are a business, that tax difference could influence a decision between paying taxes or hiring a couple of new employees. Just some things to ponder while Albert packs his bags.

The post A Heavenly Deal? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Full Interview (MP3)

The post The Economics of Pujols’ Contract appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Pujols falls into the top federal tax bracket with a 35 percent marginal rate, so his federal tax bill will come in a little below $10.5 million. (It’s lower than that because of the lower rates he pays for the first few hundred thousand dollars and his ability to write off his Missouri income tax on his federal tax return.) The state of Missouri’s take is easy to determine because it is a flat 6 percent, clocking in at $1.8 million. The Saint Louis earnings tax is for 1 percent of income, but it only applies to games he plays in Saint Louis, so it will be half of 1 percent in his case, or $150,000. (He will have to pay earnings taxes in other cities that have them, like New York City and Kansas City, for the games he plays there, but if I were to try to tabulate his tax bill exactly, it would be absurdly complex, and I’d demand to be paid like his accountant.)

In short, it’s a bit of an exaggeration to say that Pujols might make $30 million a year, because after paying the various taxmen, he will end up with closer to $17 million — or less than 60 percent of his gross income.

The post How Much Will Pujols Pay in Taxes? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

For most of baseball’s history, even the best professional players did not make salaries hundreds of times greater than the average American. In large part, this was attributable to the reserve clause attached to player contracts that forced them to bargain solely with the team that signed them — even after the contract expired. In 1975, an arbitrator allowed two players to become free agents, effectively striking down the reserve clause. From that point forward, general managers have been forced to compete against each other for free agents, driving player salaries skyward.

In most cases, these multimillion-dollar salaries benefit everyone involved. Most obviously, the players benefit because they earn more money. And, although ownership would undoubtedly like to return to the days of the reserve clause and cheap labor, they still generally prefer paying stratospheric salaries instead of fielding a third-rate team. Most importantly, baseball fans enjoy watching their highly paid stars play up to their potential, as shown by our willingness to spend money on the sport. Until the recession hit in 2008, Major League Baseball (MLB) set attendance records on an almost annual basis, peaking in 2007 with more than 79.5 million tickets sold — an average of 32,785 fans per game. Attendance has declined about 7 percent since then, down to (still healthy) 2003 levels. The reason that superb athletes like Pujols can command millions or even tens of millions of dollars per year is because people willingly give their hard-earned money to watch them perform.

Seen from the perspective of the value he brings to fans, Pujols is a bargain at $25 or even $30 million a year. The Cardinals had the fourth-highest MLB attendance in 2010, with 3,301,218 fans attending 81 home games, according to ESPN. If each of those fans contributed only nine dollars — just once — it would net Pujols $30 million for the year. Of course, this dramatically understates how dearly Cardinals fans value his skills, because it ignores attendance at away games and the much larger audiences listening on the radio and watching on television. J.C. Bradbury, an economist at Kennesaw State University and author of The Baseball Economist, estimates that an eight-year contact with Pujols is worth $350 million, based upon similar deals to other superstars and current revenue growth. That’s $43.75 million per year. Another examination, using the statistic Wins Above Replacement (WAR), pegs the dollar value of an average season for Pujols at $32.3 million.

This analysis is complicated by subsidies that the Cardinals have received from the government — mostly in the form of deferential tax treatment and government-secured loans for the construction of the new Busch Stadium. Some area taxpayers do not care for baseball or the Cardinals, so they lose out on that deal. Such subsidies, however, are not an argument against high salaries per se, but rather against government favoritism toward certain businesses.

In 1960, Stan Musial came off a substandard season and requested a pay cut from $100,000 to $75,000. It was an honorable move from a man who demanded nothing short of perfection from himself. But nothing suggests that Pujols’ success as a player will decline any time soon. The value that Pujols has added to his fans’ lives far outstrips even the eight-digit figure on his current contract — so go ahead and pay the man what he deserves.

John Payne is a research assistant for the Show-Me Institute, an independent think tank promoting free-market solutions for Missouri public policy.

The post Pujols Is Worth Every Penny (All 3 Billion of Them) appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Full Interview (MP3)

The post Is Albert Worth 30 Million? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

One of the Show-Me Institute’s very first articles was about the lunacy of “jock taxes” like this. The city intends to tax 1 percent of the earnings of every player who earns an all-star bonus. So, for example, Albert Pujols would owe $500. (Although because Albert lives in Missouri, and plays full-time in the city, he might not be the best example.)

According to the article, there is a strong argument to be made against taxing the bonuses, and at least one city that has a “jock tax” recently chose not to tax all-star bonuses for that reason:

That’s the stance taken in Pittsburgh, which hosted the All-Star game in 2006. Pittsburgh has a 3 percent “usage fee” on the salaries of visiting athletes and entertainers, but officials ruled the bonuses were performance incentives, not pay for actually appearing in the All-Star game.

In other words, it wasn’t earned in Pittsburgh, and it can’t be taxed there, said Tim O’Donnell, with the Pittsburgh Finance Department. “Put it this way: To get selected, you’d better be playing good beforehand,” O’Donnell said.

I would love to see a player challenge this attempt and put a dent in earnings tax collections. The city of St. Louis should not be expending time and effort to collect 1 percent from everyone who sets foot in the city. (Trial lawyers who office outside the city, but benefit from city venues, are another story. They should pay a 20-percent tax on those cases — and I am only half-joking.)

Everything Tim wrote four years ago stands up perfectly in this case, and I encourage you to read his article.

One a related note, the economic benefits that come from hosting the all-star game are going to be terrific for the city, and I can’t wait to be a part of it.

The post All-Star Earnings Taxes appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

We were all heartbroken when the Cardinals lost the playoffs to the Astros. Losing hurts, especially when the stakes are as high as they were last month. Still, most of us know the difference between a game and real life. We teach our kids that however much we may hate losing, that doesn’t make it ok to lash out at the other team or at officials. Good sports are fierce competitors on the field, but they’re also friendly and respectful of others after the game.

Rep. Jeffrey Roorda (D-Barnhart), it seems, never learned that lesson. He blames the Cardinals’ loss on bad decisions by the umpires, and he’s decided to express his frustration through legislation. He wants to extend the state’s athletes and entertainers tax–some call it the “jock tax”–which levies taxes on out-of-state athletes who play away games in Missouri, to include the umpires as well.

His proposal isn’t just bad sportsmanship, it’s bad public policy too. For that matter, the “jock tax” itself is ill-conceived. It’s burdensome, unfair, and adds practically nothing to the state’s bottom line. Instead of expanding it, the legislature should be working to eliminate it.

The first “jock tax” was levied by the state of California to punish Michael Jordan for the Chicago Bulls’ defeat of the Los Angeles Lakers in 1991. The next year, Illinois retaliated with a tax of their own, which local papers called “Michael Jordan’s revenge.” Other states jumped on the bandwagon. A 2004 survey by the Tax Foundation found that 20 of the 24 states with professional sports teams now levy income taxes on the employees of professional sports teams.
The result has been a paperwork nightmare for the employees of professional sports teams. The taxes were intended to target the wealthiest athletes, but state tax officials send tax returns to everyone on the team’s payroll who travels to the state. That includes lower-paid athletes, assistant coaches, scouts, and trainers, many of whom have quite modest incomes. Many employees are forced to file more than a dozen income tax forms, each with a different tax rate and a different set of complicated rules. Of course, Albert Pujols can afford to hire an accountant to deal with all that paperwork, but to a scout making $25,000 a year, it’s a significant expense, not to mention a major headache.

Moreover, it’s unfair to single out athletes when other traveling professionals–many of them with earnings comparable to those of professional athletes–generally don’t pay income taxes to the states they visit. Doctors and lawyers often make as much as football players, and corporate executives can make quite a bit more. Yet they are free to travel on business without filling out a new tax form every time they cross a state border. Moreover, although professional athletes enjoy high salaries in their 20s, their short careers mean that their lifetime earnings can be much lower than other high-wage professions.

The irony is that on net, “jock taxes” actually generate very little revenue. Missouri’s gross revenues from the tax are about $20 million, which amounts to three-tenths of one percent of the state’s budget. But Missouri athletes who pay other states’ jock taxes are able to subtract those tax payments from their Missouri tax bills. When you subtract the revenue lost from other states’ jock taxes, the result is practically a wash. If all 20 states repealed their jock taxes simultaneously, states would get virtually the same revenue with a lot less administrative overhead.

States need to put an end to this pointless arms race. Ideally, the Missouri legislature should take the high ground and simply repeal the tax. But if legislators are concerned about unilateral disarmament, here’s a compromise: Missouri should exempt from taxation any visiting athlete whose home state does not tax Missouri’s athletes. That would give other states an incentive to pass similar laws, without allowing other states to take advantage of us.

At the very least, the legislature should reject ill-considered plans to extend the taxes to additional workers, such as umpires, whose salaries are nowhere near those of superstar athletes. Any good high school baseball coach will tell his players that the players on the away team are their guests and should be treated with respect and hospitality. Someone needs to tell that to Rep. Roorda.

Timothy B. Lee is an editor at the Show-Me Institute. This article originally appeared in the St. Louis Business Journal.

The post ‘Jock Tax’ Is Poor Sportsmanship appeared first on Show-Me Institute.