News Reedy Creek Improvement District and the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District

[flynnibus]

It's interesting, would TWDC paid more taxes with RCID or less taxes with RCID?

Its sure sounding like the answer will depend on what side of the fight you are on.

Why are you not listening to the answers to your own questions.

When you ask about TAXES - there is no 'it depends'. If you want to talk about OTHER THINGS... there is interpretation. But you're asking about taxes and then closing your brain to simple answers.

if I have get taxed for my property by GroupA... and then also get taxed on that same property by GroupB

Will I pay less taxes if GroupB didn't exist? This is not a complex question.

 

[mkt]

I believe Disney and the board should be focused on their fiduciary duty to the shareholders, and I don't believe that weighing in on political matters falls within that duty.

As a long time shareholder of TWDC, I disagree.

I want to feel represented by the company that I am not only a consumer of, but am a shareholder of.

 

[Disstevefan1]

You might as well say the truth is meaningless to you. Which seems to be the case. You’ve been provided this information multiple times.

In all honesty, there was a while I was not reading the post in this thread. Thats on me.

I thank you very much for setting me straight.

It's just NOW THIS MOMENT I am finding out, thanks to you telling me, that TWDC paid MORE TAXES under RCID.

Frankly, I would not have imagined that.

Again, thank you.

It's a shame Florida will lose the tax income.

 

[mmascari]

The entry road to Typhoon Lagoon - a strip of pavement - pays $200k

Looks like half of that is to RCID. That's probably just break even on the snow plowing expenses.

 

[mkt]

if I have get taxed for my property by GroupA... and then also get taxed on that same property by GroupB

Will I pay less taxes if GroupB didn't exist? This is not a complex question.

 

[LAKid53]

Really? Mutually exclusive? Seems like a partisan take.
I believe Disney and the board should be focused on their fiduciary duty to the shareholders, and I don't believe that weighing in on political matters falls within that duty. Especially when it could be perceived to alienate parents of young children, their target audience for the parks, thus negatively hitting the bottom line.
I believe retaliatory behavior from those in government is inappropriate.

You'll be highly disappointed, then, to learn that many corporations "weigh in" on political matters. That's the very purpose of lobbyists who get paid millions to do so.

 

[mikejs78]

That's bullocks. The 1st Amendment not only GIVES us the right to speak out against the actions of government, but James Madison and the other members of the Constitutional Convention EXPECTED citizens to do so. As they had done.

I think @Brian and @Fordlover are saying they disagree with Disney's statement either because they agreed with the legislation or they thought it was better for Disney as a company if they hadn't spoken out (not in terms of government retaliation, but in terms of alienating some customers). I don't agree with either of those premises, but I think that holding those views and still being against government suppression if speech is possible.

 

[LAKid53]

I find it fascinating.

Good. Can I send you my bill for next year's taxes?

 

[mkt]

Good. Can I send you my bill for next year's taxes?

No hablo ingles.

 

[Brian]

I think @Brian and @Fordlover are saying they disagree with Disney's statement either because they agreed with the legislation

Speaking for me (and not @Fordlover): A little bit of this, but I'd really rather not rehash that argument. Anyone who wishes to discuss it is welcome to PM me.

or they thought it was better for Disney as a company if they hadn't spoken out (not in terms of government retaliation, but in terms of alienating some customers).

A whole lot of that.

 

[Disstevefan1]

if I have get taxed for my property by GroupA... and then also get taxed on that same property by GroupB

Will I pay less taxes if GroupB didn't exist? This is not a complex question.

I will admit I do not understand. Are you saying TWDC is getting taxed twice?

 

[UNCgolf]

I will admit I do not understand. Are you saying TWDC is getting taxed twice?

Technically no, since the taxes are going to different places, but essentially (and for the purposes of this conversation) yes. They are already paying all the same taxes they would pay if RCID didn't exist, while also paying additional taxes to RCID.

 

[mkt]

I will admit I do not understand. Are you saying TWDC is getting taxed twice?

WDW is getting taxed more than once, yes.

The only difference is that in Florida, the county tax collector collects and distributes those tax bills. So we can find out how much is paid/owed and to who it's distributed afterward.

 

[LAKid53]

In all honesty, there was a while I was not reading the post in this thread. Thats on me.

I thank you very much for setting me straight.

It's just NOW THIS MOMENT I am finding out, thanks to you telling me, that TWDC paid MORE TAXES under RCID.

Frankly, I would not have imagined that.

Again, thank you.

It's a shame Florida will lose the tax income.

It's a shame that the company responsible for a $72.5 BILLION economic impact and 400K jobs to Central Florida will be punished. Actually, it's outright stupid.

 

[Brian]

But what does the first statement have to do with the topic of this thread? It’s the conflation of the two issues that smacks of victim blaming.

It's the antecedent to the RCID dissolution and subsequent actions, and a cornerstone of Disney's lawsuit against the state. But for Disney's stances on the parental rights in education law, RCID would still be around with a landowner-elected board, and DeSantis would have found some other situation to exploit for media attention.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

I don’t understand how someone can simultaneously criticise Disney for speaking out and acknowledge that DeSantis’s reaction is unacceptable.

It's a pretty simple example of "two wrongs don't make a right."

Driving 110 miles per hour is bad. Jailing someone for 30 years without a trial for speeding is also bad.

 

[mkt]

Driving 110 miles per hour is bad. Jailing someone for 30 years without a trial for speeding is also bad.

But is someone expressing speech you disagree with bad?

 

[GoofGoof]

Really? Mutually exclusive? Seems like a partisan take.
I believe Disney and the board should be focused on their fiduciary duty to the shareholders, and I don't believe that weighing in on political matters falls within that duty. Especially when it could be perceived to alienate parents of young children, their target audience for the parks, thus negatively hitting the bottom line.
I believe retaliatory behavior from those in government is inappropriate.

The company taking a political position has nothing to do with the fiduciary duties of the shareholders. You don’t like the position they took so you are implying it hurt business. Someone else who likes the position they took may have felt that not speaking out would have hurt business. Management of the company has to decide how to run the company. You may not like their decisions but that doesn’t mean they breached their fiduciary duties. People act like the company stopped doing business to focus on this situation but that’s the furthest thing from the truth.

 

[Fordlover]

You'll be highly disappointed, then, to learn that many corporations "weigh in" on political matters. That's the very purpose of lobbyists who get paid millions to do so.

Not disappointed at all, I only urge caution when picking sides, especially when you have a failure to recognize your bread and butter customer that is paying the bills.

As a long time shareholder of TWDC, I disagree.

I want to feel represented by the company that I am not only a consumer of, but am a shareholder of.

I get that. But companies should use caution. If you need recent reference, Anheuser-Busch is a good example. The buyers of Bud Light want to feel represented by the company they consume the product of, and there has been a noticeable impact. Who knows if it will last.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

But is someone expressing speech you disagree with bad?

Define bad.

Morally wrong? Bad for business? Imprudent? Unwise? Evil?