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

91–100 of 321 posts

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

#91

Post by whakim »

larnmar wrote: post #82
whakim wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1) They aren't disputing the "$0 paid in taxes in 2018," which is the main point of the NYTimes article (an article about how companies were responding to the Tax Cuts/Jobs Act). "Billions of dollars in tax payments" is factually correct, but doesn't address the core allegation. 2) $6 billion compared to what (prior to previous years)? No point of reference here. The response is great theater, but it is carefully wor…

On the other hand the allegations themselves are carefully selected in order to create a false narrative.

I'm not sure I believe that either. The reason that the article focused on 2018 numbers is that they provide a direct comparison pre- and post- Tax Cuts/Jobs Act. In 2018, Fedex paid less tax and invested less compared to 2017 - despite saving $1.6bn. On the other hand, investment in stock buybacks and dividends more than doubled. Not sure how those allegations are "carefully selected"?

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

#92

Post by Simulacra »

I would love to see this debate. I don’t trust the media, and I don’t really trust corporations, so I’m not sure who to believe here. A public debate would go along way towards bringing transparency an open discussion. Those are not bad things.

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

#93

Post by awinder »

300bps wrote: post #61
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.

They claim the story is factually incorrect, but provide no corrections. There were two claims in the NY Times story: 1) FedEx paid $0 in tax 2) FedEx "has not made good on its promised investment surge" In response, FedEx wrote in their statement: 1) our billions of dollars of tax payments whereby they dispute paying $0 in taxes 2) $6 billion of capital that FedEx invested in the U.S. economy This directly contradic…

It doesn't directly contradict what the NYTimes wrote, at all:

1. Fedex is bundling total tax expenditures (state taxes, employment taxes, who knows what, probably the whole kit) versus their federal income tax liability which is what NYTimes is discussing

2. Fedex has been in the 5-6B annual Capex range since FY 2015.

Further, someone could "spin" that 401k treatment, but this is an article about how Fedex rallied hard for specific tax treatments that had a specific effect. So if you wanna go out there and get some carve-out, expect to catch crap for it. If you're a normal person you'll go laughing to the bank with it, but if you're an especially hostile individual I guess you could, like, challenge people to a debate or whatever

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

#94

Post by mceachen »

malvosenior wrote: post #78

I'm much, much more concerned about The New York Times deceptively pushing a political agenda during an election year than I am about FedEx legally paying as few taxes as possible. We all do that every tax season! It seems like the real story is how the NYT is actively campaigning for the DNC and I'm glad FedEx is calling them out.

> "paying as few taxes as possible"

Here lies the problem. One's tax burden should not be determined by your cleverness to dodge them, but some inarguable, tangible value. Like a bill.

The tax law holes that allow for "creative" corporate financial "solutions" (like moving HQ to Ireland) and their ilk should be patched with dramatically simpler tax law.

The government should simply bill people and corporations for their tax, outright, like they do in many other countries.

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

#95

Post by dabernathy89 »

jmull wrote: post #67
dabernathy89 wrote: post #56

The NYT piece seems to be a great example of factual statements not telling the full story. I'm a NYT subscriber and value their reporting, but I think they fell short here. It's easy to get a sense from the article that tax reform simply saved FedEx about $1.5 billion (the amount they owed the previous year). But it's more complicated than that. Yes, tax reform helped FedEx lower their tax bill. But a huge chunk of…

The information you're using to show the article doesn't tell the full story is in the article.

They could go into a lot more detail about exactly which provisions of tax reform helped FedEx, and how.

They did not explain the 100% deduction for asset depreciation, or the fact that it's only a temporary provision of the law. They merely included a brief statement from FedEx referencing this provision in sort of generic terms.

They also mentioned very briefly that a large part of the reduced tax bill was FedEx's pension contribution, but didn't provide any additional details about how tax reform encouraged this behavior.

They also include misleading statements like this:

> “Something like $1.5 billion in future taxes that they had promised to pay, just vanished,” said Matthew Gardner, an analyst at the liberal Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy in Washington.

The idea that FedEx had "promised" to pay that money is just ridiculous.

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

#96

Post by Majromax »

appleiigs wrote: post #84
sxyuan wrote: post #52

From the article this statement is responding to: > Companies that make up the S&P 500 index had an average effective tax rate of 18.1 percent in 2018, down from 25.9 percent in 2016, according to an analysis of securities filings. More than 200 of those companies saw their effective tax rates fall by 10 points or more. Nearly three dozen, including FedEx, saw their tax rates fall to zero or reported that tax authori…

Investors have stock. Dividends and stock buybacks move idle cash out of the corporation and back into the hands of investors. Investors now have cash instead of stock. Those investors are better at distributing cash to good investments than Fedex or Apple or Google is. The cash doesn't get redistributed from the non-1% to the 1%. The idle cash that corporations have aren't generating jobs.

> The idle cash that corporations have aren't generating jobs.

But that contradicts the claimed raison d'être for the 2018 tax cut: that corporate direct investment was being restrained by corporate income taxes.

A call to lower corporate income taxes so more money could flow to investors would have been consistent, both with economic orthodoxy and with the observed outcome.

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

#97

Post by mandevil »

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…

Eh, real-time live debates are terrible formats for this because they encourage and reward Gish Gallops. This is why scientists stopped debating creationists, because they discovered through repeated trials that it just rewards people who have less shame and are always willing to spout more lies. In theory, the other guy can call BS, but generally it takes a little bit of time, even with Google, to figure out where the lie is, and then even longer to explain it, by which point the liar simply moves on to another one.

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

#98

Post by gregwtmtno »

lstroud wrote: post #81
gregwtmtno wrote: post #21

So this response says the story is factually incorrect, but doesn't dispute a single fact. If the story is inaccurate, FedEx should describe what was wrong, in detail, and ask for a correction. That they didn't do that makes me wonder.

Corrections don’t sell papers...err get clicks. They also don’t evolve the narrative. Fedex isn’t just challenging the facts. They are challenging the underlying premise that corporations are a net negative on society. I think it would be fascinating to see an actual debate by folks that aren’t politicians, but are willing to put their public reputation on the line.

The Times newsroom doesn't posit premises (and certainly not the one you suggest) or debate tax policy, it reports facts. I find the ignorance on the basics of journalism and its role in American society on hacker news to be shocking and embarrassing.

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

#99

Post by malvosenior »

mceachen wrote: post #94
malvosenior wrote: post #78

I'm much, much more concerned about The New York Times deceptively pushing a political agenda during an election year than I am about FedEx legally paying as few taxes as possible. We all do that every tax season! It seems like the real story is how the NYT is actively campaigning for the DNC and I'm glad FedEx is calling them out.

> "paying as few taxes as possible" Here lies the problem. One's tax burden should not be determined by your cleverness to dodge them, but some inarguable, tangible value. Like a bill. The tax law holes that allow for "creative" corporate financial "solutions" (like moving HQ to Ireland) and their ilk should be patched with dramatically simpler tax law. The government should simply bill people and corporations for th…

I think it would be great if the tax was straightforward and simple and what it was going to be spent on was also clearly defined as part of the "bill". As it stands today, neither side of that equation is in any way simple or transparent.

That being said, it's a non-story that people will use all the laws available to them to lower their taxes. They are after all the actual tax law and not "holes", as tempting as it is to label them that.

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

#100

Post by learc83 »

lstroud wrote: post #81
gregwtmtno wrote: post #21

So this response says the story is factually incorrect, but doesn't dispute a single fact. If the story is inaccurate, FedEx should describe what was wrong, in detail, and ask for a correction. That they didn't do that makes me wonder.

Corrections don’t sell papers...err get clicks. They also don’t evolve the narrative. Fedex isn’t just challenging the facts. They are challenging the underlying premise that corporations are a net negative on society. I think it would be fascinating to see an actual debate by folks that aren’t politicians, but are willing to put their public reputation on the line.

>Fedex isn’t just challenging the facts.

But they are also challenging the facts, and then refusing to state what facts are incorrect.

Post reply on HN