Re: Luxury tax

[Douglas342@aol.com]

In a message dated 10/29/98 1:03:52 PM Central Standard Time,
jim_meninno@hotmail.com writes:

>  If a rich owner wants to sink some of his own 
>  money into a player's salary some of that money will end up in the 
>  pockets of other owners, who can use it to sign their own players
   --- So if Boston, for example, signs Walker for $20 mil, and Gaston thus
has to pay tax of 5 mil (or whatever), then the 5 mil becomes part of
"basketball related revenues" and enters into cap calculations, including
Boston's?  That makes some sense, but it leaves the problem that superrich
owners can afford that.  If Gaston is superrich, he pays Walker $20,000.000.
But he has to dump another $5,000,000 into the pot as a tax.  That's 25 mil.
Then the low-end owners get another hundred thou or so, but only Gaston can
afford the 25 mil, whether to pay salary or salary plus tax.  It may reduce
salaries, but not owner expenses.  where's the flaw in this logic?