> In the 2017 fiscal year, FedEx owed more than $1.5 billion in taxes. The next year, it owed nothing.
> Its financial filings show it owed no taxes in the 2018 fiscal year overall. Company officials said FedEx paid $2 billion in total federal income taxes over the past 10 years.
So in the last 10 years FedEx paid $2B in taxes, of which $1.5B was paid in 2017. That seems really weird. Does anyone know enough about their financials to explain how this happened?
This statement is a farce. They claim the story is factually incorrect, but provide no corrections. They point out the NYT does the same thing, but that does not contradict anything in the NYT article, and has no bearing on what they did. Finally, they yell "debate me!" but rather than proposing a debate on the facts in dispute, instead want to debate federal tax policy which neither controls.
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 writing of a journalist, edited by an editor, have anything to do with the NY Times company as a business institution.
To claim otherwise is to buy into a frame that makes literally no sense here. I see why Fedex is doing it, it's apparently effective, even with the analytically sophisticated HN crowd. But this response is nonsense, it's almost a complete non-sequitur.
If I were the writer or editor of the story I'd tell Fedex to get bent. And if I were the publisher I'd patiently explain, yet again, the concept of independent journalism.
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, or that FedEx actually did increase their investments as the phony rationale for the tax cut promised.
But since FedEx never actually says any of that, and instead just tries to infer it through clever wording, I'm going to trust NYT over this corporate snow job.
When FedEx twists the argument to accuse the NYT of also not increasing their capital investments, the whole thing reeks of Facebook's disinfo campaign to "deny and deflect" fundamentally factual reporting.
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 a business primarily focused on seeking profit, no different from FedEx. Right now they are in the business of throwing stones at other businesses; it’s perfectly appropriate to respond to that by pointing out that the NYT lives in a glass house.
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!"
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.
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)
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)
> 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.
Why should a response or dialogue have to be in print? And why should a company's defense be limited to asynchronous communication? Debate is an accepted and effective dispute resolution framework, especially in areas where truth or fairness may be nuanced and is far from black and white. (Tax policy is a perfect example that is both nebulous and politically charged.)
As arbiters and outers of wrongdoing, journalists play a critical role in speaking truth to power and holding parties to account. This does not absolve them from publicly defending their positions, or being challenged on them, however. FedEx is well within their rights in responding in whatever manner they see fit, same as NYT can agree or reject the challenge.
Debate certainly ups the ante for all involved and is an interesting escalation tactic in the current media landscape.
It's naive to think the NY Times as an entity is not ultimately responsible for all writing its journalists do. Management hires journalists whose agenda and ideals match their own. Management sets the editorial vision both explicitly and implicitly. This is how all media organizations work.
It's completely legitimate to hold NY Times management accountable here.
It's an interesting example of the recent shift in public discourse from being focused on truth to being focused on power.
All speech has both subjective emotive content ("power") and objective factual content ("truth"), and the interplay between them is part of what makes speech effective. In times of hegemony, though, the "power" content of speech is downplayed. Power relations within society are taken for granted, and it's pointless to challenge them, because the best case is that your words will be discounted as crazy and the worst case is that that power will be exercised against you, potentially with life-ending consequences. Think about speaking out against a totalitarian government, or being a communist during the McCarthy era.
In times of multipolarity, the "truth" aspect of speech is downplayed, and discourse is all about power. Think of nationalism in the 1870s, or yellow journalism in the early 1900s (right as British hegemony was collapsing into the multipolar world that led up to WW1). Papers would publish plenty of stories that simply weren't true, but the point wasn't truth: it was to boost their circulation numbers and amass more power and influence in a world that was rapidly collapsing into a system of warring powers.
Trump, SJWs, white nationalists, MRAs, cryptocurrency advocates, anti-vaxxers, Russian cyber-trolls, and Democratic Socialists are all other instances of this phenomena: they are small splinter groups vying for mindshare because they see that the existing power structure is collapsing and will leave behind a vacuum, and they all distort the "truth" (which was always distorted before by power relations, but not to this extent) in a bid to gain more followers. Some corporations are catching on, and this FedEx statement is an example of this: note that they posted it as an open letter, on their own company blog, rather than as a press release. They don't care whether the NYTimes actually accepts their debate or not, they want to make the public statement to undermine the legitimacy of the NYTimes as a source of truth itself.
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.
> 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 authorities owed them money.
> From the first quarter of 2018, when the law fully took effect, companies have spent nearly three times as much on additional dividends and stock buybacks, which boost a company’s stock price and market value, than on increased investment.
This is concrete, relevant data (unlike the argument made by the FedEx CEO, as others have already mentioned). I'm curious if anyone in the pro-Fedex crowd can provide evidence to the contrary.
The increasing share of wealth that is moving from the bottom 90% into the hands of the top 1% in the US is a real concern to me. And I suspect a big part of that has to do with the recent trend of stock buybacks and dividend increases, which benefits shareholders and not workers. How many people in the bottom 50% (or even 90%) actually own a significant amount of stock, do you think?
The first source I found on this topic states: [1]
In 2016, American households headed by someone aged 32-61 averaged $120,809.40 in retirement savings, or $264,453.30 using an expansive calculation. Using the same calculations and definitions, American households have a median of $7,800 and $17,000 saved, respectively.
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 that was due to temporary behavior changes FedEx made in response to the bill - not a permanent reduction in how much they will owe each year. 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. This is a temporary part of tax reform. They would have been able to deduct that value eventually anyway, just over a long period of time.
So this response says the story is factually incorrect, but doesn't dispute a single fact. If the story is inaccurate, FedEx should describe what was wrong, in detail, and ask for a correction.
I love this idea – of an actual, genuine debate on this topic where an actual corporate executive can make some points (I know they will be Tim-Cook-like spin but debate is better than asynchronous speeches where people talk at each other)
Update: I realized I didn't write the second half of my sentence... which makes me sound like a corporate shill.
The second half is... AND someone on the other side can immediately call bullshit on their spin, but we can have a proper debate on the inadequacy of current Federal tax policy.
Eh, real-time live debates are terrible formats for this because they encourage and reward Gish Gallops. This is why scientists stopped debating creationists, because they discovered through repeated trials that it just rewards people who have less shame and are always willing to spout more lies. In theory, the other guy can call BS, but generally it takes a little bit of time, even with Google, to figure out where the lie is, and then even longer to explain it, by which point the liar simply moves on to another one.
In my opinion, debates are all about spin. They're too short to allow proper analysis of the responses, and mostly concern the personalities of the people.
Two examples: T.H. Huxley and Samuel Wilberforce, and a round-table I once attended with Dijkstra and Larry Loucks of IBM, along with a couple of other professors who were completely outclassed by those two. EWD was slow and very precise, it was clear that he was thinking deeply about the topics, but he didn't actually say much in the time alloted; Larry was fast, facile, and rather shallow, he was of the IBM style (he who talks loudest is in charge).
Well only if an explanation about how these companies arrive at these low tax payments. It is one thing to say "You did it too" but the public cannot be properly served unless we have a factual discussion of why their tax payments are this low and the benefits to both the company and public at large are shown.
eighty thousand plus pages of tax laws aren't meant to be simply to understand nor do the outcomes always make sense. the NYT would better serve the public showing just how abusive the tax law is because it mostly it is a political tool for calling in favors and punishing those who don't play ball besides being a revenue tool.
Stock buybacks serve important purposes that are often overlocked when this topic comes up. One major purpose of stock buybacks is to reduce the company's cost of capital. With debt financing being so cheap right now, we've seen fedex significantly increase it's long term debt.
For fedex, using their cash to buy back stock improves their overall financial picture because even if they need to raise more debt to financing their business, their overall cost of capital actually decreased - because the carrying cost of debt is cheaper then equity!
Lets look at the facts as reported by the NYT:
1. Fedex owed 1.5 Billion in taxes in 2017.
2. They owe 0 in taxes after the bill.
3. 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 than double the amount the company spent on buybacks and dividends in fiscal year 2017.
They are not disputing those numbers at all.
What they want to do is "The focus of the debate should be federal tax policy and the relative societal benefits of business investments and the enormous intended benefits to the United States economy, especially lower and middle class wage earners."
Bet seeing those numbers (2017 Tax bill: $1,500,000,000, 2018 tax bill: $0) must have stung and Fedex is frantically trying to change the topic of conversation.
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 and likewise claimed capital gains investments would increase but then they didn't, that would be relevant.
But based on the this statement, I'm inclined to believe that everything the NYT published was, in fact, true. No where in the statement does it call into question any of the facts, just calling it an "outrageous distortion" of the truth. Which implies it is true, though he certainly takes issue with the characterization of the truth.
So if expected behavior of the NYT is factual reporting, I'd say they're on the money!
There's nothing less genuine than flat out claiming a claim is not factual without providing proof or even pointing out specifics. It's clear Fedex is deflecting here. Nothing more.
It's a bit strange that this statement says "FedEx has paid federal income tax every year, including fiscal year 2018.", while the fact sheet they link to within the statement ( https://about.van.fedex.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/FedEx... ) specifically calls out that their effective income tax rate was negative in 2018 due to TCJA, the year and legislation in dispute:
> The FedEx effective income tax rates for the last five fiscal years (June - May) were 17.6% in 2019,
(5.0%) in 2018 (this rate is an anomaly due to the impact of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act)
This is so absurd that the only response that would make any sense for the Times would be to double down. Sulzberger should challenge Fred Smith to a fistfight live on CNN.
Wow, let's get more debates between various institutions, not sure why we don't have more to begin with.
For instance, why is it that the Democratic and GOP primaries never crossed paths? Shouldn't they have organized some R vs D debates before the final two candidates? Or what about FCC vs net neutrality advocates? Kaepernick vs Police Chief? I can think of lots of interesting pairings that will sadly never happen.
I would be interesting in opening up debates like those you mentioned. The hard part would be attracting the average person and not just people with extreme or conspiracy-theorists views
Is this the Fortune500 version of challenging the person who beat you on Xbox Live to fight IRL?
On a different note, the biggest standout to me from the NYT piece was how the tax cut effected FedEx's outstanding tax liabilities. Doesn't this set up an scenario where the megacorps of our era can just kick their tax bill down the road until they get a favorable WH/Congress they can lobby?
I would love to see this debate. I don’t trust the media, and I don’t really trust corporations, so I’m not sure who to believe here. A public debate would go along way towards bringing transparency an open discussion. Those are not bad things.
So they lay out what the discussion should be about :
The focus of the debate should be federal tax policy and the relative societal benefits of business investments and the enormous intended benefits to the United States economy, especially lower and middle class wage earners.
[+] [-] rahimnathwani|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jobu|6 years ago|reply
> In the 2017 fiscal year, FedEx owed more than $1.5 billion in taxes. The next year, it owed nothing.
> Its financial filings show it owed no taxes in the 2018 fiscal year overall. Company officials said FedEx paid $2 billion in total federal income taxes over the past 10 years.
So in the last 10 years FedEx paid $2B in taxes, of which $1.5B was paid in 2017. That seems really weird. Does anyone know enough about their financials to explain how this happened?
[+] [-] unknown|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] fooqux|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] scott_s|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] CPLX|6 years ago|reply
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 writing of a journalist, edited by an editor, have anything to do with the NY Times company as a business institution.
To claim otherwise is to buy into a frame that makes literally no sense here. I see why Fedex is doing it, it's apparently effective, even with the analytically sophisticated HN crowd. But this response is nonsense, it's almost a complete non-sequitur.
If I were the writer or editor of the story I'd tell Fedex to get bent. And if I were the publisher I'd patiently explain, yet again, the concept of independent journalism.
[+] [-] panarky|6 years ago|reply
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, or that FedEx actually did increase their investments as the phony rationale for the tax cut promised.
But since FedEx never actually says any of that, and instead just tries to infer it through clever wording, I'm going to trust NYT over this corporate snow job.
When FedEx twists the argument to accuse the NYT of also not increasing their capital investments, the whole thing reeks of Facebook's disinfo campaign to "deny and deflect" fundamentally factual reporting.
[+] [-] philwelch|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rdiddly|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lstroud|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Dan_JiuJitsu|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cascom|6 years ago|reply
[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)
[+] [-] Spooky23|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mceoin|6 years ago|reply
Why should a response or dialogue have to be in print? And why should a company's defense be limited to asynchronous communication? Debate is an accepted and effective dispute resolution framework, especially in areas where truth or fairness may be nuanced and is far from black and white. (Tax policy is a perfect example that is both nebulous and politically charged.)
As arbiters and outers of wrongdoing, journalists play a critical role in speaking truth to power and holding parties to account. This does not absolve them from publicly defending their positions, or being challenged on them, however. FedEx is well within their rights in responding in whatever manner they see fit, same as NYT can agree or reject the challenge.
Debate certainly ups the ante for all involved and is an interesting escalation tactic in the current media landscape.
[+] [-] corporate_shi11|6 years ago|reply
It's completely legitimate to hold NY Times management accountable here.
[+] [-] buboard|6 years ago|reply
They called them on a public debate.
[+] [-] nostrademons|6 years ago|reply
All speech has both subjective emotive content ("power") and objective factual content ("truth"), and the interplay between them is part of what makes speech effective. In times of hegemony, though, the "power" content of speech is downplayed. Power relations within society are taken for granted, and it's pointless to challenge them, because the best case is that your words will be discounted as crazy and the worst case is that that power will be exercised against you, potentially with life-ending consequences. Think about speaking out against a totalitarian government, or being a communist during the McCarthy era.
In times of multipolarity, the "truth" aspect of speech is downplayed, and discourse is all about power. Think of nationalism in the 1870s, or yellow journalism in the early 1900s (right as British hegemony was collapsing into the multipolar world that led up to WW1). Papers would publish plenty of stories that simply weren't true, but the point wasn't truth: it was to boost their circulation numbers and amass more power and influence in a world that was rapidly collapsing into a system of warring powers.
Trump, SJWs, white nationalists, MRAs, cryptocurrency advocates, anti-vaxxers, Russian cyber-trolls, and Democratic Socialists are all other instances of this phenomena: they are small splinter groups vying for mindshare because they see that the existing power structure is collapsing and will leave behind a vacuum, and they all distort the "truth" (which was always distorted before by power relations, but not to this extent) in a bid to gain more followers. Some corporations are catching on, and this FedEx statement is an example of this: note that they posted it as an open letter, on their own company blog, rather than as a press release. They don't care whether the NYTimes actually accepts their debate or not, they want to make the public statement to undermine the legitimacy of the NYTimes as a source of truth itself.
[+] [-] unknown|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] unknown|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] avocado4|6 years ago|reply
Do you have a source for this bold statement?
[+] [-] Consultant32452|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sxyuan|6 years ago|reply
> 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 authorities owed them money.
> From the first quarter of 2018, when the law fully took effect, companies have spent nearly three times as much on additional dividends and stock buybacks, which boost a company’s stock price and market value, than on increased investment.
This is concrete, relevant data (unlike the argument made by the FedEx CEO, as others have already mentioned). I'm curious if anyone in the pro-Fedex crowd can provide evidence to the contrary.
The increasing share of wealth that is moving from the bottom 90% into the hands of the top 1% in the US is a real concern to me. And I suspect a big part of that has to do with the recent trend of stock buybacks and dividend increases, which benefits shareholders and not workers. How many people in the bottom 50% (or even 90%) actually own a significant amount of stock, do you think?
The first source I found on this topic states: [1]
In 2016, American households headed by someone aged 32-61 averaged $120,809.40 in retirement savings, or $264,453.30 using an expansive calculation. Using the same calculations and definitions, American households have a median of $7,800 and $17,000 saved, respectively.
[1] https://dqydj.com/retirement-savings-average-median-percenti...
[+] [-] SanchoPanda|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dabernathy89|6 years ago|reply
Yes, tax reform helped FedEx lower their tax bill. But a huge chunk of that was due to temporary behavior changes FedEx made in response to the bill - not a permanent reduction in how much they will owe each year. 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. This is a temporary part of tax reform. They would have been able to deduct that value eventually anyway, just over a long period of time.
[+] [-] gregwtmtno|6 years ago|reply
That they didn't do that makes me wonder.
[+] [-] atonse|6 years ago|reply
Update: I realized I didn't write the second half of my sentence... which makes me sound like a corporate shill.
The second half is... AND someone on the other side can immediately call bullshit on their spin, but we can have a proper debate on the inadequacy of current Federal tax policy.
[+] [-] mandevil|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mcguire|6 years ago|reply
Two examples: T.H. Huxley and Samuel Wilberforce, and a round-table I once attended with Dijkstra and Larry Loucks of IBM, along with a couple of other professors who were completely outclassed by those two. EWD was slow and very precise, it was clear that he was thinking deeply about the topics, but he didn't actually say much in the time alloted; Larry was fast, facile, and rather shallow, he was of the IBM style (he who talks loudest is in charge).
[+] [-] Shivetya|6 years ago|reply
eighty thousand plus pages of tax laws aren't meant to be simply to understand nor do the outcomes always make sense. the NYT would better serve the public showing just how abusive the tax law is because it mostly it is a political tool for calling in favors and punishing those who don't play ball besides being a revenue tool.
[+] [-] wbronitsky|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] crisdux|6 years ago|reply
For fedex, using their cash to buy back stock improves their overall financial picture because even if they need to raise more debt to financing their business, their overall cost of capital actually decreased - because the carrying cost of debt is cheaper then equity!
[+] [-] sarcasmatwork|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] callmeal|6 years ago|reply
They are not disputing those numbers at all.
What they want to do is "The focus of the debate should be federal tax policy and the relative societal benefits of business investments and the enormous intended benefits to the United States economy, especially lower and middle class wage earners."
Bet seeing those numbers (2017 Tax bill: $1,500,000,000, 2018 tax bill: $0) must have stung and Fedex is frantically trying to change the topic of conversation.
[+] [-] jmull|6 years ago|reply
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 and likewise claimed capital gains investments would increase but then they didn't, that would be relevant.
[+] [-] DerpyBaby123|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mc32|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nkrisc|6 years ago|reply
So if expected behavior of the NYT is factual reporting, I'd say they're on the money!
[+] [-] pastor_elm|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mmazing|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 1986|6 years ago|reply
> The FedEx effective income tax rates for the last five fiscal years (June - May) were 17.6% in 2019, (5.0%) in 2018 (this rate is an anomaly due to the impact of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act)
Maybe this is due to state income taxes?
[+] [-] chadlavi|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Itaxpica|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] WhompingWindows|6 years ago|reply
For instance, why is it that the Democratic and GOP primaries never crossed paths? Shouldn't they have organized some R vs D debates before the final two candidates? Or what about FCC vs net neutrality advocates? Kaepernick vs Police Chief? I can think of lots of interesting pairings that will sadly never happen.
[+] [-] frockington1|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jszymborski|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] madenine|6 years ago|reply
On a different note, the biggest standout to me from the NYT piece was how the tax cut effected FedEx's outstanding tax liabilities. Doesn't this set up an scenario where the megacorps of our era can just kick their tax bill down the road until they get a favorable WH/Congress they can lobby?
[+] [-] Simulacra|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bilekas|6 years ago|reply
The focus of the debate should be federal tax policy and the relative societal benefits of business investments and the enormous intended benefits to the United States economy, especially lower and middle class wage earners.
But this above is not what the piece was about..
Now I'm confused..
[+] [-] unknown|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] AzzieElbab|6 years ago|reply