Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

FedEx responds to The New York Times article from Nov. 17, 2019

about.van.fedex.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 321 posts

Re: FedEx responds to The New York Times article from Nov. 17, 2019

#31

Post by appleiigs »

scott_s wrote: post #20

This statement is a farce. They claim the story is factually incorrect, but provide no corrections. They point out the NYT does the same thing, but that does not contradict anything in the NYT article, and has no bearing on what they did. Finally, they yell "debate me!" but rather than proposing a debate on the facts in dispute, instead want to debate federal tax policy which neither controls.

I think it's a great statement. They aren't disputing the facts. Fedex is disputing that cutting taxes is a bad thing and is saying lets talk about it.

EDIT: and as you pointed out Fedex is just following fed tax policy that it doesn't control.

Re: FedEx responds to The New York Times article from Nov. 17, 2019

#32

Post by jobu »

rahimnathwani wrote: post #4

Response to this: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/17/business/how-fedex-cut-it...

From the NYTimes article:

> In the 2017 fiscal year, FedEx owed more than $1.5 billion in taxes. The next year, it owed nothing.

> Its financial filings show it owed no taxes in the 2018 fiscal year overall. Company officials said FedEx paid $2 billion in total federal income taxes over the past 10 years.

So in the last 10 years FedEx paid $2B in taxes, of which $1.5B was paid in 2017. That seems really weird. Does anyone know enough about their financials to explain how this happened?

Re: FedEx responds to The New York Times article from Nov. 17, 2019

#33

Post by tootie »

mc32 wrote: post #5
sarcasmatwork wrote: post #2

Expected behavior coming from New York Times. Good on Fedex for pushing back.

You’d think they’d have their house in order before besmirching someone else... good on FedEx calling them out.

It's not at all incumbent on journalists to moderate their reporting based on the ownership of their publication. I don't understand why it's relevant. FedEx is within their rights to criticize the NY Times as an institution, but it doesn't make their reporting any less accurate. And Smith didn't even try to refute any of the details of the story.

Re: FedEx responds to The New York Times article from Nov. 17, 2019

#34

Post by jmull »

sarcasmatwork wrote: post #2

Expected behavior coming from New York Times. Good on Fedex for pushing back.

Uh, I don't see any substance in the pushback. Is there any?

E.g., how does the fact that the NYTimes paid no federal income tax in 2017 address or refute anything in the article?

Likewise the other financial facts about the NYTimes doesn't seem related.

The times article is about how the tax cuts did not result in the capital investments promised, by FexEx and others.

Now, if the times had lobbied for the tax cut and likewise claimed capital gains investments would increase but then they didn't, that would be relevant.

Re: FedEx responds to The New York Times article from Nov. 17, 2019

#35

Post by unethical_ban »

Shivetya wrote: post #14
mmazing wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Care to elaborate?

NYT and a few other papers are pretty much running in campaign mode, floating trial balloons of policy ideas of candidates they favor if not outright pushing forward a narrative which aligns with the direction one campaign or another is following. So stories align to support the narrative. The 2020 narrative for the Democratic Party is again wealth envy and how all the woes can be solved if X just pays their fair sha…

You have to use a filter on just about anything that you read, but the point by so many others remain: Not a single person in this thread or from Fedex has actually rebutted the journalist's claims in the original article.

Re: FedEx responds to The New York Times article from Nov. 17, 2019

#36

Post by mcguire »

atonse wrote: post #6

I love this idea – of an actual, genuine debate on this topic where an actual corporate executive can make some points (I know they will be Tim-Cook-like spin but debate is better than asynchronous speeches where people talk at each other) Update: I realized I didn't write the second half of my sentence... which makes me sound like a corporate shill. The second half is... AND someone on the other side can immediately…

In my opinion, debates are all about spin. They're too short to allow proper analysis of the responses, and mostly concern the personalities of the people.

Two examples: T.H. Huxley and Samuel Wilberforce, and a round-table I once attended with Dijkstra and Larry Loucks of IBM, along with a couple of other professors who were completely outclassed by those two. EWD was slow and very precise, it was clear that he was thinking deeply about the topics, but he didn't actually say much in the time alloted; Larry was fast, facile, and rather shallow, he was of the IBM style (he who talks loudest is in charge).

Re: FedEx responds to The New York Times article from Nov. 17, 2019

#37

Post by mmazing »

Shivetya wrote: post #14
mmazing wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Care to elaborate?

NYT and a few other papers are pretty much running in campaign mode, floating trial balloons of policy ideas of candidates they favor if not outright pushing forward a narrative which aligns with the direction one campaign or another is following. So stories align to support the narrative. The 2020 narrative for the Democratic Party is again wealth envy and how all the woes can be solved if X just pays their fair sha…

How do you feel about the difference in income tax rates from the mid twentieth century to now for the upper wealth brackets?

Re: FedEx responds to The New York Times article from Nov. 17, 2019

#38

Post by sonofaplum »

Doesn't respond to any of the claims in the story. The story is about 1) how FedEx lobbied for the Trump tax cuts, 2) what they claimed they would do with that money if the tax cuts were passed, 3) what they actually did with that money and 4) what the implications are for the efficacy of the Trump tax cuts in general. If the New York Times corporation followed exactly the same playbook as FedEx with regard to lobbying, how would that change any of the four points above? And what would Arthur Sulzbergers opinions about tax cuts have to do with the reporting of the story?

It's an extremely blatant and I thought transparent attempt to change the subject, but, if the first fifteen comments here are any indication, a surprisingly effective one.

Re: FedEx responds to The New York Times article from Nov. 17, 2019

#39

Post by mcguire »

DerpyBaby123 wrote: post #30
sarcasmatwork wrote: post #2

Expected behavior coming from New York Times. Good on Fedex for pushing back.

They can 'push back' best by saying what was incorrect about the article in question

Or just say, "Nuh-uh! You did it, too!"

That seems to work.

Re: FedEx responds to The New York Times article from Nov. 17, 2019

#40

Post by pitaj »

Corporate taxes shouldn't exist, especially in their current form. Corporate taxes are just reflected to consumers as higher prices or to workers as lower wages. In the current structure, corporate taxes benefit large businesses more with large legal departments because they can afford to take advantage of deductions etc.

Corporate taxes should be replaced by an increase in capital gains tax.

Post reply on HN