• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Poll: Is Ron DeSantis violating the 1A rights of Disney?

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Is Ron DeSantis violating the 1A rights of Disney?

  • Total voters
    66
I had an ex-girlfriend prescribed oral contraceptives to clear up her skin. Bad acne treatments is something covered by insurance. Why should HL decide on their own not based on any medical science people should be denied that treatment?

Again, what if a Jehovah's Witness employer decides blood transfusions are not covered?
 
eelw said:
What was this topic about again????
Click to expand...
I think it’s primarily about showing when conservatives pretended to care about government coercion and the first amendment they were lying.

Again, to me the funniest part is they spent literally years working themselves into a frenzy about Obama targeting conservatives for punishment for speaking out against him and that wasn’t even real. Then when the government does exactly the thing they were so mad about they think it’s fine. As they say, every accusation a confession.
 
HomerJS said:
I had an ex-girlfriend prescribed oral contraceptives to clear up her skin. Bad acne treatments is something covered by insurance. Why should HL decide on their own not based on any medical science people should be denied that treatment?

Again, what if a Jehovah's Witness employer decides blood transfusions are not covered?
Click to expand...

Also for endometriosis ... depending specific drug ...
 
thilanliyan said:
It was just done for politics points...you think they actually care about getting things done? Bah!! 😀
Click to expand...

This was never getting anything "done" ... it was a solution to a problem that didn't exist.

I do question whether or not it was purely a stunt, or whether they were dumb enough to think it would actually go through unopposed. There is rampant incompetence enough on that side of the aisle to legitimately believe they thought it would work. I'm 50/50.
 
zinfamous said:
You dumb, fucking bastard: "THEY" who chose to fight birth control are fucking Catholic sociopaths like Hobby Lobby, you dumb, fucking bastard. This isn't some liberal agenda to start "creating issues" that you think aren't relevant. This is always, always, always a response to bronze-aged shitheads and their fucking brainless assault on humanity, perpetrated by rightwing sociopathic organizations that you just brush aside as "no big deal."

Then, of course, you complain and bitch that we are only talking about birth control, because this is what these sociopaths are spending all their money on, and somehow the people that are defending individual rights' to health are the ones that you blame for this nonsense.

Grow the fuck up, dummy.
Click to expand...
He's gotten so used to "tubes without lubes" up his ass, so there's that. He's not happy unless he's pissed off. Guess too much rectal radiation being a submariner.
 
Pens1566 said:
Didn't see this posted anywhere, but seems like a fairly legit legal hurdle regarding the dissolving:

https://news.bloombergtax.com/tax-i...ng-disneys-reedy-creek?context=search&index=1

IANAL, but that seems like a big problem on its face.
Click to expand...

in the 2022 budget, it sets its property taxes at around 13.57 “mills,” with each “mill” representing an annual charge one-one thousandth of the property’s assessed value. This tax rate is higher than the maximum of 10 mills allowed for cities and counties.

This further confirms something I heard yesterday. That despite the argument about Disney saving tax money, having Reedy Creek Improvement District doesn't actually save money, it costs Disney more. Why? Well Disney is responsible for all the services at Reedy Creek that normally a local government would handle. Disney maintains Reedy Creek to a higher standard than what the surrounding counties would do. In order to do this, Disney taxes Reedy Creek at a higher rate than the surrounding counties. Essentially Disney is taxing itself more than what a local government would tax Disney. The Republicans really didn't think this all the way through.
 
Brovane said:
in the 2022 budget, it sets its property taxes at around 13.57 “mills,” with each “mill” representing an annual charge one-one thousandth of the property’s assessed value. This tax rate is higher than the maximum of 10 mills allowed for cities and counties.

This further confirms something I heard yesterday. That despite the argument about Disney saving tax money, having Reedy Creek Improvement District doesn't actually save money, it costs Disney more. Why? Well Disney is responsible for all the services at Reedy Creek that normally a local government would handle. Disney maintains Reedy Creek to a higher standard than what the surrounding counties would do. In order to do this, Disney taxes Reedy Creek at a higher rate than the surrounding counties. Essentially Disney is taxing itself more than what a local government would tax Disney. The Republicans really didn't think this all the way through.
Click to expand...

Yeah, everyone touting it as "getting rid of a tax break/perk" is just not well informed as to what actually goes on.
 
Brovane said:
in the 2022 budget, it sets its property taxes at around 13.57 “mills,” with each “mill” representing an annual charge one-one thousandth of the property’s assessed value. This tax rate is higher than the maximum of 10 mills allowed for cities and counties.

This further confirms something I heard yesterday. That despite the argument about Disney saving tax money, having Reedy Creek Improvement District doesn't actually save money, it costs Disney more. Why? Well Disney is responsible for all the services at Reedy Creek that normally a local government would handle. Disney maintains Reedy Creek to a higher standard than what the surrounding counties would do. In order to do this, Disney taxes Reedy Creek at a higher rate than the surrounding counties. Essentially Disney is taxing itself more than what a local government would tax Disney. The Republicans really didn't think this all the way through.
Click to expand...
It may still work out to a tax break depending upon how those expenses are treated at the federal level.
 
hal2kilo said:
10K limit on SALT these days.
Click to expand...

You're referring to the ability to itemize and therefore deduct local taxes on your home on a personal income tax return. Without even glancing at the tax laws I'm totally confident that businesses can always claim 100% of whatever property taxes they pay as a legit business expense. We've written two sets of rules and guess who ends up getting screwed more often than not.
 
Thump553 said:
You're referring to the ability to itemize and therefore deduct local taxes on your home on a personal income tax return. Without even glancing at the tax laws I'm totally confident that businesses can always claim 100% of whatever property taxes they pay as a legit business expense. We've written two sets of rules and guess who ends up getting screwed more often than not.
Click to expand...
Saw an estimate that OC property taxes for everyone will have to increase from between 20% to 25% to make up for the shortfall.
 
FWIW - Below is something I don't see being mentioned here or by any of the mainstream media.

There are 6 special tax districts involved, not just Disney.
All were created before the Florida constitution was ratified in 1968 and were "grandfathered" in "as existing".
This means those 6 districts are subject to the terms and conditions they were founded under and not to the Florida Constitution of 1968, that the other 1800+ special tax districts in Florida are subject to.
This repeal of those 6 special tax districts has been on the back burner for some time because of the continuing complaints of "special treatment" from the other special tax districts that were established after the Florida Constitution of 1968 was ratified.
I remember complaints of "special privileges" and "special treatment" by the other tax districts as far back in 1970, a lot of it having to do with bond issues, governing and taxing issues, etc.

Under the approved bill, as passed, all 6 special tax districts created prior to the ratification of the Florida Constitution of 1968 are to be dissolved June 1st, 2023.
Under the approved bill, as passed, all 6 districts may reapply on June 1st, 2023 for special tax district status, but they will then be bound by the the same rules and regulations as the other 1800+ special tax districts in Florida.

I was "on staff" of a state representative from '92-'94 (those are 3 years I wish I could get back 🙄) and the repeal of these 6 special districts was a "backroom" topic even then, but with Disney's influence, it was considered political suicide to challenge Disney then.
The feud between DeSantis and Disney just made this repeal of the 6 districts easy for the legislature to do.
Personally, I think Disney (and the other 5) will apply for and be granted "special tax district" status in 2023. 😉
 
The poll is flawed in that it makes that assumption that a corporation is a person with rights. No, it's a fucking company <full stop>
 
MtnMan said:
The poll is flawed in that it makes that assumption that a corporation is a person with rights. No, it's a fucking company <full stop>
Click to expand...

www.npr.org

When Did Companies Become People? Excavating The Legal Evolution

The Supreme Court has been granting more rights to corporations, including some regarded as those solely for individuals. But Nina Totenberg finds the company-to-person shift has a long history.
www.npr.org www.npr.org

The corporate personhood aspect of the campaign finance debate turns on Buckley v. Valeo (1976) and Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010): Buckley ruled that political spending is protected by the First Amendment right to free speech, while Citizens United ruled that corporate political spending is protected, holding that corporations have a First Amendment right to free speech because they are "associations of citizens" and hold the collected rights of the individual citizens who constitute them.


caselaw.findlaw.com

FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.

FindLaw's searchable database of United States Supreme Court decisions since
caselaw.findlaw.com caselaw.findlaw.com

caselaw.findlaw.com

FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.

FindLaw's searchable database of United States Supreme Court decisions since
caselaw.findlaw.com caselaw.findlaw.com
 
Amused said:
www.npr.org

When Did Companies Become People? Excavating The Legal Evolution

The Supreme Court has been granting more rights to corporations, including some regarded as those solely for individuals. But Nina Totenberg finds the company-to-person shift has a long history.
www.npr.org www.npr.org

The corporate personhood aspect of the campaign finance debate turns on Buckley v. Valeo (1976) and Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010): Buckley ruled that political spending is protected by the First Amendment right to free speech, while Citizens United ruled that corporate political spending is protected, holding that corporations have a First Amendment right to free speech because they are "associations of citizens" and hold the collected rights of the individual citizens who constitute them.

caselaw.findlaw.com

FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.

FindLaw's searchable database of United States Supreme Court decisions since
caselaw.findlaw.com caselaw.findlaw.com

caselaw.findlaw.com

FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.

FindLaw's searchable database of United States Supreme Court decisions since
caselaw.findlaw.com caselaw.findlaw.com
Click to expand...
And that shows beyond doubt how fucking stupid we have become. This is how the ultrarich have destroyed this country. It's a fucking company.
 
Amused said:
Well, if they're going to make corporations people, we're going to shove that down their fascist throats.
Click to expand...

Agree. I hate the principle of it (that corps are people), but as long as it's valid we need to use it equally.

Same as the bullshit precedent with TX SB8. If that's legally valid for TX to do with abortions, it should be legal for other states to do so with ... guns/etc.
 
Brovane said:
in the 2022 budget, it sets its property taxes at around 13.57 “mills,” with each “mill” representing an annual charge one-one thousandth of the property’s assessed value. This tax rate is higher than the maximum of 10 mills allowed for cities and counties.

This further confirms something I heard yesterday. That despite the argument about Disney saving tax money, having Reedy Creek Improvement District doesn't actually save money, it costs Disney more. Why? Well Disney is responsible for all the services at Reedy Creek that normally a local government would handle. Disney maintains Reedy Creek to a higher standard than what the surrounding counties would do. In order to do this, Disney taxes Reedy Creek at a higher rate than the surrounding counties. Essentially Disney is taxing itself more than what a local government would tax Disney. The Republicans really didn't think this all the way through.
Click to expand...

People also need not forgot the Reedy Creek Taxes are on top of the property taxes it pays to Orange and Osceola Counties. They pay the counties their %s and RICD it’s percentages.
 
MtnMan said:
The poll is flawed in that it makes that assumption that a corporation is a person with rights. No, it's a fucking company <full stop>
Click to expand...
Do you also think companies so have to harbor soldiers, be subject to unreasonable searches, or bring forced to work without compensation?
 
Zorba said:
Do you also think companies so have to harbor soldiers, be subject to unreasonable searches, or bring forced to work without compensation?
Click to expand...
I think corporate personhood is a pretty fraught area of the law and there’s a lot of good reasons to reconsider it.

That being said under the law that exists now and the law that conservatives have been perfectly happy with for a long time, these companies enjoy the same freedom of speech as any person.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top