Tortoise wrote: ↑Thu Feb 02, 2023 12:25 pm
If a corporation starts to achieve monopoly-like power, it's often because it's receiving subsidies or special privileges or protections from the government. That special treatment by the government makes it harder for other companies -- especially smaller ones -- to compete with it (higher barriers to entry, more regulatory overhead, etc.).
So the Ayn Rand libertarian solution to monopoly-like power is less government, not more of it -- because government usually enables the corporation's monopoly-like power in the first place.
We're talking about the impact on the food supply of large corporations who have gotten into genetic modification and other novel practices that have been destructive to consumer health yet enhanced their profitability. Do you think less government intervention would somehow cause these types of companies to be more responsible and to their own financial detriment? Do you think less government would cause a monopolistic company to be less monopolistic?
I would say the special treatment you're referencing is mostly a by-product of large interests buying off Congress (legally thanks to Citizen's United). So who's at fault? Shame on the government for allowing itself to be bought off?
Shame on the corporate interests for successfully attempting large scale corruption in the first place?
Shame on SCOTUS for making it all legal?
Either way, God help the individual citizen.
Tortoise wrote: ↑Thu Feb 02, 2023 12:25 pm
My understanding of the situation in Florida is that DeSantis recently signed legislation that removed Disney's special tax privileges that had been granted to it decades ago by Florida's legislature. Those tax privileges were granted
only to Disney and not to any other companies.
Is the removal of Disney's tax privileges a form of punishment? I suppose one could view it that way, but one could also view the original granting of those tax privileges to Disney decades ago as a form of punishment to all of the other companies that didn't receive them. The recent removal of Disney's tax privileges simply means it is now taxed at the same rate as other companies. That doesn't strike me as particularly unfair. Quite the opposite, in fact.
Here's a link to the transcript of a good podcast Forbes put out that talks about the Reedy Creek Improvement District, why the bill was drafted to eliminate it, what benefits Disney enjoyed and will lose, and what issues the elimination will create for the counties and public that will assume the obligations. From your comments, I think you will find it educational, to put it politely. Personally I think when all is said and done, the elimination of the district will be more expensive for Floridians than they thought and one day they might wish they had it back.
A few excerpts:
Florida has over 1,800 special districts, and they're basically miniature local governments that can provide essential services and create their own infrastructure. They come in different shapes and sizes.
But the general idea is that they exist to bring something to the state, whether it's recreation or economic development, without necessarily relying on local taxpayers from neighboring counties to fund what goes on in the district.
The governor and some lawmakers have made it clear that the idea for the legislation stemmed from Disney's public statement on the recent law that prohibits classroom discussion on sexual orientation and gender identity in public schools. They had clarified that their decision to take another look at these districts was in part because of Disney's statement that they wanted to openly oppose the bill.
Disney will continue to pay taxes. Disney World has always paid state and local taxes. The district wasn't a tax exemption for Disney in that sense.
That's one of the bigger issues that's come out of this. If the district is dissolved, Florida state law specifies that the assets and debt from the district will be transferred to neighboring localities. In this case, that would be Orange and Osceola Counties.
Some local officials, including Orange County Mayor Jerry Deming expressed concern that assuming control of the district's assets might result in the need for additional taxes or tax increases.
Another potential issue is that the statute that created the Reedy Creek District specifies that the state isn't allowed to eliminate it without paying off its bond debt, which is upwards of $1 billion.