
FedEx responds to The New York Times article from Nov. 17, 2019 - Reedx
https://about.van.fedex.com/newsroom/statement-from-frederick-w-smith-chairman-and-ceo-of-fedex-corporation/
======
rahimnathwani
Response to this: [https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/17/business/how-fedex-cut-
it...](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/17/business/how-fedex-cut-its-tax-bill-
to-0.html)

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

~~~
Miner49er
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.

~~~
wang_li
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
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.

~~~
CamperBob2
_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...](http://www.catholic365.com/article/1992/faith-of-our-fathers-the-
power-to-tax-is-the-power-to-destroy.html)

~~~
wang_li
> 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.

~~~
CamperBob2
Either taxes "abridge freedom" or they don't. Which is it?

In reality, the language in the First Amendment is nowhere near sufficient to
justify granting tax exemptions to an entire industry, be it religious or
secular.

------
scott_s
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.

~~~
appleiigs
I think it's a great statement. They aren't disputing the facts. Fedex is
disputing that cutting taxes is a bad thing and is saying lets talk about it.

EDIT: and as you pointed out Fedex is just following fed tax policy that it
doesn't control.

~~~
hn_throwaway_99
> Fedex is just following fed tax policy that it doesn't control.

Perhaps not individually, but a thrust of the article is that these large
corporations pay huge amounts to lobbyists to bend tax policy in their favor.

~~~
dominotw
wondering why they singled out some companies though?

> ese large corporations pay huge amounts to lobbyists to bend tax policy in
> their favor.

Do we have a way to know if fedex did this?

~~~
sigmar
>Do we have a way to know if fedex did this?

This is answered in the first paragraph of the nytimes article: "In the 2017
fiscal year, FedEx owed more than $1.5 billion in taxes. The next year, it
owed nothing. What changed was the Trump administration’s tax cut — for which
the company had lobbied hard."

~~~
dominotw
thank you

------
CPLX
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.

~~~
Consultant32452
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.

~~~
Someone1234
> The problem is it isn't journalism, it's activism.

The two aren't mutually exclusive. Journalists have an ethical responsibility
to be honest, but outside of that there's nothing to say that a journalist
cannot have a set of beliefs that shape their worldview.

In this case you aren't really accusing the NYT of being dishonest, you're
saying that their honest opinion isn't ok because you have a different opinion
(or that a journalist has to be void of any opinions at all). I'd just suggest
you skip either that author's work or the NYT in general then, and find
something more aligned to your own worldview.

As to the accusation it is "activism?" I mean, yeah, I guess. Arguing that
something, anything, is wrong is activism depending on your definitions but
since we haven't established that activism is a bad thing or wrong, that's not
really problematic in and of itself.

~~~
zaroth
The difference between the NYT having an opinion and me having an opinion is
that only the NYT is protected against lawsuits for libel with a special
standard of “actual malice” by the contorted reasoning that anyone they chose
to publish an article on must therefore be a public figure.

IANAL, but a good example of this is the coverage of the Covington High School
students.

~~~
matt4077
The _actual malice_ standard was first defined in a case involving media (the
NYT, as it happens), but it applies to _anyone_ , including you.

~~~
wostusername
I think what the other poster was trying to say is that in the US defamation
law treats public figures and non-public figures (and confusingly "limited
purpose public figures") differently. The standard of "actual malice" applies
to public figures only, the standard is lower for non-public figures. Which
invites the question of "Is anyone the NYT writes about automatically a public
figure?" Or even a limited purpose public figure?

IANAL so I don't know the answer, but I hope the answer is no. Since if the
answer is yes it would allow a large media organization to thrust anyone into
the spotlight and defame them without recourse as long as "actual malice"
can't be established (ie the Covington High kids).

------
sxyuan
From the article this statement is responding to:

> 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...](https://dqydj.com/retirement-savings-average-median-percentile-
united-states/)

~~~
appleiigs
Investors have stock. Dividends and stock buybacks move idle cash out of the
corporation and back into the hands of investors. Investors now have cash
instead of stock. Those investors are better at distributing cash to good
investments than Fedex or Apple or Google is. The cash doesn't get
redistributed from the non-1% to the 1%. The idle cash that corporations have
aren't generating jobs.

~~~
Majromax
> The idle cash that corporations have aren't generating jobs.

But that contradicts the claimed raison d'être for the 2018 tax cut: that
corporate direct investment was being restrained by corporate income taxes.

A call to lower corporate income taxes so more money could flow to investors
would have been consistent, both with economic orthodoxy and with the observed
outcome.

~~~
appleiigs
> more money could flow to investors

Is that a bad thing? I'm thinking it is good.

Why do people want higher taxes for?

I'm thinking lower taxes reduces the amount of money going to the government
is good. The government is horribly inefficient due things such as
bureaucracy, corruption, etc. No matter where they operate, it hasn't been
good. Whether it's US or China, the gov't is not where I think money should
go.

~~~
mthoms
>No matter where they operate, it hasn't been good.

That's what the rich hand powerful _want_ you to think. But the facts don't
support it. Look at any of the other top western democracies. You know, the
ones with longer lifespans, more upward mobility, happier populations, better
infrastructure, better education, and so on.

I'm not suggesting that those countries are perfect or that there aren't gross
inefficiencies, but the widespread belief that _good government is basically
impossible, so why even try_ is mostly an American (right wing) phenomenon.

Other top-tier western style democracies, despite their many imperfections,
are doing just fine.

~~~
appleiigs
Western societies have been more democratic... and more capitalist. If you
take high taxes to the extreme (eg. eliminate all billionaires like Bernie
Sanders recommends), you get closer to communism which hasn't done as well.

~~~
mthoms
I'm not even sure what you're arguing anymore. Communism is bad? I agree.

It does nothing to support your assertion that any and all governments are
inherently bad.

~~~
appleiigs
We were having a tax discussion. We both agree that gov't has gross
inefficiencies, so I'm suggesting funding the inefficient organization less.
When I said "it hasn't been good" I was talking in the context about
efficiency.

In my next comment, I again was talking about taxes. I used communism as an
example of a high tax system. I also wanted to point out that western style
democracies which you call good, lean toward capitalism, where gov't have a
smaller role in society - which I am using to support my lower tax argument.

------
SanchoPanda
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    |  (219,000)  |  1,582,000  |  920,000    |  577,000     |  1,334,000   |  1,622,000   |  1,109,000   |  813,000     |  710,000     |  579,000     |  891,000     |  1,199,000   |  1,093,000   |  864,000     |  481,000     |  508,000     |  435,000     |  343,202     |  449,404     |  429,731     |  401,363     |
      
      | Capital Expenditures       | (5,490,000) | (5,663,000) | (5,116,000) | (4,818,000) |  (4,347,000) |  (3,533,000) |  (3,375,000) |  (4,007,000) |  (3,434,000) |  (2,816,000) |  (2,459,000) |  (2,947,000) |  (2,882,000) |  (2,518,000) |  (2,236,000) |  (1,271,000) |  (1,511,000) |  (1,615,000) |  (1,893,384) |  (1,627,418) |  (1,769,946) |  (1,880,173) |

~~~
eigenvalue
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

~~~
SanchoPanda
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.

------
dabernathy89
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.

~~~
jmull
The information you're using to show the article doesn't tell the full story
is in the article.

~~~
dabernathy89
They could go into a lot more detail about exactly which provisions of tax
reform helped FedEx, and how.

They did not explain the 100% deduction for asset depreciation, or the fact
that it's only a temporary provision of the law. They merely included a brief
statement from FedEx referencing this provision in sort of generic terms.

They also mentioned very briefly that a large part of the reduced tax bill was
FedEx's pension contribution, but didn't provide any additional details about
how tax reform encouraged this behavior.

They also include misleading statements like this:

> “Something like $1.5 billion in future taxes that they had promised to pay,
> just vanished,” said Matthew Gardner, an analyst at the liberal Institute on
> Taxation and Economic Policy in Washington.

The idea that FedEx had "promised" to pay that money is just ridiculous.

------
gregwtmtno
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.

That they didn't do that makes me wonder.

~~~
lstroud
Corrections don’t sell papers...err get clicks. They also don’t evolve the
narrative.

Fedex isn’t just challenging the facts. They are challenging the underlying
premise that corporations are a net negative on society.

I think it would be fascinating to see an actual debate by folks that aren’t
politicians, but are willing to put their public reputation on the line.

~~~
gregwtmtno
The Times newsroom doesn't posit premises (and certainly not the one you
suggest) or debate tax policy, it reports facts. I find the ignorance on the
basics of journalism and its role in American society on hacker news to be
shocking and embarrassing.

~~~
frockington1
No person/group/company is ever perfect. Always be skeptical of everything.
Here's a humorous mistake where the Times created inception-esque corrections:
[https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2016/09/new-york-
times-a...](https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2016/09/new-york-times-aleppo-
story-inception-but-for-corrections.html)

------
atonse
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.

~~~
mandevil
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.

~~~
Reedx
That's mostly the case, though it's _possible_ to have substantive real-time
debate.

You need a strong format, with ample time and good faith actors who will steel
man each other's positions instead of strawmanning them.

So ultimately you have both sides debating the strongest version of the
opposing side. Here's an example:
[https://youtu.be/m0-oC_49fq4?t=195](https://youtu.be/m0-oC_49fq4?t=195)

------
crisdux
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!

------
sarcasmatwork
Expected behavior coming from New York Times. Good on Fedex for pushing back.

~~~
mc32
You’d think they’d have their house in order before besmirching someone
else... good on FedEx calling them out.

~~~
scott_s
Journalists and editors should not let the business practices of the paper
they work for prevent them from investigating and publishing stories. This is
a _feature_ , not a bug.

~~~
mc32
If they are going to do that, I’d expect disclosure: “Your revered newspaper
is misrepresenting facts and also does worse than the entity we’re calling
out”. Or at least “We also do the things we call others out on.”

~~~
nkrisc
Which facts about FedEx were misrepresented?

------
1986
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...](https://about.van.fedex.com/wp-
content/uploads/2019/08/FedEx_Tax_Facts_v8.21.19.pdf) ) 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)

Maybe this is due to state income taxes?

------
chadlavi
Facts are not up for debate, FedEx. either rebut with evidence or sit down.

------
Itaxpica
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.

------
WhompingWindows
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.

~~~
frockington1
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

------
jszymborski
Streissand-Effect much? I hadn't heard about this story at all, and all a
public debate would do hear is make the story even higher profile.

~~~
malvosenior
I don't know, I have a much more favorable view of FedEx because of this. It's
good marketing to push back on bad journalism in 2019 (for a lot of people).

------
madenine
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?

------
Simulacra
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.

------
bilekas
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._

But this above is not what the piece was about..

Now I'm confused..

------
AzzieElbab
A public debate would do much more good than outright suing the NYT

------
tshanmu
If I were NYT I would make that article free and advertise it more

------
nraynaud
Rich people debating poor people's issues, in DC, as is proper. What
temperature should the champagne be served at?

------
a0zU
Stupid as this may be it will be incredibly entertaining to watch this debate
if NYT accepts it that is.

------
jswizzy
I don't trust the New York Times. They lost credibility a long time ago.

------
moneywoes
This can't be real

------
licebmi__at__
Besides the call for a debate (which frankly, I don't think will amount to
anything worthwhile), isn't this exercise just "whataboutism"?

------
objektif
Why is everyone on this thread running to rescue NYT? Most of what NYT does in
the last 10 years as far as I remember is crony-corporatism and warmongering.
And occasionally support social liberal causes to deceive people.

~~~
malvosenior
Agreed. They also post continuous anti-tech coverage. They are definitely
yellow journalism at this point and I wish they'd stop being voted to the
front-page of HN as if they're an impartial source.

------
sonofaplum
Doesn't respond to any of the claims in the story. The story is about 1) how
FedEx lobbied for the Trump tax cuts, 2) what they claimed they would do with
that money if the tax cuts were passed, 3) what they actually did with that
money and 4) what the implications are for the efficacy of the Trump tax cuts
in general. If the New York Times corporation followed exactly the same
playbook as FedEx with regard to lobbying, how would that change any of the
four points above? And what would Arthur Sulzbergers opinions about tax cuts
have to do with the reporting of the story?

It's an extremely blatant and I thought transparent attempt to change the
subject, but, if the first fifteen comments here are any indication, a
surprisingly effective one.

------
dwoozle
Damn, can’t believe Fred Smith is _still_ running FedEx.

------
stakhanov
You've kind of got to respect them for a pretty gutsy move right there. Will
be interesting to see what happens.

------
malvosenior
I'm much, much more concerned about The New York Times deceptively pushing a
political agenda during an election year than I am about FedEx legally paying
as few taxes as possible. We all do that every tax season!

It seems like the real story is how the NYT is actively campaigning for the
DNC and I'm glad FedEx is calling them out.

~~~
atombender
NYT has been publishing articles about big corporations evading taxes for many
years, including during the Obama administration. This is not new, and it's
part of the NYT's social agenda, not the election year.

Here are some examples:

[https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/09/business/economy/corporat...](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/09/business/economy/corporate-
tax-report.html)

[https://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/business/apples-tax-
strat...](https://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/business/apples-tax-strategy-
aims-at-low-tax-states-and-nations.html)

[https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/01/business/yesterday-
outrag...](https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/01/business/yesterday-outraged-by-
apples-tax-dodge-today-by-its-tax-bill.html)

[https://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/21/business/apple-avoided-
bi...](https://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/21/business/apple-avoided-billions-in-
taxes-congressional-panel-says.html)

[https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/06/us/panama-
papers.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/06/us/panama-papers.html)

~~~
malvosenior
I wonder if it really is a "social" agenda vs. something else. They clearly do
have some sort of agenda though, and while they no doubt always publish
articles through that lens, I'd say they crank it up on election years,
especially post-Trump.

------
fortran77
I certainly would have liked to the facts rebutted point by point.

But I don't think their response was completely void of substance.

It is worth noting the NY Times also uses the tax laws to pay little or no
taxes.

And reinvesting money to shore up pensions -- so many of which are
inadequately funded -- seems like a valid point to make when justifying how
they used tax laws to their advantage. It's not like all the money used to
defer tax payments went to pay executive bonuses, as the NY Times would have
readers believe.

------
annoyingnoob
Sounds like FedEx wants a public forum to push Reaganonmics. Arguing for
trickle-down theory is a bad look, FedEx. 'Creating jobs' is not an excuse for
skipping out on taxes. You invest to grow your business but you still need to
pay taxes.

If I invest all of my money in a house I create, at least temporary, jobs. I
push a bunch of cash through the economy in taxes, fees to a number of
services, etc. I would have invested a lot into the local economy. Should I
then get to skip paying taxes for one or more years? I mean, I'm creating or
sustaining jobs.

~~~
frockington1
Should I then get to skip paying taxes for one or more years? - Yes and you
do. You get a tax credit on interest paid and many new build come with tax
abatement to encourage investment opportunities

~~~
annoyingnoob
My tax bill tells me otherwise. The interest on my home loan does not and
cannot erase my taxes. That deduction is not what you think it is:
[https://www.fool.com/millionacres/taxes/real-estate-tax-
dedu...](https://www.fool.com/millionacres/taxes/real-estate-tax-
deductions/can-i-still-deduct-my-mortgage-interest-2018/)

My home happens to include Mello-Roos taxes for local improvements, like
schools and a fire station. This more than doubles the property tax that I
pay.

Sorry to tell you, I don't have it anything like FedEx. I paid over 26% of my
gross income on taxes last year.

~~~
frockington1
Taxes suck, no denying it. Thankfully where I live its relatively easy to find
nice properties with long tax abatement for investment. Beyond that max your
401k, IRA, HSA and live or "live" somewhere with low taxes

~~~
annoyingnoob
Taxes suck, even big corporations that produce a lot of jobs need to pay them.

------
pitaj
Corporate taxes shouldn't exist, especially in their current form. Corporate
taxes are just reflected to consumers as higher prices or to workers as lower
wages. In the current structure, corporate taxes benefit large businesses more
with large legal departments because they can afford to take advantage of
deductions etc.

Corporate taxes should be replaced by an increase in capital gains tax.

~~~
js2
> 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 is, they assume that although the tax is nominally levied on
the corporation as a whole, in fact the burden of the tax is shifted onto
customers in the form of higher prices.

All economists reject that idea. [...] That leaves two remaining groups that
may bear the burden of the corporate tax: workers and shareholders. [...] Most
economists now agree that the burden of the corporate income tax falls on
labor to some extent, but there is disagreement over the degree. [...] People
should be aware that even the best academic economists disagree on the basics
of who actually pays the corporate tax._

[https://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/19/who-pays-
the-c...](https://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/19/who-pays-the-
corporate-income-tax/)

~~~
nybble41
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 you consume any cheaper.

~~~
evgen
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.

~~~
nybble41
The "benefit" of having government decide how to invest that money, as opposed
to those who earned it, is strictly negative. All other considerations aside,
the moral cost of endorsing the use of force in this manner outweighs any
possible material benefit.

Using corporate taxes to shift the burden onto foreigners, as you've
suggested, is at best a short-term tactic. The other countries would just
enact reciprocal policies and we'd be back where we started, except with less
international trade and poorer diplomatic relations. Isolationism is not a
recipe for domestic economic bliss.

