Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<Depreciation.>> If the attraction had not been fully depreciated Disney would continue to get a tax deduction whether or not the building was in use. Since almost all assets are depreciated over no more than 10 years, it is all but certain that WOL had been fully depreciated prior to its closing. But if it amuses the Spirit to think Disney is getting a write-off, what the heck? Who am I to interfere with one of his many fantasies?
Originally Posted By ssWEDguy Thanks, RoadTrip. >> But if it amuses the Spirit to think Disney is getting a write-off, what the heck? Who am I to interfere with one of his many fantasies? << I have no problem with people amusing themselves with speculations. (Read that sentence again -- it sounds kind of kinky...) But when they post it online as such readers may pick it up and pass it on to others as truth. Which is also fine if the source is knowledgeable and not just a rant. All I'm wanting to know is how reliable is his information on this matter? I do not know.
Originally Posted By BlueOhanaTerror >>>But if it amuses the Spirit to think Disney is getting a write-off, what the heck? Who am I to interfere with one of his many fantasies?<<< So pithy, to such a pointless and egotistical grab at self-satisfaction. What's easier? To say Disney gets a tax writeoff, and sum it up as a savings, or to say they save all kinds of OTHER money, including not-insignificant INSURANCE premiums for attractions that don't have guests running through them, or running through them in very limited numbers. Saving money in casting. In operation. In regular upkeep and maintenance. In power. Dabble in semantics if you wish, but "tax writeoff", however specifically accurate it might be, sums up the fact that they aren't losing the money they might be if it were open to a tiny trickle of patrons.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<Dabble in semantics if you wish, but "tax writeoff", however specifically accurate it might be, sums up the fact that they aren't losing the money they might be if it were open to a tiny trickle of patrons.>> I give The Spirit credit for knowing the difference between a tax write-off and expense reduction. If he'd meant expense reduction, he would have said expense reduction. And obviously no one would have questioned that.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<I need more information than just somebody's say-so that "it's a writeoff.">> Then I have an idea ... why don't you ask someone you trust in a position to know. I was told the info in like fashion, and while I'm not great with financial matters, the explantion I was given made sense. I was also told that was another reason why Disney wasn't concerned about having so many shuttered facilities (restaurants and shops too) because they could write them off as a business loss. I trust the person who told me. They didn't have any agenda for telling me something that wasn't true.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<But if it amuses the Spirit to think Disney is getting a write-off, what the heck? Who am I to interfere with one of his many fantasies?>> Trippy, my fantasies have nothing to do with what Disney is writing off ... and I've had a very, very bad day, so I'm going to watch to not take it out on you. But you've known me online for years now. Do you think I post untruths? Have you found my information to be unreliable? ... I've got better things to do. Give me a little credit.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<I have no problem with people amusing themselves with speculations. (Read that sentence again -- it sounds kind of kinky...) But when they post it online as such readers may pick it up and pass it on to others as truth. Which is also fine if the source is knowledgeable and not just a rant.>. Look, ss, I've said what I believe to be true. And anyone who has ranted on about one subject (like FastPass) ad naseum shouldn't throw the term around. <<All I'm wanting to know is how reliable is his information on this matter? I do not know.>> How about I was told this by a former high-ranking Disney official? Because I an not putting a name out here for my 'pals' at Disney to have their lawyers contact and harass.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<I give The Spirit credit for knowing the difference between a tax write-off and expense reduction. If he'd meant expense reduction, he would have said expense reduction. And obviously no one would have questioned that.>> Gee, thanks. I stand by what I posted. I believe it to be true. And the bottom line here is that everytime WDW closes a facility and lets it sit and decay (and I can come up with probably 10 examples off the top of my head), they save money. Lots of it. So, shouldn't they shutter Imagination? Anything else you'd like to see closed because Disney is in really bad financial straits. Maybe they should cut CM (not management of course) pay by 25%. And stop providing insurance. Hey, you gotta be competitive in our global economy, right?
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo One thing I am sure (and where I give Spirit creedance). Disney wouldnot just say - hey, I know, let'sclose WoL. There is a reason, either: 1. the expenditure is not warrented for return of investment 2. They plan to use the facility for an alternative purpose such as offices, storage or corporate events 3. They are reimagineering an attraction for this space. I never like to see attractions shuttered, but it seemed well beyond it's sell by date even on my last visit in 2000. Sad but true. The place has fantastic potential, but it was not great. No matter the reason, I am sure it is planned and for what the execs feel is a good reason. But they better not pull an American Sings on us and shutter it for a decade only to open a lesser attraction.
Originally Posted By BlueOhanaTerror Don't let it get to you, Spirit... People like to take goofy uninformed jabs because they don't have anything to offer themselves that actually reeks of a source. It's a clumsy way that passive-aggressives manage to make themselves feel superior, while not realizing they look like clods.
Originally Posted By ssWEDguy >> Then I have an idea ... why don't you ask someone you trust in a position to know. << Spirit -- I like you, but I don't know you, you don't know me. If you're a WDI employee or work inside Disney or know somebody who does, say so. If you're not a Disney person but are quoting something from somebody else, then say that too. Otherwise when you say right out "it's a tax writeoff" people believe you and pass that on to someone else like it's truth. People love to hate the government. >> Then I have an idea ... why don't you ask someone you trust in a position to know. << I can and do. And when they don't know for sure either (who is the person within Disney that really DOES know?), I might report the fact that I THINK this is accurate. But I don't report things as truth unless I'm pretty sure it is. That said, for all I know you might be right.
Originally Posted By ssWEDguy >> People like to take goofy uninformed jabs because they don't have anything to offer themselves that actually reeks of a source.<< Don't know if you're referring to my response. But if so, know that I was trying very hard to write a simple and non-insulting remark that asks for more information about something that seems just the opposite in my own experience. Yes, I have been know to take goofy jabs. But when I do they are ALWAYS fully intended to be humorous. In this thread however, my comments have been more for information. When people go defensive on me, I find it's usually because they DON'T know for sure and were passing along something they heard. If you have sources, you don't have to quote them by name. Just who they are by reputation, or education, or position. Thanks.
Originally Posted By ssWEDguy >> they look like clods. << Thank you. What's a clod? (<--- Before you bounce back with an uninformed jab, this is a joke...) (<--- and so is this previous remark...) (<--- but not this one...) Selah.
Originally Posted By danyoung >If you have sources, you don't have to quote them by name. Just who they are by reputation, or education, or position.< Seems to me that's what Spirit did a few posts ago. And I completely understand his reasoning for not naming names. I'm big on verifying the information that gets put out online. But I don't require a name or a specific position. It's enough if someone who I generally trust says "I got this from a former Disney employee who was in a position to know". I'd still like to have a deeper explanation as to how a closed down but still existing attraction or building can be used as a tax write-off beyond simple depreciation.
Originally Posted By ssWEDguy >> It's enough if someone who I generally trust says "I got this from a former Disney employee who was in a position to know". << This can work for me, but I don't recall this being said. I will re-read the posts to see where I might have missed that. Look -- I'll say it again -- I don't know Spirit and he doesn't know me. I may be talking to a 20year-WDIer, or I may be talking to someone in Wyoming who heard it from another internet site. I don't know. And he doesn't know me. For all he know I might be the 20year-WDIer with an MBA degree. (But I don't -- I'm an engineer) Maybe I'll meet him someday.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 Knowing tax codes fairly well, I am struggling to understand also...but one thing I do know...Spirit is one of the people on here I trust implicitly with his info and as a person...over the years he has proven that IMHO, not that he needs defending from anyone I am more than confident this is what he was told and that his sources tend to be very good - all I can figure is there has to be more to this from the person he heard it from...
Originally Posted By ssWEDguy >> all I can figure is there has to be more to this from the person he heard it from... << And this I would agree with as well.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<Don't let it get to you, Spirit... People like to take goofy uninformed jabs because they don't have anything to offer themselves that actually reeks of a source.>> Thanks for the support. And I usually don't. Just have a family issue that made for a very bad day and wasn't in the mood to go back-and-forth. <<It's a clumsy way that passive-aggressives manage to make themselves feel superior, while not realizing they look like clods.>> I dunno ... I think that's true to a point, but that's a problem inherent in forums like this. You have a large chunk of posters/lurkers who are simply fans. They love Disney and they come here to read or discuss it (obviously we all fit in this category to some extent). But then there are people that either work for Disney or did or have friends that do and/or did, and they simply have knowledge the others don't. Doesn't make them lesser life forms. But unless they know someone personally (and a few folks here do know me), it's easy to attack the poster ... especially if that poster tends to have a strong writing voice and isn't at all happy with the direction TWDC has taken in the past 10 years. Of course, you also have the Disney 'plants' who come to forums like this to spew the company spin and try and discredit people who do 'know too much!' But I'll stand on my track record. I'm not always right by a longshot. But when it comes to what I post, I try and qualify things if I'm not certain. In this case, I trust the source even if I don't understand the entire explanation I was given. But again, maybe that's because I'm a creative spirit not a numbers cruncher.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<Spirit -- I like you, but I don't know you, you don't know me.>> Trust me, you wouldn't like me if you knew me! <<If you're a WDI employee or work inside Disney or know somebody who does, say so. If you're not a Disney person but are quoting something from somebody else, then say that too.>> I have been 100% honest and upfront. I am not now nor have I ever been an employee of TWDC. I wish someone would save this so I don't have to retype this every month when someone questions my credibility. But I can also say I have connections that I doubt anyone else here can claim. And I have said I was repeating what I was told a few years ago by someone who would know. <<Otherwise when you say right out "it's a tax writeoff" people believe you and pass that on to someone else like it's truth. People love to hate the government.>> I don't hate the government just some of our prominent 'alleged' leaders. >> Then I have an idea ... why don't you ask someone you trust in a position to know. << <<I can and do. And when they don't know for sure either (who is the person within Disney that really DOES know?), I might report the fact that I THINK this is accurate. But I don't report things as truth unless I'm pretty sure it is.>> I think I've 'splained this already. I have no intention of outing the sources I have. When I met a WDI pal recently, we were surrounded by families and kids with Disney tees/plush/bags etc ... despite being at Universal CityWalk, we kept joking about which ones were following us. No, no one was. But the amount of paranoia at the highest levels of TWDC would shock you. <<That said, for all I know you might be right.>> Yeah, that's my take on it too! <<If you have sources, you don't have to quote them by name. Just who they are by reputation, or education, or position. Thanks.>> That would be the same as naming them. Anyway, I don't have anything else to add here. The bottom line is that there are far too many empty areas at WDW that once held attractions or dining or shopping and I got a problem with it.
Originally Posted By ssWEDguy Sigh!!..... Why are things so hard?.... I am not questioning your competence, honesty, or knowledge. I don't know you from Adam. Please don't expect everyone to "know who you are" out of the box. Maybe I'll get to know you over time. >> I wish someone would save this so I don't have to retype this every month when someone questions my credibility << An honest suggestion -- I notice that your LP profile doesn't contain any text. Why not write something yourself, park it there, and then we can all know you better by your own words. You can read mine if you want. Just click on my LP name. >> I have no intention of outing the sources I have << I don't want you to name sources. I just asked why I should believe someone I don't know when my own education and experience in business would indicate an otherwise conclusion? Let's just leave it at that. It would sound that the two of us care. People who care hold tight to what they think is good and important. We don't deny the truth, but sometimes the truth can be less than happy. I prefer to dwell on the parts that remain good.
