Sorry, it's only for Disney. I've carved out a special exemption for my childhood favorite. Kidding. The problem I have with corporations/individuals and taxes are those who pay no, or ludicrously little, taxes. Also, presidents who won't disclose their tax returns.
When a bill specifically cites gender and sexual identity, what would you call it? Anecdotally, of course. I might even say that the legislation could be called the "Red Meat for Morons" bill and that would be accurate, too.
If Republicans were like "we are going to remove all special taxbreaks state wide for companies regardless of their stance on any issue" I would be like, bravo. I think there is a distinction to be made by proposing policy imposed broadly and neutral in its application vs. proposing policy narrowly to target a specific organization for punishment. I mean surely if someone wanted to crack down on predatory lending, going after that industry would be seen as "good" by some whereas raising taxes only on Amscot for releasing a public statement about Christian values would be quite different! Or like imposing a mask mandate only on one airline because they question mask mandates.
To be completely honest about Ron DeSantis, he loves towing the line of what he should and shouldn't do based on what Democrats are doing. He needs to temper himself a bit or he will surely be a worse President (if elected) than Governor. The role of the state and federal government are vastly different, and they should be different.
So Disney should in fact be happy about loosing the Reedy Creek district. It will save them money right and have tax payers pick up the tab.
If a Trump department of the executive branch while in office got to define "misinformation," and Trump pushed for policy holding corporations liable for that misinformation Democrats would have no problem with this? Would you call that "neutral application." The only reason an exception was made for Disney in this case is because they apparently are treated differently from every other corporation in Florida. Now, DeSantis just wants them to be treated like every other corporation in Florida.
I would dub it exactly what it was titled. But I understand some want to misrepresent what the bill does and provide it a disingenuous name. Much easier to push an agenda to a minority when you create a narrative to hide what the bill actually says and does. So thanks for proving my point.
I'm not necessarily defending any law, Klobuchar's proposed law was probably unconstitutional, I'm just saying one that is applied broadly to everyone has more legitimacy than one that is applied narrowly and retributively. And yes, you can say that is true when it comes to goodies from the government too. No one is saying Republicans cant pursue this, but it is certainly fair to point out that it sort of lays bear that their ideological commitments to culture wars are more important than their purported ideological commitments to job creation, low taxes or pro-business policies.
Not really. Honestly, it is people like you who will justify any authoritarian instincts to "own the libs" that have me scared for the future of this country. There will always be sad authoritarian-like leaders. The problem is the people that cheer them on while they do things like retaliate against free speech.
Fine says Disney is a guest in our state, but Fine must not understand that Disney is a guest that pays a lot of the bills. Besides, Disney has been here about a quarter of a century longer than Fine, so maybe Fine is the guest that need to shut up.
Does Disneyland in California get special exemptions for Building Permit costs and not have to pay impact fees for their development? Just wondering if this is something that everything Disney outside of Florida doesn't have these exemptions. If they don't get exemptions in CA then this shouldn't be a big deal to them. Just a different mode of doing business. Like Universal, Busch Gardens and Seaworld etc.