The disney insanity continues

[RikidyBones]

You're right, Universal and others don't have the "perk" of double taxation. "Squaring this up" would cost about $100 mil/year for taxpayers.

Universal gets millions in these laughable "high crime" tax breaks because they supposedly built in a poor area.

If Disney had double taxation and did not benefit from the deal, they would of tried to have it taken away. Stop it. I have a hard time believing those figures took into account the entirety of the change.

I would also wager a new deal will be done before it takes place anyways. That's how this stuff works.

 

[n_huffhines]

If Disney had double taxation and did not benefit from the deal, they would of tried to have it taken away. Stop it. I have a hard time believing those figures took into account the entirety of the change.

I would also wager a new deal will be done before it takes place anyways. That's how this stuff works.

Non-sequitur. You fail to consider that a new deal could end up being worse. Disney is magic but they can't just wave a wand and get the deal they want...they may get the tax break they want but what else happened when they rocked the boat...not to mention the cost of adapting their business to major changes.

 

[RikidyBones]

Non-sequitur. You fail to consider that a new deal could end up being worse. Disney is magic but they can't just wave a wand and get the deal they want...they may get the tax break they want but what else happened when they rocked the boat...not to mention the cost of adapting their business to major changes.

How does that not follow? Why would Disney elect to take on infrastructure if it meant they paid more to do so? The only benefit in that case would be timing(permits inspections, etc.). I just don't believe the 100m figure just yet. I don't see the legislature voting on it just to appease Ron.

If desantis tried it as an EO, then I'm against it but the legislature voted on it. I'd reckon the same deal will happen with Disney not entering political conversations in regards to the state that do not apply to them as a business. We will see how it plays out though.

 

[n_huffhines]

How does that not follow? Why would Disney elect to take on infrastructure if it meant they paid more to do so? The only benefit in that case would be timing(permits inspections, etc.). I just don't believe the 100m figure just yet. I don't see the legislature voting on it just to appease Ron.

If desantis tried it as an EO, then I'm against it but the legislature voted on it. I'd reckon the same deal will happen with Disney not entering political conversations in regards to the state that do not apply to them as a business. We will see how it plays out though.

Because it's possible that control is more important than cost.

 

[MurphyVol]

If Disney had double taxation and did not benefit from the deal, they would of tried to have it taken away. Stop it. I have a hard time believing those figures took into account the entirety of the change.

I would also wager a new deal will be done before it takes place anyways. That's how this stuff works.

Stop it, it's been public record for 55 years Disney agrees to double taxation for autonomy.

If Orange county has to start doing engineering inspections on roller coasters, the build time will go from 18 months to 18 years. It's a mutually beneficial situation that DeSantis is banking on people not understanding and just listening to Tucker.

Any "new deal" at best would be a wash of the current situation and would put a burden on Orange County that they have stated they do not want.

Disney pays regular property taxes- fact.

Disney pays for it's own infrastructure and services on top of it's regular property taxes- fact

Meanwhile
Disney’s $578 Million Tax Break Left Untouched in DeSantis Feud

 

[Lawrence Wright]

Because it's possible that control is more important than cost.

Time saved on planning, design, permitting, utility locates, construction, etc.

Reedy Creek is infinitely more efficient than Orange or Osceola County could ever hope to be.

 

[BigOrangeMojo]

You're right, Universal and others don't have the "perk" of double taxation. "Squaring this up" would cost about $100 mil/year for taxpayers.

Universal gets millions in these laughable "high crime" tax breaks because they supposedly built in a poor area.

Those "tax breaks" claimed by Universal have been enacted by the Florida legislature and have claimed by thousands of Florida businesses annually for creating jobs and hiring residents who live in high crime census tracts...

 

[MurphyVol]

Those "tax breaks" claimed by Universal have been enacted by the Florida legislature and have claimed by thousands of Florida businesses annually for creating jobs and hiring residents who live in high crime census tracts...

Yes, many have claimed them though Universal has received 50% of the funds over the last 20 years. Perfectly legal and I don't blame them. That's why you hire good accountants.

 

[RikidyBones]

Because it's possible that control is more important than cost.

Control = cost. It's a part of it. It's more expensive for Disney to not have this deal. I don't think that's debatable. That's why they haven't fought to over turn it.

Stop it, it's been public record for 55 years Disney agrees to double taxation for autonomy.

If Orange county has to start doing engineering inspections on roller coasters, the build time will go from 18 months to 18 years. It's a mutually beneficial situation that DeSantis is banking on people not understanding and just listening to Tucker.

Any "new deal" at best would be a wash of the current situation and would put a burden on Orange County that they have stated they do not want.

Disney pays regular property taxes- fact.

Disney pays for it's own infrastructure and services on top of it's regular property taxes- fact

Meanwhile
Disney’s $578 Million Tax Break Left Untouched in DeSantis Feud

Right. Disney benefits from it and they are probably in the black by a substantial amount because of it.

Btw, I don't watch tucker. Save that for someone else.

 

[n_huffhines]

Control = cost. It's a part of it. It's more expensive for Disney to not have this deal. I don't think that's debatable. That's why they haven't fought to over turn it.

It felt like you were talking about accounting cost and I am talking about economic cost (opportunity) of not having control and now you are pivoting, but maybe I misunderstood this post.

Why would Disney elect to take on infrastructure if it meant they paid more to do so? The only benefit in that case would be timing(permits inspections, etc.). I just don't believe the 100m figure just yet.

 

[VolStrom]

Time saved on planning, design, permitting, utility locates, construction, etc.

Reedy Creek is infinitely more efficient than Orange or Osceola County could ever hope to be.

I don't think anyone would argue with that. Nothing the government does is as efficient as a for profit company. So why would Disney risk the Reedy Creek agreement to make a political point?

 

[RikidyBones]

It felt like you were talking about accounting cost and I am talking about economic cost (opportunity) of not having control and now you are pivoting, but maybe I misunderstood this post.

Cost in general. I should have clarified that better.

 

[MurphyVol]

Control = cost. It's a part of it. It's more expensive for Disney to not have this deal. I don't think that's debatable. That's why they haven't fought to over turn it.


Right. Disney benefits from it and they are probably in the black by a substantial amount because of it.

Btw, I don't watch tucker. Save that for someone else.

There's also the pesky little issue that the dissolution isn't legal until "all such bonds together with interest" have been fully met and discharged- Per section 56 "Pledge by the State of Florida to the Bond Holders of the District"

But it's only $1 billion dollars

 

[VolStrom]

There's also the pesky little issue that the dissolution isn't legal until "all such bonds together with interest" have been fully met and discharged- Per section 56 "Pledge by the State of Florida to the Bond Holders of the District"

But it's only $1 billion dollars

Do you really think that this bill is going to leave the taxpayers on the hook for a billion dollars and let Disney off the hook?

 

[MurphyVol]

Do you really think that this bill is going to leave the taxpayers on the hook for a billion dollars and let Disney off the hook?

That's what it's proposing. No, I think it'll be quietly unwound while nobody's looking.

 

[ClearwaterVol]

Do you really think that this bill is going to leave the taxpayers on the hook for a billion dollars and let Disney off the hook?

How do you think it won't?

 

[MurphyVol]

How do you think it won't?

 

[VolStrom]

How do you think it won't?

Oh, I don't know, politicians usually don't eff over their constituents for the sake of a corporation, at least not so it can be traced or exposed.

 

[VolStrom]

Just a question for the Florida men here, had any of you heard of Reedy Creek before the "don't say gay" bill?

 

[Lawrence Wright]

Just a question for the Florida men here, had any of you heard of Reedy Creek before the "don't say gay" bill?

Yes, having worked in the telecommunications industry with Disney as a client many years ago, I am very familiar with the Reedy Creek Improvement District.

 

[Lawrence Wright]

Do you really think that this bill is going to leave the taxpayers on the hook for a billion dollars and let Disney off the hook?

As it’s written, yes…$1.2 billion to be exact.

Also, I thought you didn’t care about us poor taxpayers in Central Florida.

You do realize that you're on a Tennessee web site and most Tennesseans don't live in Florida, so if you have to pay a bunch more in taxes, we don't care?

 

[Lawrence Wright]

I don't think anyone would argue with that. Nothing the government does is as efficient as a for profit company. So why would Disney risk the Reedy Creek agreement to make a political point?

It’s our governor making the political point more so than Disney, and I’m guessing Disney didn’t think Reedy Creek would be at risk for questioning policy.

But here we are…disagree with the government, government retaliates while screwing over taxpayers and the state’s #1 employer.

 

[RikidyBones]

Just a question for the Florida men here, had any of you heard of Reedy Creek before the "don't say gay" bill?

Yes. I was born and raised in the Space Coast.

 

[Carl Pickens]

*the rare moment I agree with septic about politics

Even so…. You should never admit it

 

[Carl Pickens]

If an American company took no stance and continued to do business with Russia, would that be a good decision?
Would the people who were "outraged" and took their business elsewhere be in the category of "anything and everything"?

Another pitiful attempt at a comparison