Should DCL get an government payment due to Cover-19?

[emchen]

No, but it will...indirectly through Disney, Inc, writ large.

Disney, Inc has shut down all theme park and cruiseline ops and is taking a massive financial hit. Cast members are laid-off. Vendors are impacted. The overall effect on their theme-park and travel ecosystem is far reaching. Disney, Inc will receive some bailout money and will be able to use it directly and indirectly to benefit all divisions, even relatively minor ones that are incorporated offshore like DCL.

 

[over50visits]

Many citizens are taking massive financial hits, losing jobs, insurance, etc. This new bailout package may, and I hope will, help them; they have paid taxes for years and deserve help. American companies who have paid US taxes have also earned the right to be helped now. Companies who register on foreign soil, are exempt from our labor laws, and avoid paying many or all US taxes perhaps haven't earned that right. I know it's complicated, but ....

 

[vincep]

My point is that why should the taxpayer be forced to subsidize our pleasures? Like you I do not want to such prices. We pay enough for our trips! These industries have been making enormous sums of money for many years avoiding taxes and exploiting workers and now they want American taxpayer money. Don't you think that's a bit rich? This is just another example of corporate welfare and may I add corporate crime.
Iger paid 71 billion for 20th Century Fox while underpaying workers and allowing constant budget cuts to the point of pettiness(Bob Cheapskate is his flunkey.) It is agreed he paid far too much for Star Wars. Don't you think he made enormous sums on commissions for these disastrous decisions? Why should my taxes go for his wealth, selfishness and stupidity.
The cruise industry allowed cruises to go on far too long encouraging people to embark on disease laden voyages of the d-amned. Also allowing passengers of thousands of people to disembark in ports without screening.
Abigail Disney was appalled at the crowds allowed into the parks before they closed and made her famous remark. They acted very badly when they already knew the disease had already gone from a spark to a conflagration. They now again want to profit from spreading disease and death. Intentionally.

 

[mmackeymouse]

My point is that why should the taxpayer be forced to subsidize our pleasures? Like you I do not want to such prices. We pay enough for our trips! These industries have been making enormous sums of money for many years avoiding taxes and exploiting workers and now they want American taxpayer money. Don't you think that's a bit rich? This is just another example of corporate welfare and may I add corporate crime.

I get it, and it's definitely complicated. The tax part is kind of iffy. But, at the same time, cruise ships pay port fees to American ports, and also infuse massive economic benefits to certain port cities, Cape Canaveral, Miami, and Galveston, just to name a couple. On top of that, no matter the nationality, the ships employ thousands of people, many of which are yes, American. I feel like if the cruise industry is crushed or reduced in the process, it MAY do more harm than good, if you look at the big picture. May. I don't know. I don't think any of us know.

Back to subsidizing my vacation...theoretically every American has access to these cruises, and thus every American has the same benefit of a subsidized vacation. This isn't like an exclusive club or church or "Red heads only" cruise or something. In that case, I'd say you are right...the many should not be subsidizing the pleasures of the few. And yes....in reality, not every person will be in a financial position to do a cruise. But, they COULD. No one is banning anyone from cruising. (Well, technically right now they are haha) So, it's not the many subsidizing the pleasures of the few. It's the many subsidizing pleasures for everyone.

And, I get it...these huge corporations should be able to dip into their slush funds, their cushions, and claw their own way out. But, in reality, I know how the world works. Pete himself has said it, while talking about World: prices are going to skyrocket. So, we can sit back and let these companies hang themselves and see how it goes. Or we can look at the millions of people, employees and patrons, who will benefit from some help.

 

[Mainsail Minnie]

So, we can sit back and let these companies hang themselves and see how it goes. Or we can look at the millions of people, employees and patrons, who will benefit from some help.

I think generalizing the topic to "these companies" is a bit much. We're talking about the cruise lines here. The airlines, hospitals, etc., the businesses that are getting the bulk of the financial aid, are critical to the basic functioning of our society and economy. Cruise lines are not. As noted before, they haven't paid into our nation through taxes and the large majority of their workers are foreigners, so they have no business receiving help from the American taxpayer now. It is not the taxpayer's responsibility to prop up every ailing industry, even in America, or to protect the job of every worker around the world. And to subsidize other people's desire for a cheap vacation, absolutely not. This bailout package will put us in deeper debt for decades, and worsening it for a frivolous reason would be unconscionable.

 

[Numtini]

I say bail out the American People, not mega-corporations headquartered in tax havens.

 

[RAD]

IMHO, if Disney need's money let them go to the private banking/bond market and get it there. No need for the government to provide them any money.

 

[mmackeymouse]

Okay not related strictly to cruise lines, but just corporate entities in general. Shouldn't they have overhead insurance? And if they are a huge company, I would imagine they are paying a LOT for their insurance.

So, I guess my question would be....if they file with their overhead insurance, and the insurance companies waffle and dicker with them, at that point, would we look at the insurance companies as unscrupulous, and is that fair?

 

[Mainsail Minnie]

Okay not related strictly to cruise lines, but just corporate entities in general. Shouldn't they have overhead insurance? And if they are a huge company, I would imagine they are paying a LOT for their insurance.

So, I guess my question would be....if they file with their overhead insurance, and the insurance companies waffle and dicker with them, at that point, would we look at the insurance companies as unscrupulous, and is that fair?

What all of these bailed out corportions should have is cash reserves on hand, so they could weather the storm for a few months without running to Daddy (I mean Uncle Sam) for a handout when the unexpected occurs. But they chose not to save, instead spending most of their profits on stock buybacks, to raise their stock prices and enrich themselves. For the airlines in particular, the amount of bailout money they're recieving is very close to the amount of money they spent on stock buybacks in the past few years, since the big corporate tax cuts went into effect. So if they'd been fiscally responsible, they wouldn't need our help now. That's why language restricting stock buybacks is in this bailout bill.

 

[mmackeymouse]

What all of these bailed out corportions should have is cash reserves on hand, so they could weather the storm for a few months without running to Daddy (I mean Uncle Sam) for a handout when the unexpected occurs. They chose buy and large not to save, instead spending most of their profits on stock buybacks, to raise their stock prices and enrich themselves. For the airlines in particular, the amount of bailout money they're recieving is very close to the amount of money they spent on stock buybacks in the past few years, since the big corporate tax cuts went into effect. So if they'd been fiscally responsible, they wouldn't need our help now. That's why language restricting stock buybacks is in this bailout bill.

But, theoretically, couldn't you say that about any business? Small business, restaurants, self-employed people, big business, independent medical facilities? Or even individuals? Couldn't you say, "They should have had cash on hand, and they chose not to save." about just about anyone? Obviously not every person or business has that luxury.

What I have seen said, from both sides of the aisle, is that a stimulus package is acknowledging that it's none of these businesses' fault that this happened. They did not bring the coronavirus on themselves. It's a once-in-a-generation event that we've never seen before. Many employees and employers, whether voluntarily or not, are having to make a massive sacrifice for the greater good. That is the verbiage that I have read. So, if that's the case, whether a business is small, medium-sized, or huge....aren't they all in the same position essentially? They are all in a situation no one could have predicted, trying to make decisions day by day based on very little information. They are all losing money every day. I 1000% believe that individuals, families, and all businesses across the country deserve help. (Although, let me tell you, I feel like I deserve way more than $1,200 when I have been SO conscientious about staying home and being careful, and other people who are out gallivanting around are also getting $1,200. I want their $1,200 too. Sorry, rant over.) Just because a business is a huge corporation, I don't think that makes them somehow less worthy of help.

 

[CM Dad]

What all of these bailed out corportions should have is cash reserves on hand, so they could weather the storm for a few months without running to Daddy (I mean Uncle Sam) for a handout when the unexpected occurs. But they chose not to save, instead spending most of their profits on stock buybacks, to raise their stock prices and enrich themselves.

I am not a tax expert, but years back I remember something about an IRS requirement to NOT retain too much earning. A google search found https://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/accumulatedearningstax.asp. I'm not sure how companies, such as Apple and Berkshire Hathaway don't have an issue with the large cash hoards they have.

A corporation that has an accumulation of earnings may be liable to pay the accumulated earnings tax unless the business can show that the earnings over the threshold are for reasonable needs of the business, some of which the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) defines as:

• "Specific, definite, and feasible plans for the use of the earnings accumulation
• Product liability loss where the accumulated amount is needed for the payment of reasonably anticipated product liability losses
• Various redemption needs"

 

[bumbershoot]

I personally don't want to pay $500 for a one way flight to Orlando. And, I don't particularly want to pay $4k for a 3 night cruise, either.

I get what you’re saying, butthose prices aren’t much more than what I already pay for Disney lol. Ok maybe not airfare, but there’s a reason I moved to royal, and it was that expensive 3 day cruise thing with Disney...

found ways to circumvent paying US taxes and abiding by US labor laws and paying people fair wages.

People working on cruises make perfectly fine money *for their countries*. If I worked as a stateroom attendant while trying to maintain a home in the US I’d be in trouble. But if I lived elsewhere with a lower cost of living I’d be fine. Maybe I’m the only one who talks in depth with employees on the ships and has heard their stories of what their job is allowing them to do for their families back home?

My point is that why should the taxpayer be forced to subsidize our pleasures? Like you I do not want to such prices. We pay enough for our trips!

And you’ll be paying more if the lines have to raise prices to cover all this.

I feel like if the cruise industry is crushed or reduced in the process, it MAY do more harm than good, if you look at the big picture. May. I don't know. I don't think any of us know.

Agreed. I like what you had to say, mmackeymouse. Especially the not knowing part.

 

[vincep]

Yes I might just at this point have to cry uncle and give up Disney World as a vacation spot. Which is unfortunate as it is my favorite place in the world. And I have traveled and have seen some very beautiful countries and towns. But Disney is home.

 

[Starport Seven-Five]

No, they shouldn't get any funds from the US government. They should go to the places they're incorporated and the local governments where they have ports. If they value the contributions to their economy they can subsidize the companies through this hard time.

As much as any assistance to the industry looks terrible, if Carnival and RCL go under, they will probably take several US businesses (such as Miami and PC ports) down with them as well. It will likely have a domino effect on tourism and broader economy in Florida, Texas, and California.

Sounds like a Florida, Texas, and California problem (or possibly even more local as it really only impacts a small portion of those states). Should a taxpayer in Wisconsin pay to help them?

What all of these bailed out corportions should have is cash reserves on hand, so they could weather the storm for a few months without running to Daddy (I mean Uncle Sam) for a handout when the unexpected occurs. But they chose not to save, instead spending most of their profits on stock buybacks, to raise their stock prices and enrich themselves. For the airlines in particular, the amount of bailout money they're recieving is very close to the amount of money they spent on stock buybacks in the past few years, since the big corporate tax cuts went into effect. So if they'd been fiscally responsible, they wouldn't need our help now. That's why language restricting stock buybacks is in this bailout bill.

Wall Street doesn't reward this behavior and corporate boards/CEOs have financial incentive to do what Wall Street likes.

 

[Lisa F]

But, theoretically, couldn't you say that about any business? Small business, restaurants, self-employed people, big business, independent medical facilities? Or even individuals? Couldn't you say, "They should have had cash on hand, and they chose not to save." about just about anyone? Obviously not every person or business has that luxury.

What I have seen said, from both sides of the aisle, is that a stimulus package is acknowledging that it's none of these businesses' fault that this happened. They did not bring the coronavirus on themselves. It's a once-in-a-generation event that we've never seen before. Many employees and employers, whether voluntarily or not, are having to make a massive sacrifice for the greater good. That is the verbiage that I have read. So, if that's the case, whether a business is small, medium-sized, or huge....aren't they all in the same position essentially? They are all in a situation no one could have predicted, trying to make decisions day by day based on very little information. They are all losing money every day. I 1000% believe that individuals, families, and all businesses across the country deserve help. (Although, let me tell you, I feel like I deserve way more than $1,200 when I have been SO conscientious about staying home and being careful, and other people who are out gallivanting around are also getting $1,200. I want their $1,200 too. Sorry, rant over.) Just because a business is a huge corporation, I don't think that makes them somehow less worthy of help.

You can't say that about every entity BUT the entities that people have the most issue with receiving yet ANOTHER bailout are those who chose to "invest" in stock buybacks to enrich the few at the top rather than pay their people living wages, and rather than save for a rainy day. I don't think that very many people are faulting small and mid-sized businesses who run on a tight margin and are just barely profitable but rather large companies that consistently use their profits to enrich a few, who are relatively untouchable even by a "once in a generation event" because they know the company at large will be written a blank check by the US taxpayers - or even if it's not, who cares? because they got theirs! - are the ones a lot of taxpayers are frustrated with.

Even a healthy savings might not save some industries, but the reason I am seeing a lot of this rhetoric is that there is a lot of judgement leveled at individuals who do not "save for a rainy day" and cannot weather a storm like this (probably not most people who cruise regularly on DCL though) while corporations that do the same but on a MUCH greater scale get bailed out. I mean, even in this negotiation, some lawmakers were horrified that a working person on unemployment might end up with literally a few dollars more than when they were working because they are trying to pass generalized aid to all quickly but most industries that end up bailed out end up with CEOs who end up making millions if not billions in profit off of the whole experience.

 

[vincep]

Lisa F you are a very wise woman!

Well said. It angers so many of us and makes a mockery of capitalism when this kind of chicanery enriches a few when one year's wages will allow them a lifetime of comfort.

 

[mmackeymouse]

Even a healthy savings might not save some industries, but the reason I am seeing a lot of this rhetoric is that there is a lot of judgement leveled at individuals who do not "save for a rainy day" and cannot weather a storm like this (probably not most people who cruise regularly on DCL though) while corporations that do the same but on a MUCH greater scale get bailed out. I mean, even in this negotiation, some lawmakers were horrified that a working person on unemployment might end up with literally a few dollars more than when they were working because they are trying to pass generalized aid to all quickly but most industries that end up bailed out end up with CEOs who end up making millions if not billions in profit off of the whole experience.

I guess where I come from is I feel like it doesn't have to be one or the other. If you think corporations should get a cut of the pie, that doesn't mean that you think individuals shouldn't. I feel like this is such a unique event that everyone should get something....from the littlest of the little to the biggest of the big. Everyone that was affected by this situation, whether they have $5 in their bank account or 5 million.

By the way, I am not really arguing for a bailout either. I guess I am just saying a large corporation shouldn't be excluded from help just because they're huge corporations with billionaire CEOs.

 

[tinkerone]

Back to subsidizing my vacation...theoretically every American has access to these cruises, and thus every American has the same benefit of a subsidized vacation. This isn't like an exclusive club or church or "Red heads only" cruise or something. In that case, I'd say you are right...the many should not be subsidizing the pleasures of the few. And yes....in reality, not every person will be in a financial position to do a cruise. But, they COULD. No one is banning anyone from cruising. (Well, technically right now they are haha) So, it's not the many subsidizing the pleasures of the few. It's the many subsidizing pleasures for everyone.

I would say that in many ways it is an exclusive club. Yes, of course you can take a cruise if you can afford it but there in lies the double edged sword. To be in this club you have to have enough funds to live day to day, feed your family and still save some money for a vacation. I don't know the numbers however I would bet that 50% of the country would be out of the loop. They are the ones that are subsidizing with their tax dollars for this exclusive club. They can't belong.
Just my thought though. Doesn't make it right

 

[ruadisneyfan2]

I guess where I come from is I feel like it doesn't have to be one or the other. If you think corporations should get a cut of the pie, that doesn't mean that you think individuals shouldn't. I feel like this is such a unique event that everyone should get something....from the littlest of the little to the biggest of the big. Everyone that was affected by this situation, whether they have $5 in their bank account or 5 million.

By the way, I am not really arguing for a bailout either. I guess I am just saying a large corporation shouldn't be excluded from help just because they're huge corporations with billionaire CEOs.

They employ a looooooot of people. When big companies fail, a lot of people lose jobs.