4 ms·

I dunno. A person like me might think it since we live in a society, we should share the burden of keeping it going. So 'following tax law' effectively designed

• Consultant32452 7y ago
  I took advantage of the homestead exemption the last time I filed income tax. Is that news?
  • A4ET8a8uTh0 7y ago
    Did you spend time brib..lobbying local councilmen to give you that exemption? Edit: more to the point, what makes you identify as Fedex?
    • Consultant32452 7y ago
      I don't identify as FedEx. I identify as a taxpayer who follows the law. You already admitted the law is intentionally written this way, so that they can pay less taxes. This isn't different from how the law was intentionally written so I can pay less taxes via the homestead exemption. There's no scandal here. If NYT wants a law changed, they should acknowledge they are a tax advocacy group and not a news organization, and put forth arguments for changing the law. But what they're doing here is pushing a particular agenda under the guise of journalism. Real journalism doesn't have an agenda. Good journalism aims to minimize bias.
      • A4ET8a8uTh0 7y ago
        I may be reading it wrong, but you seem to misrepresent my argument. Here is what I am saying. You are not Fedex. You are not even in the same category. It is not apples and oranges. It is apples and dwarf planets. Ergo, any attempt to compare your treatment is.. just not comparable. They are literally big enough to write laws that benefit them. That is news. Here is what you appear to be saying. We are both tax payers so it is apples and apples comparison. I mean, I use my standard deduction and NYT does not write about me... Please tell me if I read it wrong. edit. spelling correction
        • Consultant32452 7y ago
          What is the same between FedEx and me is the lack of scandal. There is no scandal/news in a corporation following the tax law, just as there is no scandal/news in me following the tax law. I want to be clear that my intention is not to debate tax law. I think that's irrelevant. If the NYT wants the law to change in some way, I think that's fantastic. I welcome them to register as a PAC, subject themselves to the relevant regulations, give up their press passes, and fight for changes to the law. I think they'd be great at it, and I think they have a lot to offer the world in that arena.
          • A4ET8a8uTh0 7y ago
            Yes? But I did not classify it as scandal, but as news, or as as something of interest to the general populace. In the same vein, I did not discuss journalism as a whole. I only said that it is news. You seem to want to move discussion in a completely different direction.
            • Consultant32452 7y ago
              I don't believe that NYT is trying to inform you about some obscure tax bill because it's interesting. It's no more interesting than my tax bill, or any other random corporation that happened to have a non-zero tax bill some year. The only reason it's interesting to you is because you have a particular political interest in this. That's perfectly legitimate for you to have that political interest. If they were just trying to inform you, they could inform you in a way that doesn't have any emotional framing. You could find it easily in their stock report or something. I believe NYT is trying to induce an emotional reaction in you for purely political reasons in order to influence the population towards a particular end goal. That is why they are acting like a PAC and not a newspaper.
              • A4ET8a8uTh0 7y ago
                That is an odd argument to make. By your definition, news is not news unless it is not of interest to me?