lol so very true

And I can see how some would hate a flat rate. Imagine if you earn the same but spend far more responsibly than another, and you’re expected to pay the same taxes? That would be annoying as hell. Same income tax sure, but beyond that it should be based on how a person uses their money.
- Dozzer

"Spend far more responsibly"?
How would that be judged?


At the end of the day....I just want to see the leafs win a cup.

Off topic snd it's only the first day of camp, but if Nashville is serious about putting Stamkos on their top line, they are in for a sobering realization. Stamkos is top PP1 for sure, but not a solid top-3 option at 5v5 any more.
- GalacticStone

Its first day of camp.....they will try a lot of line combos....they have so many new players.
At least it feels like they do.

In Ontario if you are self employed and making $55 800 and under you would be taxed %15.5 from feds plus %5 from Ontario

So you could survive here......unlesss you make over that (up to $111 000, than the tax goes up to %20 and %9.
- Fakepartofme

I always hated the absolute number - like I don't remember the absolute number, but it's around $105k for an employee where the tax rate jumps around 6% federally which sucks when there are periods of smaller raises. You get some pittance raise and take home $6k less per year.

But it's also not easy to build a scaling mechanism or anything since every province is different and uses different gross incomes to set the progressive tax rates . . .

Tax is necessary but unnecessarily complicated.

I always hated the absolute number - like I don't remember the absolute number, but it's around $105k for an employee where the tax rate jumps around 6% federally which sucks when there are periods of smaller raises. You get some pittance raise and take home $6k less per year.

But it's also not easy to build a scaling mechanism or anything since every province is different and uses different gross incomes to set the progressive tax rates . . .

Tax is necessary but unnecessarily complicated.
- Monkeypunk

Agreed

Grebenkin
- Santo_44

I hope his nick name is pickle because every time I see his name I just think of Gerkin.

And I'll say it before Sklappy does - "Jerkin' the Gerkin" is the official pastime of teenaged boys worldwide!

I always hated the absolute number - like I don't remember the absolute number, but it's around $105k for an employee where the tax rate jumps around 6% federally which sucks when there are periods of smaller raises. You get some pittance raise and take home $6k less per year.

But it's also not easy to build a scaling mechanism or anything since every province is different and uses different gross incomes to set the progressive tax rates . . .

Tax is necessary but unnecessarily complicated.
- Monkeypunk

I might have misread what you're saying but remember, it's graduated. You only pay higher rates on the amounts above each threshold.

I might have misread what you're saying but remember, it's graduated. You only pay higher rates on the amounts above each threshold.
- The Law

I probably glossed over it a bit - but what I was getting at was that due the lack of more minute gradient scaling (and I just looked it up), you have this as the Federal tax brackets:

Up to $53,359 has a 15% tax rate
$53,359 - $106,717 has a 20.5% tax rate
$106,717 - $165,430 has a 26% tax rate
$165,430- $235,675 has a 29% tax rate
More than $235,675 has a 33% tax rate

So the obvious one in there is you get your corporate raise that changes your salary from $106,000 annually to a meagre $108,000 (which was the basic 2%-ish raise that a lot of us were or are still getting annually), you are now taking home less money. I don't remember what the actual rate was at the time, but I worked with a guy around 2004 who took on a responsibility where he was then given $50 / week to carry a pager off-hours twice/week. The $2400 additional income bumped his tax bracket and he was losing money and doing more work.

The irony is that the solution is to complicate the math further by having even more gradient scaling with smaller increments. One thing I'd note: with computers basically doing everything now, that type of thing isn't the nightmare it once was. Being the sucker who has to document it and figure it out? I don't know. Don't be an accountant!

I probably glossed over it a bit - but what I was getting at was that due the lack of more minute gradient scaling (and I just looked it up), you have this as the Federal tax brackets:

Up to $53,359 has a 15% tax rate
$53,359 - $106,717 has a 20.5% tax rate
$106,717 - $165,430 has a 26% tax rate
$165,430- $235,675 has a 29% tax rate
More than $235,675 has a 33% tax rate

So the obvious one in there is you get your corporate raise that changes your salary from $106,000 annually to a meagre $108,000 (which was the basic 2%-ish raise that a lot of us were or are still getting annually), you are now taking home less money. I don't remember what the actual rate was at the time, but I worked with a guy around 2004 who took on a responsibility where he was then given $50 / week to carry a pager off-hours twice/week. The $2400 additional income bumped his tax bracket and he was losing money and doing more work.

The irony is that the solution is to complicate the math further by having even more gradient scaling with smaller increments. One thing I'd note: with computers basically doing everything now, that type of thing isn't the nightmare it once was. Being the sucker who has to document it and figure it out? I don't know. Don't be an accountant!
- Monkeypunk

You're only paying the higher rate on the extra $2000 raise ...not on the whole of your income. So you're still making more money with every raise you get.

The bolded is not how graduated tax works.

You're only paying the higher rate on the extra $2000 raise ...not on the whole of your income. So you're still making more money with every raise you get.

The bolded is not how graduated tax works.
- The Law

Huh. He told me was losing money and wanted to give the pager back - but they needed him to do it for a few more months. He was hardly ever paged but wasn't a happy camper.

I recall it rather well because I was sort of irked I hadn't been asked at the time. I lived walking distance to the office.

I'm not going to claim to recall when in the year it was or anything, so I'm not making excuses. Maybe it was around time the EI payments came off again - who knows? Now that you say that though, I do recall my wife tell me that (she was an accountant forever - but changed to IT a few years back).

I mean the Lightning have Point, Kucherov and Hagel who they played on the top line - but frankly Stamkos outperformed Hagel in production, just not in his two-way play nor his speed. But who else was in that top-6? Cirelli? Paul? Duclair? I mean on Tampa last year Stamkos was just fine to be a top-6 guy, I thought.

On Nashville you have O'Rielly (33), Forsberg (30), Nyqvist (35), Marchessault (33) and God, I don't know . . . Sissons (30) to go with Stamkos (34) in that top-6? You need some type of balance there, so Stamkos might just end up being on the top line.
- Monkeypunk

Stamkos is still an elite player, but he's predictably lost a step and his defensive play is lackluster. Cooper saw this and pretty much kept Stamkos on the second line unless something was going badly and he wanted to overload his top on offense, so then he'd throw Stamkos up there.

Now that you listed their likely top-six, it makes sense I guess. I still think if you put Stamkos on your top line for an entire season, he's gonna be a little underwhelming against teams with tons of speed.

So Patches ..wearing 67' ...says he's feeling the best he's felt in 3 yrs and can't wait to show it.

IF (big if) there's any truth to that I'm slotting him onto the left of #34. Put Knies with 88 to balance the lines out a bit.

man Grebenkin looks good at camp...skill, speed and size.

So Patches ..wearing 67' ...says he's feeling the best he's felt in 3 yrs and can't wait to show it.

IF (big if) there's any truth to that I'm slotting him onto the left of #34. Put Knies with 88 to balance the lines out a bit.
- The Law

I don't know much about his defensive game - but I do see he had Selke votes when he was 26 and 27. Obviously at 36 he's not bringing the same level of speed to the game, but if he has the smarts and awareness to do the right thing . . .

He'd have to be able to keep up - but I mean he was always pretty good on the boards and in one-on-one battles; I don't recall him being a big net-front guy - more of an excellent shot from the circle kind of player - with some pretty decent playmaking skills.

I definitely wouldn't anoint Knies the 1LW, but he seems to have the size and skills that might help create more space for Marner to operate.

It seems to me Berube is putting 2 4th lines against eachother.

Lorentz-Kampf-Reaves

Patches-Holmberg-Grebenkin


Lorentz likely gets a contract and is sent down through waivers so they can bring him up and down. Kampf could get traded and Reaves can be press box.

Really feels like that 2nd 4th line has a shot to be the opening night line.

I don't know much about his defensive game - but I do see he had Selke votes when he was 26 and 27. Obviously at 36 he's not bringing the same level of speed to the game, but if he has the smarts and awareness to do the right thing . . .

He'd have to be able to keep up - but I mean he was always pretty good on the boards and in one-on-one battles; I don't recall him being a big net-front guy - more of an excellent shot from the circle kind of player - with some pretty decent playmaking skills.

I definitely wouldn't anoint Knies the 1LW, but he seems to have the size and skills that might help create more space for Marner to operate.
- Monkeypunk

I feel like if 34 and 16 are together they make the LW'er work. Willie could use Knies ...or he looked good with JT in the playoffs.

I'd have Knies and McCabe signed asap. With Larsson and Lindell signing ~ 5.25 ..gotta think McCabe is in that ballpark ...hopefully a little less. 5 x 4.75.

In Ontario if you are self employed and making $55 800 and under you would be taxed %15.5 from feds plus %5 from Ontario

So you could survive here......unlesss you make over that (up to $111 000, than the tax goes up to %20 and %9.
- Fakepartofme

if making 55K i would close the business and find a better job

I feel like if 34 and 16 are together they make the LW'er work. Willie could use Knies ...or he looked good with JT in the playoffs.

I'd have Knies and McCabe signed asap. With Larsson and Lindell signing ~ 5.25 ..gotta think McCabe is in that ballpark ...hopefully a little less. 5 x 4.75.
- The Law

I think I'm still upset by Thornton - and the thing was that he was good with them - quite good. He just slowed down as the year progressed and ended up going into the playoffs as a 4th liner.

BTW, no sooner do you say it than my phone buzzes with a note that the Leafs and McCabe are in discussions on an extension.

I think I'm still upset by Thornton - and the thing was that he was good with them - quite good. He just slowed down as the year progressed and ended up going into the playoffs as a 4th liner.

BTW, no sooner do you say it than my phone buzzes with a note that the Leafs and McCabe are in discussions on an extension.
- Monkeypunk

Oh nice ... have to believe the other dman signings helped focus his contract. I think he's probably a step below Lindell and Larsson ...not a big step but a step. So maybe something a bit less then they signed.

From luke fox

"Jake McCabe says he and the Leafs have started talking extension. Mutual interest in getting something done and he’s willing to negotiate in season. He loves it here. Leafs love his game"

From luke fox

"Jake McCabe says he and the Leafs have started talking extension. Mutual interest in getting something done and he’s willing to negotiate in season. He loves it here. Leafs love his game"
- Fakepartofme

That’s nice to hear however tbh I doubt we’d hear him say “I hate it here and can’t wait to go” either lol.

That’s nice to hear however tbh I doubt we’d hear him say “I hate it here and can’t wait to go” either lol.
- Dozzer

Nick Robertson did.

Nick Robertson did.
- drexel

lol not quite but yeah… he hated that he didn’t get played regularly, not Toronto so much lol

Unless of course it’s because he’s from California and his brother is in Texas, maybe he wants to be over in the west?

Nick Robertson did.
- drexel

That’s nice to hear however tbh I doubt we’d hear him say “I hate it here and can’t wait to go” either lol.
- Dozzer

Well players have said something similar.
Robertson wanted a trade
ROR didnt want to resign and he provided reasons as to why

havent heard from CC for a while. Wonder if he was wearing his pager