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

171–180 of 321 posts

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

#171

Post by philwelch »

networkimprov wrote: post #149
philwelch wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The writing of a journalist employed by the NYT, edited by an editor employed by the NYT, for publication in a newspaper sold by the NYT for profit is every bit as much a commercial activity as FedEx delivering packages. In this case the NYT has a target market that is reflexively skeptical of businesses and commercial activity so it is useful for them to obscure what they are doing. The fact remains that the NYT is…

>the NYT is a business primarily focused on seeking profit, no different from FedEx That is incorrect, albeit precisely what FedEx (and many other subjects of investigative journalism) would like us to believe. When "all news is fake news" becomes widespread public perception, that public is doomed to authoritarian rule, most likely by leaders backed by the business elite.

The NYT is a public corporation. About 1/6 of it is owned by Carlos Slim, a billionaire member of the “business elite”.

Does the NYT deliver higher quality reporting than Alex Jones? Yes, of course they do, but they are neither perfect nor omniscient nor unbiased nor purely virtuous in their motivations.

Let’s turn this around, shall we? When the public implicitly trusts media corporations that are operated for profit and owned by billionaires, they are doomed to authoritarian rule, most likely by leaders backed by the business elite that owns and operates these media corporations in the first place.

Implicit trust of any institution is a shortcut to authoritarian rule. And every authoritarian justifies themselves by accusing others of being a greater threat. The only proper attitude for a free people is to distrust and resist any institution that holds or seeks power, and that includes the mainstream press.

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

#172

Post by aguyfromnb »

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…

>I'm curious if anyone in the pro-Fedex crowd can provide evidence to the contrary

I'm not sure I'm "pro-Fedex", but:

"stock buybacks, which boost a company’s stock price and market value"

Stock buybacks do not increase the company's market value. Cash goes out, stock comes in. Balance sheet is the same.

My second point would be: is 2 years long enough to determine the effects of the tax cut? Companies the size of Fedex can't make massive changes to budgets overnight.

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

#173

Post by mlyle »

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…

> One of the ways they saved a lot of money was investing a lot into assets for which they could deduct 100% of future depreciation immediately.

Yup, which also means subsequent year taxes will be higher, because the assets are fully tax depreciated.

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

#174

Post by drak0n1c »

ryanmercer wrote: post #126
jmull wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 an…

>The times article is about how the tax cuts did not result in the capital investments promised, by FexEx and others. Drive by IND on 70, you can see the capital investment that was one of the promises of this. Hub expansion via construction (similar construction at MEM). The construction at IND is so large you can actually see it from the other side of the airport, I know because I see it every weekday when I pull i…

Thank you for providing evidence. That's certainly a much larger capital investment than the NYT has ever made. Why is this downvoted when the parent comment asked for proof?

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

#175

Post by frockington1 »

annoyingnoob wrote: post #165
frockington1 wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Should I then get to skip paying taxes for one or more years? - Yes and you do. You get a tax credit on interest paid and many new build come with tax abatement to encourage investment opportunities

My tax bill tells me otherwise. The interest on my home loan does not and cannot erase my taxes. That deduction is not what you think it is: https://www.fool.com/millionacres/taxes/real-estate-tax-dedu... My home happens to include Mello-Roos taxes for local improvements, like schools and a fire station. This more than doubles the property tax that I pay. Sorry to tell you, I don't have it anything like FedEx. I paid…

Taxes suck, no denying it. Thankfully where I live its relatively easy to find nice properties with long tax abatement for investment. Beyond that max your 401k, IRA, HSA and live or "live" somewhere with low taxes

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

#177

Post by Consultant32452 »

bb88 wrote: post #150
Consultant32452 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is it isn't journalism, it's activism. People say corporate media is biased, but I think that falls short. It's not simply biased, it has an agenda. "Company follows tax laws" is not news. Whatever any individual company pays in taxes is not news unless there's criminal fraud of some sort. So it's completely fair to call them out in this way.

The original pamphleteers were largely activists. Thomas Paine et. al. People argue they were the prelude to journalists. There's different kinds of bias/activism. 1. Publishing an opinion with facts (blog post/activism) 2. Publishing only the facts that support your political opinion without your political opinion. 3. Publishing all the facts but only while investigating the people you disagree with (not the people…

Bias is largely unintentional. Your world view impacts how you interpret things and therefore which stories you find interesting or worth discussing. An agenda is different. An agenda is a conscious attempt to lead others to a particular end goal of your choosing. Perhaps you don't think that distinction is important, but I do. News will always be biased, but quality news does not have an agenda.

Here's a snippet of the public apology the NYT published after the 2016 election. Maybe with honesty, or without fear or favor means something different to you than it means to me.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/13/us/elections/to-our-reade...

>As we reflect on the momentous result, and the months of reporting and polling that preceded it, we aim to rededicate ourselves to the fundamental mission of Times journalism. That is to report America and the world honestly, without fear or favor, striving always to understand and reflect all political perspectives and life experiences in the stories that we bring to you. It is also to hold power to account, impartially and unflinchingly. You can rely on The New York Times to bring the same fairness, the same level of scrutiny, the same independence to our coverage of the new president and his team.

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

#178

Post by malvosenior »

jszymborski wrote: post #132

Streissand-Effect much? I hadn't heard about this story at all, and all a public debate would do hear is make the story even higher profile.

I don't know, I have a much more favorable view of FedEx because of this. It's good marketing to push back on bad journalism in 2019 (for a lot of people).

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

#179

Post by mlyle »

annoyingnoob wrote: post #165
frockington1 wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Should I then get to skip paying taxes for one or more years? - Yes and you do. You get a tax credit on interest paid and many new build come with tax abatement to encourage investment opportunities

My tax bill tells me otherwise. The interest on my home loan does not and cannot erase my taxes. That deduction is not what you think it is: https://www.fool.com/millionacres/taxes/real-estate-tax-dedu... My home happens to include Mello-Roos taxes for local improvements, like schools and a fire station. This more than doubles the property tax that I pay. Sorry to tell you, I don't have it anything like FedEx. I paid…

You're blurring the lines and talking about various taxes, etc.

Pretty sure FedEx pays property taxes-- not just real property taxes on property they own and lease, but also tangible property taxes on assets like planes and trucks.

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

#180

Post by roland35 »

philwelch wrote: post #134
CPLX wrote: post #25

This is stupid. The NY Times, as a business, wasn't a subject of the article. It's not a competition between a media company and a shipping company. It's a piece of journalism. Either that journalism is accurate or it isn't. If it's wrong they should issue a correction, or review how it could be misleading or slanted and offer an alternate perspective. If it's correct they should stand by it. In no event does the wri…

The writing of a journalist employed by the NYT, edited by an editor employed by the NYT, for publication in a newspaper sold by the NYT for profit is every bit as much a commercial activity as FedEx delivering packages. In this case the NYT has a target market that is reflexively skeptical of businesses and commercial activity so it is useful for them to obscure what they are doing. The fact remains that the NYT is…

I don't think the fact that NYT seeks a profit necessarily means that they don't maintain a level of journalistic integrity though. Obviously how much we trust NYT (or any other media outlet) is a personal value judgement, but I would be wary of conflating profit with motives (in this case promoting click-bate journalism which is misleading).
Post reply on HN