Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Contractual Impossibility of Unwinding Disney’s Reedy Creek

news.bloombergtax.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 220 posts

Re: The Contractual Impossibility of Unwinding Disney’s Reedy Creek

#11

Post by tablespoon »

vmception wrote: post #5

All of Disney's troubles are coming from retaliation to their direct political donations. and this is why you donate anonymously. everyone likes to imagine Russians and Saudi's swaying US politics - the boogeyman du jour - but this is the more realistic outcome: retaliation by the incumbent party. Just form the LLC, donate, shut it down before that state's reporting requirements come into effect. for coders: an LLC i…

> All of Disney's troubles are coming from retaliation to their direct political donations.

> and this is why you donate anonymously.

If Disney had to donate anonymously, I bet it wouldn't donate at all. It's a corporation, and whatever donations it makes are most likely PR expenditures (either internally or externally directed).

Re: The Contractual Impossibility of Unwinding Disney’s Reedy Creek

#13

Post by bee_rider »

hermannj314 wrote: post #4

It would be a shame if current legislators could restrict future legislators by adding infinite year bonds to all new laws with promises the law will never change as long as that bond exists. If this principal of preserving bond contracts prohibits legistivative action or could even have a chilling effect on it, perhaps the real issue is that government debt generally is a risk to our democracy. Perhaps congresses sh…

This seems like it would seriously hamper the ability of areas to give sweetheart deals to companies to attract investment. I'd actually love this as someone who'd prefer that states compete on things like robust investments in their workforce (education, healthcare, etc) and infrastructure, rather than race-to-the-bottom tax incentives...

Re: The Contractual Impossibility of Unwinding Disney’s Reedy Creek

#14

Post by cldellow »

chrisco255 wrote: post #2

Any new or existing municipality can take over those bonds. They do it all the time. And as a fallback the state could take those on and refinance them and pay then off. It's really not difficult, but the author makes it seem to be. As for the millage rate, if Reedy Creek is higher than the state maximum, I'm curious for what valuation Disney appraises its own property, since the millage rate is only part of the stor…

> I'm curious for what valuation Disney appraises its own property

It doesn't seem that Disney is responsible for property appraisals. See, for example, this news story [1] about them suing Orange County to get their assessments lowered.

[1]: https://floridapolitics.com/archives/440815-what-is-disney-w...

Re: The Contractual Impossibility of Unwinding Disney’s Reedy Creek

#15

Post by danaris »

vmception wrote: post #5

All of Disney's troubles are coming from retaliation to their direct political donations. and this is why you donate anonymously. everyone likes to imagine Russians and Saudi's swaying US politics - the boogeyman du jour - but this is the more realistic outcome: retaliation by the incumbent party. Just form the LLC, donate, shut it down before that state's reporting requirements come into effect. for coders: an LLC i…

Translation: "Disney, after massive protests from their own employees due to donating significantly to support the "Don't Say Gay" bill in Florida, donated some to the other side, and because of this, Florida's governor decided to pull out the nuclear option by committing to something he didn't even understand in hopes of hurting Disney."

And you think this is...what, normal? The way things should be? That by daring to even try (very ineptly) to be "neutral", Disney deserves retaliation from the vindictive petty autocrat in the Governor's mansion?

I mean, I don't at all think Disney comes up smelling like roses in this, but to shrug your shoulders and say, "eh, if you wanted to be treated fairly, you shouldn't have let anyone know you don't unquestioningly support everything the current administration wants" seems to be...the world's most supine moral position. (After all, if there's nothing to be done about how bad things are, you don't have to feel guilty for not doing anything, right?)

Re: The Contractual Impossibility of Unwinding Disney’s Reedy Creek

#16

Post by mikeryan »

vmception wrote: post #5

All of Disney's troubles are coming from retaliation to their direct political donations. and this is why you donate anonymously. everyone likes to imagine Russians and Saudi's swaying US politics - the boogeyman du jour - but this is the more realistic outcome: retaliation by the incumbent party. Just form the LLC, donate, shut it down before that state's reporting requirements come into effect. for coders: an LLC i…

That’s not exactly it. Disney publicly criticized the new Florida “Don’t say gay” bill. And then said they’d no longer donate to FL legislature. They’d made a 50k donation to governor DeSantis in the past so it’s more about them NOT making donations. This act by Disney had to be public or it wouldn’t have had any weight.

Making those donations privately probably would defeat the purpose of showing support to the legislature.

Re: The Contractual Impossibility of Unwinding Disney’s Reedy Creek

#17

Post by ethbr0 »

tablespoon wrote: post #11
vmception wrote: post #5

All of Disney's troubles are coming from retaliation to their direct political donations. and this is why you donate anonymously. everyone likes to imagine Russians and Saudi's swaying US politics - the boogeyman du jour - but this is the more realistic outcome: retaliation by the incumbent party. Just form the LLC, donate, shut it down before that state's reporting requirements come into effect. for coders: an LLC i…

> All of Disney's troubles are coming from retaliation to their direct political donations. > and this is why you donate anonymously. If Disney had to donate anonymously, I bet it wouldn't donate at all. It's a corporation, and whatever donations it makes are most likely PR expenditures (either internally or externally directed).

The point is: it wouldn't be anonymous to the politicians it's supporting, however it's on the books.

Most corporations don't actually care about politics, beyond (1) What's good for my business? & (2) What's good PR?

The interesting thing about Disney is that in this case they were caught between a contradictory (1) & (2). Which, to the parent's point, a more adept PR department / anonymous donations wouldn't have allowed to happen in the first place.

DeSantis' realpolitik is pretty skillful. In this case: if Disney was quiet, he avoided the headache of fighting them; if Disney loudly opposed, he got news and political base support out of fighting them. Win/win.

Re: The Contractual Impossibility of Unwinding Disney’s Reedy Creek

#18

Post by mikeryan »

chrisco255 wrote: post #2

Any new or existing municipality can take over those bonds. They do it all the time. And as a fallback the state could take those on and refinance them and pay then off. It's really not difficult, but the author makes it seem to be. As for the millage rate, if Reedy Creek is higher than the state maximum, I'm curious for what valuation Disney appraises its own property, since the millage rate is only part of the stor…

Sure another municipality “could” take over the bonds. They just can’t afford them.

Re: The Contractual Impossibility of Unwinding Disney’s Reedy Creek

#19

Post by ummwhat »

bee_rider wrote: post #13
hermannj314 wrote: post #4

It would be a shame if current legislators could restrict future legislators by adding infinite year bonds to all new laws with promises the law will never change as long as that bond exists. If this principal of preserving bond contracts prohibits legistivative action or could even have a chilling effect on it, perhaps the real issue is that government debt generally is a risk to our democracy. Perhaps congresses sh…

This seems like it would seriously hamper the ability of areas to give sweetheart deals to companies to attract investment. I'd actually love this as someone who'd prefer that states compete on things like robust investments in their workforce (education, healthcare, etc) and infrastructure, rather than race-to-the-bottom tax incentives...

Race to the bottom tax incentives are the first wrung on the ladder to bootstrapping a nice place with robust investments. Provided the benefits aren't squandered.

Re: The Contractual Impossibility of Unwinding Disney’s Reedy Creek

#20

Post by ethbr0 »

danaris wrote: post #15
vmception wrote: post #5

All of Disney's troubles are coming from retaliation to their direct political donations. and this is why you donate anonymously. everyone likes to imagine Russians and Saudi's swaying US politics - the boogeyman du jour - but this is the more realistic outcome: retaliation by the incumbent party. Just form the LLC, donate, shut it down before that state's reporting requirements come into effect. for coders: an LLC i…

Translation: "Disney, after massive protests from their own employees due to donating significantly to support the "Don't Say Gay" bill in Florida, donated some to the other side, and because of this, Florida's governor decided to pull out the nuclear option by committing to something he didn't even understand in hopes of hurting Disney." And you think this is...what, normal? The way things should be? That by daring…

Let's not clutch our pearls and act surprised. Florida politics has been a cesspool of graft, with a veneer of tan and teeth whitener, for decades.
Post reply on HN