Just now, VanHammersly said:

It's going to absolutely slam the residents of the two counties it's in.  To the tune of $2,500 per family, who I'm sure are happy to pay for Desantis's temper tantrum, because after all they'll get.....nothing out of it.  It'll also end hundreds of jobs at Disney and replace them with brand new government jobs.

To be fair, van is citing psychotic dem lawmakers who made up that number. It will assuredly be far less, and, again obviously, result in Disney paying way more in taxes than what they are now, making it a net win for Floridians. 

10 minutes ago, pallidrone said:

Is this before or after the long legal battle that will happen between Disney and the state? Resident's tax dollars will go to funding the defense.

It won't be long, the statute on this is pretty clear on that they need a majority of residents in the special district to agree to the dissolution, which of course means it's DOA. But for the idiots like Kz over here who think this is some massive political win, they're stupid enough to believe DeSantis punishing private enterprise for speech is what qualifies as small government conservative values.

Just now, Kz! said:

To be fair, van is citing psychotic dem lawmakers who made up that number. It will assuredly be far less, and, again obviously, result in Disney paying way more in taxes than what they are now, making it a net win for Floridians. 

I didn't watch Tucker last night.  Did he urge you to switch gears on this, from mindlessly deflecting to the bill, to pretending like it's all a net win for Florida? 

13 minutes ago, Kz! said:

So, to reiterate, it is your opinion that Disney would voluntarily enter into an agreement which resulted in them paying more in taxes than they otherwise would have had special privileges not been carved out for them. lmao

To answer your question, it may raise taxes on those living in the surrounding counties, but obviously it will result in the state bringing in more tax revenue from Disney.  

The biggest advantage of the agreement was that Disney didn't need to acquire building permits from the state for new construction on their land. Since Disney is building new construction literally all the time, that alone would motivate them to seek such an agreement. I asked you what additional revenue the state would receive from Disney as a result of this legislation and you failed to provide an answer which means as usual, you have no idea what you are talking about. 

4 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

It won't be long, the statute on this is pretty clear on that they need a majority of residents in the special district to agree to the dissolution, which of course means it's DOA. But for the idiots like Kz over here who think this is some massive political win, they're stupid enough to believe DeSantis punishing private enterprise for speech is what qualifies as small government conservative values.

Remember when republicans were all about Citizens United and the idea that corporations had the same constitutional rights as people ?

Just now, Gannan said:

The biggest advantage of the agreement was that Disney didn't need to acquire building permits from the state for new construction on their land. Since Disney is building new construction literally all the time, that alone would motivate them to seek such an agreement. I asked you what additional revenue the state would receive from Disney as a result of this legislation and you failed to provide an answer which means as usual, you have no idea what you are talking about. 

Which is weird because he's usually so well informed on other topics. For someone who thought the Notre Dame fire was terrorism, that ivermectin cured covid, and that Russia had legitimate grievances for invading Ukraine, I'm not really sure how he could've got this one wrong.

4 minutes ago, VanHammersly said:

I didn't watch Tucker last night.  Did he urge you to switch gears on this, from mindlessly deflecting to the bill, to pretending like it's all a net win for Florida? 

You understand that the deal was financially beneficial for Florida, right? Like, you get that they didn't want it to end?  

1 minute ago, we_gotta_believe said:

Which is weird because he's usually so well informed on other topics. For someone who thought the Notre Dame fire was terrorism, that ivermectin cured covid, and that Russia had legitimate grievances for invading Ukraine, I'm not really sure how he could've got this one wrong.

There are multiple people in here who are totally cool with the fact that Biden took showers with his young daughter.  It's no surprise really that they'd rather see young children groomed than see some Florida residents pay more in taxes (which hasn't been validated by anyone, btw, other than some pro-grooming Dems from the state) 

2 minutes ago, Kz! said:

You understand that the deal was financially beneficial for Florida, right? Like, you get that they didn't want it to end?  

  Tucker marching orders confirmed.

2 minutes ago, VanHammersly said:

  Tucker marching orders confirmed.

Again, the party that told people stressing about gas prices to just buy a Tesla two months ago is now pretending to care deeply about tax increases for *squints* two counties in central Florida. Do you have the self-awareness to know you're an NPC?  

3 minutes ago, mikemack8 said:

There are multiple people in here who are totally cool with the fact that Biden took showers with his young daughter.  It's no surprise really that they'd rather see young children groomed than see some Florida residents pay more in taxes (which hasn't been validated by anyone, btw, other than some pro-grooming Dems from the state) 

I'm still completely floored that people believe Disney would voluntarily enter an agreement that grants them special tax privileges that would actually cost them money. It's actually stunning.    

33 minutes ago, VanHammersly said:

It's going to absolutely slam the residents of the two counties it's in.  To the tune of $2,500 per family, who I'm sure are happy to pay for Desantis's temper tantrum, because after all they'll get.....nothing out of it.  It'll also end hundreds of jobs at Disney and replace them with brand new government jobs.

This is honestly a great example of how fake news spreads and eventually becomes accepted as fact for retarded ishlibs like van.

1. Some random dem lawmaker throws out an outrageous, clearly fake number about tax increases in the area.

2. Van first cites it in a post in full context that it was an estimate by a dem lawmaker

3. Very next post about it, Van cites it as a stone cold fact as if he even remotely has a clue.  

8 minutes ago, mikemack8 said:

There are multiple people in here who are totally cool with the fact that Biden took showers with his young daughter.  It's no surprise really that they'd rather see young children groomed than see some Florida residents pay more in taxes (which hasn't been validated by anyone, btw, other than some pro-grooming Dems from the state) 

  Good job pretending like this is an either/or situation.  Explain how the state going after Disney for coming out against the bill stops children from being groomed.

Also, they're saddled with a billion dollars in new debt and they're taking over services for a full developed 25K acre area.  Do you need confirmation that that's going to increase taxes?

First off, I'm skeptical that the end of this special privilege actually comes to pass.  Most likely this is posturing by the state to get Disney to quit acting like a Democrat PAC, and quit backing perverted activists who want to deny parental rights and brainwash their children, and most likely the corporation that, in a matter of days, caved to these activists, will also cave to this much greater threat to their bottom line.  Second, if the end of the special privilege actually does come to pass, that doesn't put the state or local governments on the hook for the costs of maintaining Disney's infrastructure.  Disney would still be responsible to maintain everything on their property the same way that every corporation everywhere is.  What it would do is bog Disney down in the same regulatory morass that every other corporation gets bogged down in, and that they've been able to avoid.  Everything they decide to build would be subject to regulatory reviews and inspections.  What took 2 years to build would now take a decade by the time they get through all the environmental impact studies, state and local inspections, etc...

5 minutes ago, Kz! said:

This is honestly a great example of how fake news spreads and eventually becomes accepted as fact for retarded ishlibs like van.

1. Some random dem lawmaker throws out an outrageous, clearly fake number about tax increases in the area.

2. Van first cites it in a post in full context that it was an estimate by a dem lawmaker

3. Very next post about it, Van cites it as a stone cold fact as if he even remotely has a clue.  

  Kz's concerned about the spread of fake news.

1 minute ago, VanHammersly said:

  Kz's concerned about the spread of fake news.

NPC's gonna NPC.  

51 minutes ago, Gannan said:

Disney isn't Amazon. They paid $780 million in state and local taxes last year. How much more are they going to pay now and is it going to offset the increased cost on the state?

I know serious questions aren't really your thing, but if anyone wants to weigh in on this, I'm legitimately interested. From the outside it looks like Desantis knowingly increased the financial burden for his state out of spite. 

I haven't looked at it closely, but most research analysts who follow the stock see the net impact as being negligible. The real benefit to Disney was that being a special district exempted them from getting their building plans approved, so this will impact any expansion plans in the future. But from a financial perspective, they get to punt the debt and stop paying for all the services in exchange for paying local taxes -- it is basically a wash.

24 minutes ago, mikemack8 said:

There are multiple people in here who are totally cool with the fact that Biden took showers with his young daughter.  It's no surprise really that they'd rather see young children groomed than see some Florida residents pay more in taxes (which hasn't been validated by anyone, btw, other than some pro-grooming Dems from the state) 

Wasn't exactly a package deal. He could have signed the bill into law and told Disney "sorry you don't like it, too bad" and been done with it. I don't have a problem with the bill. I don't even care that Florida residents will pay more taxes because their governor is feuding with a mouse. I just think it's weird to intentionally raise taxes out of spite.

2 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

I haven't looked at it closely, but most research analysts who follow the stock see the net impact as being negligible. The real benefit to Disney was that being a special district exempted them from getting their building plans approved, so this will impact any expansion plans in the future. But from a financial perspective, they get to punt the debt and stop paying for all the services in exchange for paying local taxes -- it is basically a wash.

A wash for both Disney and the taxpayers?  Or just Disney? 

7 minutes ago, VanHammersly said:

  Good job pretending like this is an either/or situation.  Explain how the state going after Disney for coming out against the bill stops children from being groomed.

Also, they're saddled with a billion dollars in new debt and they're taking over services for a full developed 25K acre area.  Do you need confirmation that that's going to increase taxes?

It's not enough to not be a groomer. You have to be actively anti-pedophile.

1 minute ago, Gannan said:

Wasn't exactly a package deal. He could have signed the bill into law and told Disney "sorry you don't like it, too bad" and been done with it. I don't have a problem with the bill. I don't even care that Florida residents will pay more taxes because their governor is feuding with a mouse. I just think it's weird to intentionally raise taxes out of spite.

Quote

The bill would dissolve Disney’s special taxing district in June 2023. Known as the Reedy Creek Improvement District, the 40-square-mile zone allows the company to run its resort like a municipal government.

The status allows Disney to circumvent some state and county regulations when constructing, expanding, or improving its parks, and allows it to run its own emergency services in the district. It’s also exempt from many taxes and fees, which saves the company tens of millions of dollars a year.

Disney’s revenue growth is at stake with the possible loss of special tax district status, as the company would not only lose autonomy but its expenses would undoubtedly increase. 

https://time.com/6169111/disney-district-florida-desantis/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=editorial&utm_term=business_companies&linkId=161872226

It'll cost Disney tens of millions of dollars a year in taxes a year. I guess locals in two central Florida counties could be hit with higher taxes, but it's still completely unknown. I guess the main takeaway should be don't publicly support the sexual grooming of young children. A good lesson for Disney. 

2 minutes ago, mikemack8 said:

A wash for both Disney and the taxpayers?  Or just Disney? 

A wash for Disney from an earnings perspective -- the added taxes will basically be offset by the costs moved to the government (fire, safety, etc.). The impact to taxpayers on that stuff would also be a wash. However...the wildcard here is the debt. If the ~$1bn of debt is assumed by the counties (and FL law is pretty clear on this), that is a liability moving to the taxpayers. The cost of the debt is very low, since DIS has a great credit rating, but the repayment obligation moves to the taxpayers. 

All in all, it's much ado about nothing. And, it may get overturned by the courts anyway. It's just a political sideshow.

To put it in perspective, of the 48 analysts that cover the stock, it doesn't appear a single analyst has changed his or her earnings forecast based on this. 

7 minutes ago, Kz! said:

It's not enough to not be a groomer. You have to be actively anti-pedophile.

The right is starting to sound exactly like the far left, but replacing racism with pedophelia.  It's not enough to not be racist, you have to be anti-racist.  What you're really saying in both cases is that you either believe what we want you to believe and vote like we want you to vote or we're going to call you a racist/pedo.

1 minute ago, VanHammersly said:

The right is starting to sound exactly like the far left, but replacing racism with pedophelia.  It's not enough to not be racist, you have to be anti-racist.  What you're really saying in both cases is that you either believe and vote like we want you to vote or we're going to call you a racist/pedo.

Sounds like something a pedo would say