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

261–270 of 321 posts

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

#261

Post by evgen »

nybble41 wrote: post #163
js2 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Corporate taxes are just reflected to consumers as higher prices or to workers as lower wages. The United States has had a corporate income tax since 1909, but in all the years since there is a major question about it that economists haven’t been able to answer satisfactorily: who pays it? [...] Probably most people assume that the corporate income tax is largely paid by consumers of its products or services. That…

Who are the consumers? We are. Who are the workers? We are. Who are the shareholders? We are. No matter which role you allocate the cost of the tax to, in the end it's us who are paying the bill. Even if you're one of those rare individuals without investments of your own, you still benefit from them. Punishing the shareholders who provide the capital to produce goods more efficiently isn't going to make the goods yo…

Who reaps the benefits of government investment into public infrastructure and the common good that these taxes make possible? We do.

In fact, since there are many consumers of US products (and shareholders in US companies) who are not resident or citizens of the US then it seems we win more if we raise those corporate taxes. If the shareholder's don't like this deal I suggest they sell.

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

#262

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

megiddo wrote: post #230
panarky wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The FedEx statement seems like a classic example of corporate deception. It seems very carefully worded, probably by a team of attorneys, to be technically true but grossly misleading. The tell is that FedEx calls the NYT article "factually incorrect" but never states exactly what assertions they dispute. It's as if they want the reader and the media to infer that FedEx actually did pay taxes on billions in profit, o…

Adjusting depreciation schedules are very typical tax strategies for businesses. Hell, I've done this for a one-man shop making less than $100k in a year. Depreciation strategies are an important part of cash-flow management for capital-intensive industries. Otherwise, it's almost impossible to start a factory or other large industrial firm. Cash flow is marginal compared to capital, but the tax rate is proportional…

Does it have no tax benefit assuming constant profits, or no tax benefit no matter what? Can you extract a net benefit by just accelerating some depreciation whenever you have a particularly profitable year?

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

#263

Post by clairity »

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.

as much as i appreciate their reporting, i won't (re-)subscribe to nytimes because of this dark pattern. let me cancel the same easy way i subscribed, online, or i won't ever subscribe again.

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

#264

Post by aantix »

megiddo wrote: post #230
panarky wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The FedEx statement seems like a classic example of corporate deception. It seems very carefully worded, probably by a team of attorneys, to be technically true but grossly misleading. The tell is that FedEx calls the NYT article "factually incorrect" but never states exactly what assertions they dispute. It's as if they want the reader and the media to infer that FedEx actually did pay taxes on billions in profit, o…

Adjusting depreciation schedules are very typical tax strategies for businesses. Hell, I've done this for a one-man shop making less than $100k in a year. Depreciation strategies are an important part of cash-flow management for capital-intensive industries. Otherwise, it's almost impossible to start a factory or other large industrial firm. Cash flow is marginal compared to capital, but the tax rate is proportional…

Thank you for pointing out the details.

It’s quite clear that some people’s model of taxes comes from doing Turbo Tax, year after year. Even Bernie Sanders does his own taxes. A man that wants to set the tax agenda on multinational corporations.

Just because a company pays zero taxes doesn’t mean that there was any thing fraudulent going on. If there’s zero taxes there’s probably incentives, depreciating assets as you described, losses carried forward, the corporate tax cut, employee stock compensation.

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

#265

Post by SanchoPanda »

eigenvalue wrote: post #246
SanchoPanda wrote: post #184

From their annual filings, these are broad numbers, and adjustments should be made, but it helps with context. | Period Ending: | 5/31/2019 | 5/31/2018 | 5/31/2017 | 5/31/2016 | 5/31/2015 | 5/31/2014 | 5/31/2013 | 5/31/2012 | 5/31/2011 | 5/31/2010 | 5/31/2009 | 5/31/2008 | 5/31/2007 | 5/31/2006 | 5/31/2005 | 5/31/2004 | 5/31/2003 | 5/31/2002 | 5/31/2001 | 5/31/2000 | 5/31/1999 | 5/31/1998 | | Income Tax | 115,000 | (…

That's their GAAP taxes. If you instead look at cash taxes paid it's significantly lower on average: Period Cash Taxes Paid ($mm) May-31-2010 43 May-31-2011 387 May-31-2012 257 May-31-2013 468 May-31-2014 766 May-31-2015 1113 May-31-2016 991 May-31-2017 377 May-31-2018 189 May-31-2019 371 Aug-31-2019 324

Both are important to look at for sure. But accrual is a fairer picture wihtout a lot of notes imho when using such a broad brush. Thank you for adding it though. I should have included it probably.

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

#266

Post by RC_ITR »

cascom wrote: post #212
ceejayoz wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is not a claim that was made. From the NYT article: > As for capital investments, the company spent less in the 2018 fiscal year than it had projected in December 2017, before the tax law passed. It spent even less in 2019. Much of its savings have gone to reward shareholders: FedEx spent more than $2 billion on stock buybacks and dividend increases in the 2019 fiscal year, up from $1.6 billion in 2018, and more…

FedEx CapEx in $B '09-'18 $2.6,$3.4,$3.6,$3.6,$3.3,$3.8,$5.0,$5.0,$5.1,$5.6 Do you think the article fairly reflects the trends in the company's capital expenditures?

You're missing the giant acquisition they made between the $3B & that $5B... https://about.van.fedex.com/newsroom/fedex-acquires-tnt-expr...

Take that out & how does it look?

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

#268

Post by ryanmercer »

jmull wrote: post #238
ryanmercer wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

You aren't really addressing the claims in the times story though. They didn't say FedEx had zero capital investment. They said there wasn't the promised increase. From the article: > ...As for capital investments, the company spent less in the 2018 fiscal year than it had projected in December 2017, before the tax law passed. It spent even less in 2019. So maybe you can argue that the times numbers are bad with some…

>You aren't really addressing the claims in the times story though

I'm also not FedEx and am replying to a specific comment, that I quoted, in this thread and not the article. The construction is active, it has been active for over a year now.

The IndyStar article also links to another article, with yet more construction, going on just south of Indianapolis at 259 million dollars.

The comment I replied to stated

>did not result in the capital investments promised

I linked to one example, and referenced a second, of them actively carrying out those capital investments.

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

#269

Post by wang_li »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #111
adamrezich wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is this even up for debate? Why would anyone think that the NYT is more useful to the economy than FedEx? Why do people continue to put ""journalism"" on such a high pedestal? Like, what actual value did the NYT article produce? At worst it could have potentially negatively affected the FedEx stock price and overall popular perception, for no good reason other than to generate clicks/ad views.

Why would anyone think that the NYT is more useful to the economy than FedEx? Here's one point of view that doesn't come up as often as it should: the First Amendment doesn't say anything about churches that it doesn't also say about the press. Yet we don't tax churches on the grounds that "the power to tax is the power to destroy." [1] If it weren't for this double standard, the Times would indeed be justified in pa…

> the First Amendment doesn't say anything about churches that it doesn't also say about the press.

It assuredly does say different things:

>Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

If a newspaper didn't want to pay taxes they can form themselves as a non profit as churches largely do. It's been done before, e.g. ProPublica, Institute for Non-profit News, Crosscut, The Texas Tribune, and many more.

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

#270

Post by gwright »

throw_m239339 wrote: post #248
gwright wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's an interesting example of the recent shift in public discourse from being focused on truth to being focused on power. I'd go farther and say that it is disheartening. It also seems to be completely aligned with the post-modernist way of evaluating/describing the world.

> I'd go farther and say that it is disheartening. It also seems to be completely aligned with the post-modernist way of evaluating/describing the world. Nothing to do with post modernism, it's a version of Marxism that is compatible with capitalism. Post modernists can't be ideologues by definition. Intersectionality is very much an ideology. People who believe that don't ask question, they do finger pointing and pu…

Labels and definitions are hard to agree on but whatever you call it, the stew of identity-politics, marxism, socialism, post-modernism, intersectionality, and so on that seems to be taking hold on the progressive-left is pretty toxic, IMHO.
Post reply on HN