Disney got some concessions but the county still has power over reedy creek
Disney got some concessions but the county still has power over reedy creek
The 2 things are not mutually exclusive: you can be for criticizing/scrutinizing the legitimacy of use of tax dollars (especially when the use of funds is a transfer of wealth upwards from the working man to the rich investor/executive class: see subsidizing sports stadiums and Amazon corporate headquarters) but also an advocate for higher general progressive taxation targeting redistribution in legitimate public investments that benefit the public at large (see universal healthcare, subsidized/free higher education, greater public investment in infrastructure and basic/applied scientific research for accelerating the development of sustainable energy, etc.).The idiom you're using strikes me as fairly conservative (people use it to talk about why taxes are bad).
Can you explain how it fits with corporate cities?
The idiom you're using strikes me as fairly conservative (people use it to talk about why taxes are bad).
Can you explain how it fits with corporate cities?
When do we get the sky high holograms you think?
The 2 things are not mutually exclusive: you can be for criticizing/scrutinizing the legitimacy of use of tax dollars (especially when the use of funds is a transfer of wealth upwards from the working man to the rich investor/executive class: see subsidizing sports stadiums and Amazon corporate headquarters) but also an advocate for higher general progressive taxation targeting redistribution in legitimate public investments that benefit the public at large (see universal healthcare, subsidized/free higher education, greater public investment in infrastructure and basic/applied scientific research for accelerating the development of sustainable energy, etc.).
No they are part of the Prime Citizenship program, however you can opt-in at 15% off if you already were a Prime member.
In the mid-1960s, the Walt Disney World Company proposed building a recreation-oriented development on 25,000 acres of property in Central Florida. The property sat in a remote area of Orange and Osceola County, so secluded that the nearest power and water lines were 10-15 miles away. Neither Orange nor Osceola County had the services or the resources needed to bring the project to life.
In 1967 the Florida State legislature, working with Walt Disney World Company, created a special taxing district – called the Reedy Creek Improvement District – that would act with the same authority and responsibility as a county government.
Walt Disney World could then move ahead with its vision to turn 38.5 square miles of largely uninhabited pasture and swamp land, into a global destination resort that welcomes millions of visitors every year.
The new legislation said that landowners within the Reedy Creek Improvement District, primarily Walt Disney World, would be solely responsible for paying the cost of providing typical municipal services like power, water, roads, fire protection etc.
The fact that it is still an idea people have and think it's good to the point they want to try is terrifying though.
Yeah, I was just thinking that. Or in a broader sense, the Reedy Creek Improvement District.
Disney got some concessions but the county still has power over reedy creek
CA's NIMBYism is still deference to money and existing corporate power, just from the powerful individuals who make up those entities rather than the corporate face itself. It's really two sides of the same coin.I think there's an interesting tension here where government is expected to outsource some responsibilities (like buying cars from auto manufacturers and waste disposal) but not others (city administration).
I see some difference between these company towns and the company towns of the past (namely, remote work makes it easier for a worker to vote with their feet) but this proposal feels anti-democratic.
At the same time, perfectly democratic (lower-case D) cities are having plenty of trouble without corporate administration so I'm unhappy with the status quo as well.
China resolves the fight between property owners and renters around building housing by simply having a totalitarian state making final calls on construction.
I think the legislators smell blood (cities aren't run particularly well in CA) and want to populate Nevada with high-income workers and don't really care if they're treated well.
CA's NIMBYism is still deference to money and existing corporate power, just from the powerful individuals who make up those entities rather than the corporate face itself. It's really two sides of the same coin.
The fix is to get money out of politics and punish those who try to wield power that way with prison terms rather than fines/settlements.
Also, we need to return housing to its initial commodity status rather than it being an investment vehicle. Housing being an investment vehicle has wreaked havoc on American society at large.
If campaign finance reform is something that is implemented nationwide and this sort of punishment is doled out nationwide for corruption, where are they going to go to? Leave the country? Go ahead. Want to renounce your citizenship or live outside the country but operate a business within it? Wealth tax of 75% of all personal wealth to do so. Get rid of the loopholes. Make them so they effectively don't have that vote.I don't disagree this is a problem.
But even in an uncorrupt city, rich people form your tax base and can vote with their feet if they don't like how things are going.
This seems like a bigger problem than just campaign finance.
If campaign finance reform is something that is implemented nationwide and this sort of punishment is doled out nationwide for corruption, where are they going to go to? Leave the country? Go ahead. Want to renounce your citizenship or live outside the country but operate a business within it? Wealth tax of 75% of all personal wealth to do so. Get rid of the loopholes. Make them so they effectively don't have that vote.
I already said to criminalize leaving without paying. Let's see how many leave when 75 percent of all of their wealth is seized. The only people who actually have the means to get up and leave would be the disproportionally wealthy to begin with, which is a tiny fraction of the population at large. You can temper this by having a wealth floor at which the 75 percent wealth tax starts to apply (e.g., it doesn't kick in until you have more than $500k in total immediate familial assets and only for the amount exceeding that $500k).They would go to a jurisdiction that taxes them less?
This is sort of why state taxes are so low in the first place. Raise them too high and you have trouble attracting and keeping businesses and building economic centers.
Doesn't actually have that much to to with campaign contributions.
If we think of campaign contributions as an intervention on the equilibrium tax rate, the equilibrium tax rate without intervention still has pressure downward because capital is mobile.