Jan 6th- the insurrection!

[Johnny D]

Disney attracts more visitors to Florida than any other entity. I heard that North Carolina has offered Disney significant incentives and tax credits to move there. Floridas loss - money talks, others walk.

When governments pick and choose which businesses to subsidize, they make it harder for the others to compete. The government should not be supporting any business, they should be supporting the free market.

By your rationale, the government should offer tax incentives to wealthy individuals who spend a lot of money. Wealthy people who are buying expensive cars, houses, boats, and planes are supporting the economy more than others. To attract them to live there and incentivize them to spend, the government should offer them tax credits, right?

 

[akaTrex]

Disney attracts more visitors to Florida than any other entity. I heard that North Carolina has offered Disney significant incentives and tax credits to move there. Floridas loss - money talks, others walk.

Let them Walk. I'd love to see Disney move. It would BANKRUPT them!
In Southern California, more and more people are going to Knots Berry Farm, Hollywood, and Universal's theme park.

 

[not2big]

if a business attracts more revenue for a state than it looses in benefits offered, I call that a win For the state. Isn‘t thst the nature of capitalism. The state doesn’t pick and choose randomly, it chooses based on what best benefits the state. Seems like a Republican position to me.

 

[akaTrex]

if a business attracts more revenue for a state than it looses in benefits offered, I call that a win For the state. Isn‘t thst the nature of capitalism. The state doesn’t pick and choose randomly, it chooses based on what best benefits the state. Seems like a Republican position

It would cost Disney BILLIONS to move Disneyland to another location. Hell the Oakland A’s Stadium in Las Vegas is projected to be 500 Million.

 

[Johnny D]

if a business attracts more revenue for a state than it looses in benefits offered, I call that a win For the state. Isn‘t thst the nature of capitalism. The state doesn’t pick and choose randomly, it chooses based on what best benefits the state. Seems like a Republican position to me.

Again, when the state subsidizes the business, it tips the market so that other businesses are at a disadvantage, skewing the ability to measure the true value of each - their value without government intervention. The role of government is to protect rights, and a free market to barter for goods and services is one of those rights. Rather than protecting that right equally for all businesses, the state is creating barriers and challenges for the others.

And, like I asked, why wouldn't your rationale just as easily translate to individuals? If I can generate more revenue for the state through my spending as a wealthy consumer, why shouldn't they offer me tax credits to live in their state?

 

[not2big]

If an individual is able to generate significant revenue in excess of their tax obligation for the state on an ongoing basis, I would agree that the individual should be offered tax benefits. However, I am not sure how an individual would accomplish such a feat.

 

[akaTrex]

If Letitia James, Jack Smith, and Fani Willis prevail in their investigations, Trump could be a twice impeached and quadruply indicted candidate in 2024.. Seems DeSantis has painted himself into a corner and is no longer a viable candidate against Trump. You can’t put the mouse in a corner and gain supporters.

Just like Billy Clinton? That’s all the Dems have. They’re scared to death of Trump.

The Nation is anxiously waiting for the Big Man’s VIDEO announcement that he‘s running in 2024.
This way they can edit out Joes gibberish that only Jill can understand.

 

[akaTrex]

Disney attracts more visitors to Florida than any other entity. I heard that North Carolina has offered Disney significant incentives and tax credits to move there. Floridas loss - money talks, others walk.

Walt Disney Co. announced it would trim its payroll by cutting jobs.​

Bloomberg, citing people familiar with the plans said the company would cut about 15% of the staff in its entertainment division.
The cuts will include those in TV, film, theme parks and on corporate teams, in every region where Disney operates.

 

[Pegasus]

Penciled out you meean paid their court costs and ran off tail between their legs . Mind you Crikey might countersue yet .

ABC running an updated upskaled version of the program that FOx threatened to sue them over . Calling Fox all sorts of stuff of which liar is the kindest .
Fox et al also has a range of other court cases coming at them aside from the reputation damage .

 

[Johnny D]

If an individual is able to generate significant revenue in excess of their tax obligation for the state on an ongoing basis, I would agree that the individual should be offered tax benefits. However, I am not sure how an individual would accomplish such a feat.

Thus furthering the disparity between individuals, just as it would between businesses. If I'm given a tax break because my wealth allows me to generate more state revenue as a consumer, I end up keeping a higher percentage of my income than most. What can I then do with that excess? I can use it to negatively impact the affordability of houses, for example: I can purchase real estate as investment property, decreasing overall supply; I can use it to bid up the price of houses, making them less affordable to others. I can also pay sticker price and higher for cars - multiple cars, since I'm wealthy - pushing those prices up for everyone else. Same with stocks and other investments... Hopefully you get the point. When the state gives a business a tax break, they're increasing that business's operating budget, allowing them to make investments in the company, spend more on marketing, pay wages in excess of what the market would demand without interference, and many other things that now aren't available to the smaller business.

Aside from this not being the role of government, it's the opposite of what they're charged with by the Constitution. It's not their job to tip the scales of the market to anyone's favor. It's their job to stay out of the way and protect the rights of individuals to participate.

 

[not2big]

The broad goal of economic development should be to put a local economy on a trajectory of higher growth by increasing the productivity of businesses and workers in ways that raise everyone’s living standards.

Historically, the model of tax incentives has been to reward a set of business behaviors—namely, the creation of new jobs, the retention of jobs under threat, and the creation of construction jobs. However, more recently, other important factors such as wage levels, local hiring, and affordability requirements for housing projects have been included in incentive formulas.

 

[Johnny D]

The broad goal of economic development should be to put a local economy on a trajectory of higher growth by increasing the productivity of businesses and workers in ways that raise everyone’s living standards.

Historically, the model of tax incentives has been to reward a set of business behaviors—namely, the creation of new jobs, the retention of jobs under threat, and the creation of construction jobs. However, more recently, other important factors such as wage levels, local hiring, and affordability requirements for housing projects have been included in incentive formulas.

Make note of the fact that when Brookings published this, they did not include "attract tourism" as one of the metrics. I also highlighted an important qualifier above. Brookings was talking about using tax incentives for all businesses, not just the ones who attract the most tourists or generate the most sales, as a tool for regional economic development.

You left out a whole bunch of their literature on this - especially the most important stuff. The premise of the publication was that tax incentives should be aligned with specific business BEHAVIORS. Quite specifically, these:

• Invest in people and skills. Skill development can improve residents’ capacities, supporting meaningful work and wages.
• Focus on advanced industries. Businesses in these industries can build local comparative advantage and deliver innovation and wage gains.
• Connect places. Work at multiple levels to connect local communities to regional jobs, housing, and opportunity.
• Boost trade. Export growth and trade with other markets can deepen regional industry specialization and bring in new income and investment.

None of those are about generating revenue for the state and Brookings wouldn't agree that some companies should be given a higher incentive than others simply because they bring in tourists.

Have you always be in favor of the government subsidizing the larger businesses, but not the smaller ones? Do you want Walmart to be offered tax benefits by cities and states, due to how much sales tax they generate, eventually making it too hard for smaller shops to compete? Or is this simply because in the Disney vs Desantis battle, you're Team Disney and, therefore, obligated to disagree with anything Desantis says?

 

[not2big]

Not only big business but all businesses that improve local economies, including tourism that helps increase revenue to local businesses

 

[Johnny D]

Not only big business but all businesses that improve local economies, including tourism that helps increase revenue to local businesses

So, to be clear... You would add that on top of the behaviors outlined by Brookings, another should be added which is how much a business a business brings to the state in revenue. Which means that the tax incentive should be based relative to that metric - a graduated tax benefit, whereby the more my business increases state revenue, the bigger tax break I get. Right? The bigger the business, the bigger the benefit. Small mom and pop shops should receive very little tax benefit because they don't contribute as much. The Walmarts and the Costcos and such get the biggest tax break.

 

[Pegasus]

Australia has been called "the defamation capital of the world" by legal experts, due to strict local laws which allow only limited defences for defamation.
Crikey - which launched in 2000 and employs 10 full-time journalists - had planned to argue its opinion piece was contextually true, and in the public interest.
In court documents outlining its defence, it argued Mr Murdoch was morally and ethically culpable for the Capitol riot because Fox News, under his control and management, knowingly promoted false claims the election was stolen.
In a statement on Friday, publisher Private Media said the Dominion settlement earlier this week proved their case.

 

[Pegasus]

History does not repeat itself, but it sometimes rhymes. On April 24th—almost six years to the day after Fox dismissed Mr O’Reilly—it parted ways with Tucker Carlson, currently the most popular host on cable television, who also rouses liberal ire and delights in skewering all things “woke” (the current term for “politically correct”). Fox is also facing a lawsuit, this time brought by one of his former producers, Abby Grossberg, accusing the network and Mr Carlson’s staff of sexism and anti-Semitism—charges that Fox vigorously denies.

 

[CUSP82]

Today in Montana a bunch of nuts interrupted the government proceedings in the State House. They were called rioters and not insurrectionist; why?

 

[not2big]

Because they were permitted to enter the state house (which is not a federal building) as guests, did not cause any damage, no one was injured, and they were cleared from the building in about 15 minutes. Seven, however, were arrested on misdemeanor charges For resisting.

 

[CUSP82]

They were obstructing the function of government, just like many of the insurrectionists were charged with.

 

[not2big]

But not the federal government and only delayed the proceedings for 15 minutes and the representatives were not in fear of their lives. As I mentioned, they did not breach the state house.

In addition to the Capitol, Protestors gathered at statehouses in Washington, Georgia, Kansas, Ohio, Michigan, California, Colorado, Utah, New Mexico, Wyoming, Texas and other states Without being arrested.