4 ms·

Too bad it's impossible to read because of multiple overlays. I guess I'll take FedEx's word for it.

Miner49er 7y ago
FedEx didn't even dispute any of the article. They're just doing some whataboutism. Edit: Can someone downvoting point out where I'm wrong? They say the NYTimes distorted the truth, but give no indication of how.
- remarkEon 7y ago
  The "whataboutism" is the crux of the issue though. Everyone does their best to minimize their tax burden every year - this is completely rational behavior. I don't know what point the NYT was trying to make, other than maybe showing that FedEx has some good accountants. The debate that we should be having, and the one that FedEx is perhaps crudely trying to edge us toward, is whether these tax policies actually "help". They are going to say it does, and that they invest that money in the broader economy. The NYT would probably say something similar with regard to the value of journalism.
  - Miner49er 7y ago
    Did you read the NYTimes article? The article is more about how FedEx didn't re-invest the money saved on taxes like they claimed they would. Instead they put used it for stock buybacks and dividends. The NYTimes article was about the very thing you said it should be about.
    - bryan_w 7y ago
      I mean... they did literally reinvest it in themselves by doing stock buybacks. If that is a good thing is up for debate.
- wang_li 7y ago
  Whataboutism is justifying one party's actions by pointing at another party and saying "they do it too." This isn't that. Fedex is saying that they do a lot more for the national economy that the NYT. They pay more in taxes, they invest more in assets, etc.
  - adamrezich 7y ago
    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.
    - isoskeles 7y ago
      If you look through the comments, it's because some people would like to transfer wealth from the top 10% of earners to the bottom 90%, or maybe even the top 50% to the bottom 50%, and the NYT is a useful tool in educating people about why that is a moral act, e.g. FedEx is bad and didn't pay their fair share, and also some people earn more than others, therefore... Proof: your downvotes.
    - CamperBob2 7y ago
      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 paying zero tax. [1]: http://www.catholic365.com/article/1992/faith-of-our-fathers-the-power-to-tax-is-the-power-to-destroy.html http://www.catholic365.com/article/1992/faith-of-our-fathers...
      - adamrezich 7y ago
        I'd be fine with that as long as we get to start referring to "journalists" as priests or clergymen or whatever, at least then things would be a bit more honest.
dsfyu404ed 7y ago
Reader mode in Firefox gets around it.
blhack 7y ago
Disable javascript and your time on the internet will improve substantially.
- mepiethree 7y ago
  As someone who writes JavaScript for a living, :(
  - Grimm665 7y ago
    Good Javascript is like that quote in Futurama: "When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all."

FedEx didn't even dispute any of the article. They're just doing some whataboutism. Edit: Can someone downvoting point out where I'm wrong? They say the NYTimes distorted the truth, but give no indication of how.

remarkEon 7y ago
The "whataboutism" is the crux of the issue though. Everyone does their best to minimize their tax burden every year - this is completely rational behavior. I don't know what point the NYT was trying to make, other than maybe showing that FedEx has some good accountants. The debate that we should be having, and the one that FedEx is perhaps crudely trying to edge us toward, is whether these tax policies actually "help". They are going to say it does, and that they invest that money in the broader economy. The NYT would probably say something similar with regard to the value of journalism.
- Miner49er 7y ago
  Did you read the NYTimes article? The article is more about how FedEx didn't re-invest the money saved on taxes like they claimed they would. Instead they put used it for stock buybacks and dividends. The NYTimes article was about the very thing you said it should be about.
  - bryan_w 7y ago
    I mean... they did literally reinvest it in themselves by doing stock buybacks. If that is a good thing is up for debate.
wang_li 7y ago
Whataboutism is justifying one party's actions by pointing at another party and saying "they do it too." This isn't that. Fedex is saying that they do a lot more for the national economy that the NYT. They pay more in taxes, they invest more in assets, etc.
- adamrezich 7y ago
  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.
  - isoskeles 7y ago
    If you look through the comments, it's because some people would like to transfer wealth from the top 10% of earners to the bottom 90%, or maybe even the top 50% to the bottom 50%, and the NYT is a useful tool in educating people about why that is a moral act, e.g. FedEx is bad and didn't pay their fair share, and also some people earn more than others, therefore... Proof: your downvotes.
  - CamperBob2 7y ago
    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 paying zero tax. [1]: http://www.catholic365.com/article/1992/faith-of-our-fathers-the-power-to-tax-is-the-power-to-destroy.html http://www.catholic365.com/article/1992/faith-of-our-fathers...
    - adamrezich 7y ago
      I'd be fine with that as long as we get to start referring to "journalists" as priests or clergymen or whatever, at least then things would be a bit more honest.

dsfyu404ed 7y ago

Reader mode in Firefox gets around it.

blhack 7y ago

Disable javascript and your time on the internet will improve substantially.

mepiethree 7y ago
As someone who writes JavaScript for a living, :(
- Grimm665 7y ago
  Good Javascript is like that quote in Futurama: "When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all."