OT: Fedex coming off the top rope

[aTotal360]

https://about.van.fedex.com/newsroo...-smith-chairman-and-ceo-of-fedex-corporation/

The New York Times published a distorted and factually incorrect story on the front page of the Sunday, November 17 edition concerning FedEx and our billions of dollars of tax payments and billions of dollars of investments in the U.S. economy. Pertinent to this outrageous distortion of the truth is the fact that unlike FedEx, the New York Times paid zero federal income tax in 2017 on earnings of $111 million, and only $30 million in 2018 – 18% of their pretax book income. Also in 2018 the New York Times cut their capital investments nearly in half to $57 million, which equates to a rounding error when compared to the $6 billion of capital that FedEx invested in the U.S. economy during that same year.
I hereby challenge A.G. Sulzberger, publisher of the New York Times and the business section editor to a public debate in Washington, DC with me and the FedEx corporate vice president of tax. 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.
I look forward to promptly hearing from Mr. Sulzberger and scheduling this open event to bring further public awareness of the facts related to these important issues.


I was informed by an avid reader of SPS (and huge Steve Perry fan) that the corporate VP of Tax for Fedex is an MSU grad.

 

[Xenomorph]

Jeez.. avoided tax on $111M in earnings. I guess ink is really expensive. And the rounding error comment is a curb stomp. I loled.

 

[Drebin]

https://about.van.fedex.com/newsroo...-smith-chairman-and-ceo-of-fedex-corporation/

The New York Times published a distorted and factually incorrect story on the front page of the Sunday, November 17 edition concerning FedEx and our billions of dollars of tax payments and billions of dollars of investments in the U.S. economy. Pertinent to this outrageous distortion of the truth is the fact that unlike FedEx, the New York Times paid zero federal income tax in 2017 on earnings of $111 million, and only $30 million in 2018 – 18% of their pretax book income. Also in 2018 the New York Times cut their capital investments nearly in half to $57 million, which equates to a rounding error when compared to the $6 billion of capital that FedEx invested in the U.S. economy during that same year.
I hereby challenge A.G. Sulzberger, publisher of the New York Times and the business section editor to a public debate in Washington, DC with me and the FedEx corporate vice president of tax. 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.
I look forward to promptly hearing from Mr. Sulzberger and scheduling this open event to bring further public awareness of the facts related to these important issues.


I was informed by an avid reader of SPS (and huge Steve Perry fan) that the corporate VP of Tax for Fedex is an MSU grad.

....and THAT'S how you do it.

 

[Shamoan]

How dare they?!? Who do they think they are, Amazon?

 

[o_dawgnabit]

Fred Smith after that rounding error comment

View attachment 14609

 

[Shmuley]

*****. Slap.

 

[jethreauxdawg]

I wish

I could’ve been in the room while this was being written. You know those boys were fired up.

 

[T-TownDawgg]

Hell, I need to start reading corporate website newsrooms to get some actual news.

 

[Xenomorph]

Imagine the rough drafts that were written and thrown out before cooler heads prevailed.

 

[Crucifictorious]

So how much did FedEx pay in taxes?

 

[Shmuley]

This question belies the problem. The NYT had an agenda for a hit piece. They focused solely on corp income tax. They conveniently ignore all of the sales tax, excise taxes, apportionment taxes, fuel taxes, ad valorem (real and person property) and dozens of other taxes (whether disguised as service fees or not) that Fed Ex pays.

 

[Crazy Cotton]

Yeah, there's some slight of hand in the statement. They cite the Times 2017 tax bill (before the changes had fully taken effect), but the Times article is about FedEX 2018 2019 tax burden, claiming that their rate went from 34% in 2017 to 0 in 2018. I don't see anywhere in the statement where they dispute that.

 

[jethreauxdawg]

You’ve got to look at all the columns. How much was given to the government in some form of tax, and how much of what they didn’t have to give to the government after the tax law changes was reinvested into the economy through additional spending. Which one is better for the country? The Times acted like Fred just put everything in his pocket to the detriment of the citizens of this country.

 

[Drebin]

This question belies the problem. The NYT had an agenda for a hit piece. They focused solely on corp income tax. They conveniently ignore all of the sales tax, excise taxes, apportionment taxes, fuel taxes, ad valorem (real and person property) and dozens of other taxes (whether disguised as service fees or not) that Fed Ex pays.

And then layer on top of that the number of jobs and salaries and what those numbers look like year over year. NYT was trying to portray FedEx as an evil corporation who is pocketing savings on the corporate tax rate, while ignoring the investment that FedEx continues to make to the economy. This is just an agenda-driven political hit piece. I hope the NYT takes them up on the debate challenge, but I doubt they have the guts.

 

[patdog]

Fed Ex doesn't pay sales tax. It's customers do.

 

[Drebin]

Fed Ex doesn't pay sales tax. It's customers do.

Fed Ex doesn't purchase supplies? Equipment? Gasoline?

 

[patdog]

With $6 billion in capital investments in 2018, it's not shocking that Fed Ex may have paid no income tax. That's a whopping huge deduction (with bonus depreciation, capital improvements are generally fully deductible in year 1).

 

[Crucifictorious]

Sure. But how much do they pay in corporate income tax now as opposed to previous years and was that reported accurately?

 

[bulldogbaja]

Drebin is right. Also, one corporation should not call out another on tax compliance. It's a pretty stupid thing to do. You know the NYTimes' tax attorneys were like "NOOOOOO" when they read the piece. Everybody has stuff they would rather keep quiet.

 

[patdog]

I stand corrected. Total brain fart only looking at it from one side.

 

[tbaydog]

an I'm very sure Pencil Neck will somehow find a reason for an close door investigation on Fed Ex!

 

[xxxWalkTheDawg]

This question belies the problem. The NYT had an agenda for a hit piece. They focused solely on corp income tax. They conveniently ignore all of the sales tax, excise taxes, apportionment taxes, fuel taxes, ad valorem (real and person property) and dozens of other taxes (whether disguised as service fees or not) that Fed Ex pays.

And also the issue of double taxation of corporations is always ignored as well.

 

[UpTheMiddlex3Punt]

Just wait till the wealth tax hits and we're discussing the cluster 17 of calculating those numbers

 

[mstateglfr]

That was a funny damn response. The rounding error comment made me laugh.

Reality is that almost no large companies have any room to talk and criticize other companies when it comes to tax payments or executive salaries as a ratio to avg employee pay.
I would be interested to hear what the FedEx folk have to say about middle and lower class wage earners, even if NYT doesnt engage in the debate. Its a rare day when I can watch and agree with executives who pull in tens of millions of dollars, speak about the struggles of living paycheck to paycheck, the expanding wage gap, or basically anything to do with income inequality.
Fred Smith making 300x the median FedEx worker's salary even after a brutal year of performance doesnt exactly help make me think he would be much better than most others.





clarification- no this isnt me supporting socialism, no this isnt me supporting class warfare, no this isnt me hating on the wealthy or successful. What this is- is me enjoying a response from FedEx while fully knowing that playing with selective numbers is fun and can make many look better than they actually are.

 

[Drebin]

That was a funny damn response. The rounding error comment made me laugh.

Reality is that almost no large companies have any room to talk and criticize other companies when it comes to tax payments or executive salaries as a ratio to avg employee pay.
I would be interested to hear what the FedEx folk have to say about middle and lower class wage earners, even if NYT doesnt engage in the debate. Its a rare day when I can watch and agree with executives who pull in tens of millions of dollars, speak about the struggles of living paycheck to paycheck, the expanding wage gap, or basically anything to do with income inequality.
Fred Smith making 300x the median FedEx worker's salary even after a brutal year of performance doesnt exactly help make me think he would be much better than most others.





clarification- no this isnt me supporting socialism, no this isnt me supporting class warfare, no this isnt me hating on the wealthy or successful. What this is- is me enjoying a response from FedEx while fully knowing that playing with selective numbers is fun and can make many look better than they actually are.

Fed Ex employs a substantial portion of Memphis, TN. Fed Ex also offers wages higher than industry standard across the board, generous health care benefits, and very generous continuing education programs. They host job fairs and focus on minority hiring. Their corporate bonus payouts have been less than normal lately as well, for a multitude of reasons.

I don't think it's fair to begrudge Fred Smith for pocketing a large salary. He invented the concept, founded the company, assumed all the risk associated with it, and built it into a multi-billion dollar enterprise that is almost single-handedly propping up the Memphis airport and the local economy. He is generous enough. Nobody is entitled to more than they get already.

 

[jethreauxdawg]

Don’t know what Fred makes, but I know the fedex employees are some of the best paid in Memphis when compared to like jobs. Their benefits are nice, too. Fred also risked everything his family had (his sister was trying to sue him to stop it) to make FedEx happen. That’s why he makes more now than the guy who works for him that didn’t go to college or risk anything, but still makes $60k+ plus benefits.

 

[oxfordrebel22]

This is an incredible response. Kudos to FedEx. I wish more corporations would defend themselves in this manner when large media outlets, like the NYT, write obvious hit pieces full of half-truths and misleading information.

On that same note, if you’re ever bored one day Google “funniest legal responses”. There’s some great ones out there that you’ll all thoroughly enjoy, if you enjoyed this FedEx response.

 

[CookieMonster.sixpack]

https://about.van.fedex.com/newsroo...-smith-chairman-and-ceo-of-fedex-corporation/

Also in 2018 the New York Times cut their capital investments nearly in half to $57 million, which equates to a rounding error when compared to the $6 billion of capital that FedEx invested in the U.S. economy during that same year.

I was informed by an avid reader of SPS (and huge Steve Perry fan) that the corporate VP of Tax for Fedex is an MSU grad.

 

[mstateglfr]

Fed Ex employs a substantial portion of Memphis, TN. Fed Ex also offers wages higher than industry standard across the board, generous health care benefits, and very generous continuing education programs. They host job fairs and focus on minority hiring. Their corporate bonus payouts have been less than normal lately as well, for a multitude of reasons.

I don't think it's fair to begrudge Fred Smith for pocketing a large salary. He invented the concept, founded the company, assumed all the risk associated with it, and built it into a multi-billion dollar enterprise that is almost single-handedly propping up the Memphis airport and the local economy. He is generous enough. Nobody is entitled to more than they get already.

I am well aware of FedEx's history, its impact in Memphis and around the country, and extremely well aware of their pay structure.
I have worked in multiple roles for a global logistics company for 15 years that works with and competes against FedEx.

Though I mentioned his pay is 300x the median company salary, I dont begrudge Fred Smith for making a lot of money.

 

[Drebin]

I am well aware of FedEx's history, its impact in Memphis and around the country, and extremely well aware of their pay structure.
I have worked in multiple roles for a global logistics company for 15 years that works with and competes against FedEx.

Though I mentioned his pay is 300x the median company salary, I dont begrudge Fred Smith for making a lot of money.

Who cares if it's a million times the median company salary, is my point? This gets to the heart of the political debate in this country around wealth distribution, and whether people believe it's appropriate, or that they're entitled to someone else's wealth. My take is that it's theft. This guy is singularly responsible for tens of thousands of people to be able to make a good wage and have a comfortable living. I prefer seeing people choose personal responsibility to improve their plight, like Fred Smith did, instead of demanding that those who did and wound up successful as a result have to "pay their fair share."

 

[PineGroveBully]

Why does Fedex not pay a ton in taxes? Because employing Tom Hanks ain’t cheap!

 

[PineGroveBully]

I’ve heard he was so close to going under and couldn’t pay his fuel bill so he takes his last $5000 and puts it on red. The winnings allowed him to pay the bill to live to fight another day and the rest is history. I known Fred’s personal pilot and he is well taken care of.

 

[ckDOG]

Good on FDX for taking control of that narrative.

I’m tired of media (and politicians for that matter), right or left, trying to spin a complex topic into a 2 paragraph analysis of why some person or entity is evil. I’m sure there are things FedEx does that might not be in society’s best interest, but good for them in calling out the NYT’s hypocrisy and challenging them to discuss the issues from a complete perspective.

 

[mstateglfr]

Who cares if it's a million times the median company salary, is my point? This gets to the heart of the political debate in this country around wealth distribution, and whether people believe it's appropriate, or that they're entitled to someone else's wealth. My take is that it's theft. This guy is singularly responsible for tens of thousands of people to be able to make a good wage and have a comfortable living. I prefer seeing people choose personal responsibility to improve their plight, like Fred Smith did, instead of demanding that those who did and wound up successful as a result have to "pay their fair share."

Yeah...i think some points are being merged here that shouldnt be merged.
I get that Fred Smith took a risk and its paid off handsomely. It paid off due to him and also due to the intelligence and abilities of many thousands of people that are better at what they do than he would be or was. Its also helped that FedEx was one of the most heavily invested companies by venture cap groups. At some point(and this will be argued whether its ever and also at what point), a company that is publicly traded stops being some product of the founder, especially when so much outside financing is included at the start. I view that risk as significant in the beginning(almost half a century ago?) and once it was quickly divested among all the stakeholders, it is no longer Fred Smith's risk.

Aside from the above, once again- I dont begrudge Fred Smith for making 300x the median FedEx salary.

My comments about being skeptical of high wealth C-level executives talking about how tax policies and business investments benefit lower and middle class wage earners are because I find many(most?) of those C-level executives to 1- not be in touch with what actual struggles are and 2- not want to close the wage gaps that exist within their own company since it would devalue the stock price and lower their own pay and net worth. Obviously that last part of the prior sentence is my opinion derived from what I have seen over the last 20 years.
Watch 60Minutes from last week- its good timing for this conversation. Yes yes, liberal media, blah blah blah. Jamie Dimon is interviewed in a 2 segment piece. The wage gap is discussed and he goes from discussing how its unfortunate middle class folk were hit with the brunt of the housing crisis, to putting his hands up and pleading that he has no control over his executive pay because the board sets that. Its totally out of his control and he is but a pawn in all of it. Its quite funny to watch since, you know, thats 17ing absurd and he as well as his bank could absolutely pay more to employees and/or charge less which would allow customers to keep more of their money. 32BILLION in net income- yeah that could be slashed in half which would still allow the company to be historically massive in success and power, while reducing costs and/or increasing employee pay(lower down the waterfall) which would have huge benefits to individuals.
Oh- and the argument that everyone who owns stock benefits from the high stock price so we should all want those absurdly high earnings is total ********. As a %, it greatly affects a few while making little difference to the super majority.
But JPMorgan and others have little to no incentive to lower their costs, just like they have little to no incentive to increase pay- they dont need to, so they dont.

The second segment is actually interesting- its JPMorgan using a bunch of metadata they collect on all their customers and applying it to the urban decay crisis. It certainly isnt benevolent of them, even if its framed that way, since JPMorgan absolutely benefits from their service. Its in their best interests to improve the area(s) and create opportunities for spending and wealth, but even still its an interesting segment.

 

[The Situation]

Yeah...i think some points are being merged here that shouldnt be merged.
I get that Fred Smith took a risk and its paid off handsomely. It paid off due to him and also due to the intelligence and abilities of many thousands of people that are better at what they do than he would be or was. Its also helped that FedEx was one of the most heavily invested companies by venture cap groups. At some point(and this will be argued whether its ever and also at what point), a company that is publicly traded stops being some product of the founder, especially when so much outside financing is included at the start. I view that risk as significant in the beginning(almost half a century ago?) and once it was quickly divested among all the stakeholders, it is no longer Fred Smith's risk.

Aside from the above, once again- I dont begrudge Fred Smith for making 300x the median FedEx salary.

My comments about being skeptical of high wealth C-level executives talking about how tax policies and business investments benefit lower and middle class wage earners are because I find many(most?) of those C-level executives to 1- not be in touch with what actual struggles are and 2- not want to close the wage gaps that exist within their own company since it would devalue the stock price and lower their own pay and net worth. Obviously that last part of the prior sentence is my opinion derived from what I have seen over the last 20 years.
Watch 60Minutes from last week- its good timing for this conversation. Yes yes, liberal media, blah blah blah. Jamie Dimon is interviewed in a 2 segment piece. The wage gap is discussed and he goes from discussing how its unfortunate middle class folk were hit with the brunt of the housing crisis, to putting his hands up and pleading that he has no control over his executive pay because the board sets that. Its totally out of his control and he is but a pawn in all of it. Its quite funny to watch since, you know, thats 17ing absurd and he as well as his bank could absolutely pay more to employees and/or charge less which would allow customers to keep more of their money. 32BILLION in net income- yeah that could be slashed in half which would still allow the company to be historically massive in success and power, while reducing costs and/or increasing employee pay(lower down the waterfall) which would have huge benefits to individuals.
Oh- and the argument that everyone who owns stock benefits from the high stock price so we should all want those absurdly high earnings is total ********. As a %, it greatly affects a few while making little difference to the super majority.
But JPMorgan and others have little to no incentive to lower their costs, just like they have little to no incentive to increase pay- they dont need to, so they dont.

The second segment is actually interesting- its JPMorgan using a bunch of metadata they collect on all their customers and applying it to the urban decay crisis. It certainly isnt benevolent of them, even if its framed that way, since JPMorgan absolutely benefits from their service. Its in their best interests to improve the area(s) and create opportunities for spending and wealth, but even still its an interesting segment.

That 32 billion is spread out across a lot of stockholders (and employee bonuses).

 

[Choctaw Dawg]

I’ve heard he was so close to going under and couldn’t pay his fuel bill so he takes his last $5000 and puts it on red. The winnings allowed him to pay the bill to live to fight another day and the rest is history. I known Fred’s personal pilot and he is well taken care of.

Yep, during the early days Fred Smith was denied a loan to pay off airplane fuel and flew to Vegas with the last $5,000 the company had and turned it into $27,000 by playing blackjack to pay off airplane fuel and allow the company to survive another week until he finally got a loan.

 

[SirBarksalot]

Whatever....
But I can unequivocally say that Fed Ex service has gotten exponentially worse the last 5 years. Not sure why, but it has...in multiple aspects.

My personal pet peeve, is that (in most cases) I can no longer walk into a fedex , fill out an air bill, and leave my package. I now have to fill out the shipping info on their white paper form, wait in line behind 10 people that have never used fedex before and wait for the clerk to type in all the info I have written down.
an average visit is at least 10 minutes, and typically longer.

Another is the lack of a sense of urgency when they’ve effed up and lost something....
Not to mention increasing delivery delays or packages stuck somewhere.

it’s gotten bad enough that my company has started using UPS when possible...which says something, cause they suck too.

 

[mstateglfr]

That 32 billion is spread out across a lot of stockholders (and employee bonuses).

$32.5 billion in net income.
Bonuses are already factored in, so lets remove that from your comment.

Besides that big difference, yes its spread across a lot of stockholders. Lemme know how many stockholders or shares there are. Ill let you do the math since you didnt have a point when you posted the above comment.

 

[The Situation]

$32.5 billion in net income.
Bonuses are already factored in, so lets remove that from your comment.

Besides that big difference, yes its spread across a lot of stockholders. Lemme know how many stockholders or shares there are. Ill let you do the math since you didnt have a point when you posted the above comment.

You're mad already. The problem with you is that you always start from the defensive, and you are always on the liberal/socialist/whatever side.

The point is (you already know this) is that the profit is used for bonuses and stockholders. It isn't in some money bin bunker under Fred Smith's mansion. That's how most companies are run. Keep diving on the details in order to find your nut if you want, but that's the bottom line. Fedex isn't screwing anyone over.

 

[mstateglfr]

You're mad already. The problem with you is that you always start from the defensive, and you are always on the liberal/socialist/whatever side.

The point is (you already know this) is that the profit is used for bonuses and stockholders. It isn't in some money bin bunker under Fred Smith's mansion. That's how most companies are run. Keep diving on the details in order to find your nut if you want, but that's the bottom line. Fedex isn't screwing anyone over.

What the 17 are you even talking about? Again, bonuses are already accounted for, so stop staying they havent been added in. And yes, the stockholders benefit from high net income, but again- as a %, that goes to relatively few.

I dont think the money is in a bunker and I have not accused FedEx of screwing anyone over.
Do you have any more false arguments you can claim Ive made?

I am not mad about any of this- I actually enjoyed this discussion up until about 30 seconds ago when I realized I am now responding to Goat. It had been an interesting thread.