FedEx responds to The New York Times article from Nov. 17, 2019 • Hacker News Board

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

#201

Post by annoyingnoob » Mon, Nov 18, 2019, 7:01 PM UTC

mlyle wrote: post #179

annoyingnoob wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I paid over 26% of my income in taxes on my form 1040. No blurred lines, this includes whatever mortgage tax deduction that I may or may not have received.

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

#202

Post by cascom » Mon, Nov 18, 2019, 7:02 PM UTC

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…

We all know that one can make statements that while factually correct, can be misleading, distorting, or unsound in some other way. (e.g. The statement "the divorce rate is highly correlated to the per capita consumption of margarine" is factually true [1] - but left on its own might leave people with the impression one has to do with the other)

[1] http://tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations

The same is true here - leaving out the context that FedEx has spent ~$50b on capex in the past 10 years and recognized $8.2b of income tax expense in the same 10 year period (which is not all US fedral, and might not have been the amount remitted over that period) changes the tone of the story. Additionally, really all that is happening is that tax collections go down a bunch in one year and up for the following six years, the only gain is on time value of money)

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

#203

Post by kirsebaer » Mon, Nov 18, 2019, 7:04 PM UTC

rdiddly wrote: post #104

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…

Do we need to be present in person to exchange ideas? Start the "debate" any time you want, Freddie, just by including any facts or substance whatsoever in your statement! Clearly more of a tantrum. Totally reminds me of "Meet me after school for a fight!"

Yes, the FedEx statement was so childish.

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

#204

Post by mthoms » Mon, Nov 18, 2019, 7:05 PM UTC

Consultant32452 wrote: post #193

Frondo wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thrust of the NY Times piece was made clear in the first paragraph: FedEx isn't just following tax law, it's influencing it with a great deal of lobbying cash. It isn't a neutral player, but trying to rewrite the rules in its favor.

Okay. FedEx is subject to a law. They also have an opinion and try to influence the law they are subject to. Is there a significant percentage of the population that would assume otherwise? I'm still failing to see where this is "news" as opposed to "agenda."

>I'm still failing to see where this is "news"

FedEx made specific arguments in favor of the cut to shore up support. Those talking points turned out (surprise!) to be untrue. Taxpayers of the United States have subsequently lost out to the tune of several hundreds of millions of dollars.

What part of that is not news-worthy?

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

#205

Post by reaperducer » Mon, Nov 18, 2019, 7:06 PM UTC

crispyambulance wrote: post #188

Reedx wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Run this experiment: 1) Subscribe to NYT 2) Notice they are still serving you ads 3) Try to cancel your subscription

I'll save people the effort: They create an "obstacle" to cancelling your subscription. The "obstacle" is you have to make phone call and talk to one of their agents who will try to keep you as a subscriber by offering a discount on the subscription. It's a good way to extend your introductory payment plan (or close to it). You can still cancel, of course, just be firm and say so. Not a big deal.

You can still cancel, of course, just be firm and say so. Not a big deal.

You don't even need to be firm or argue. I've had to cancel my NYT subscription several times over the years. Sometimes I moved to a place where delivery wasn't available. Others because I was between jobs. The people on the phone are very polite and professional. They will offer you discounts, but they won't ever give you a hard sell. At least in my experience.

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

#206

Post by undersuit » Mon, Nov 18, 2019, 7:07 PM UTC

zepto wrote: post #161

networkimprov wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

How is incorrect that the NYT is a business primarily focused on seeking profit?

There are many more media companies, employing far worse in the standards of journalism, making more money. Even if you can make an argument that their standards have slipped they still aren't Buzzfeed.

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

#207

Post by hef19898 » Mon, Nov 18, 2019, 7:07 PM UTC

aguyfromnb wrote: post #172

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 F…

Market value of public companies is not determined by the balance sheet but by the stock price multiplied by the number of share. Buybacks reduce the number of shares and by increasing demand increase the price per share.

In the first step, the market value is a constant, taking out the number of shares thus increases directly the share price. Which are than further increased by increased demand and increasing the market value as now the number of shares is constant.

So yes, buy backs directly increase the market value. Why else would companies do them? They also have the nice side effect of increasing the value of execs' stock options, again a nice motivation for a CEO to do a buyback.

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

#208

Post by reaperducer » Mon, Nov 18, 2019, 7:08 PM UTC

Dan_JiuJitsu wrote: post #155

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 NYT is a business supported by employing authors to write articles and sell advertisements to people who want to read those articles. To claim that NYT as a business has nothing at all to do with it's product, that it payed to create, curate and publish is clearly nonsense.

It's not clearly nonsense if you ever worked in journalism.

That's like all those conspiracy theories about anti-virus companies putting out viruses to boost sales.

/Worked in journalism.

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

#209

Post by sigmar » Mon, Nov 18, 2019, 7:08 PM UTC

dominotw wrote: post #158

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Fedex is just following fed tax policy that it doesn't control. Perhaps not individually, but a thrust of the article is that these large corporations pay huge amounts to lobbyists to bend tax policy in their favor.

wondering why they singled out some companies though? > ese large corporations pay huge amounts to lobbyists to bend tax policy in their favor. Do we have a way to know if fedex did this?

>Do we have a way to know if fedex did this?

This is answered in the first paragraph of the nytimes article: "In the 2017 fiscal year, FedEx owed more than $1.5 billion in taxes. The next year, it owed nothing. What changed was the Trump administration’s tax cut — for which the company had lobbied hard."

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

#210

Post by kirsebaer » Mon, Nov 18, 2019, 7:08 PM UTC

Consultant32452 wrote: post #193

Frondo wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thrust of the NY Times piece was made clear in the first paragraph: FedEx isn't just following tax law, it's influencing it with a great deal of lobbying cash. It isn't a neutral player, but trying to rewrite the rules in its favor.

Okay. FedEx is subject to a law. They also have an opinion and try to influence the law they are subject to. Is there a significant percentage of the population that would assume otherwise? I'm still failing to see where this is "news" as opposed to "agenda."

It is important that people are informed about major US corporations.