NYT paid no taxes in 2014+cashed in 3,5 Million refund despite 30 million of pre-tax profit. SAD!

[lecter]

New York Times Hypocrisy On Corporate Taxes Reaches Record High (Forbes.com)


The New York Times just ran an op-ed by their editorial board decrying corporate inversions on the grounds that taking advantage of the tax code is somehow unpatriotic. [...]
The Times should be the last organization to criticize others for benefiting from the tax code. [...]
At this point, I would normally launch into an explanation about how corporations have no obligation to pay taxes and that it is government’s fault if it offers companies tax breaks or leaves loopholes in the tax code.

However, I do not need to lecture The New York Times on that topic because it knows that lesson well.
After all, the newspaper of record has its headquarters in a building built on landseized by the government under the power of eminent domain from ten different owners, some of whom did not want to sell, implying that the government exercise of power saved the developer money. In addition to that benefit, The New York Times also received $26 million in tax breaks in exchange for keeping jobs in New York City.More recently, for tax year 2014, The New York Times paid no taxes and got an income tax refund of $3.5 million even though they had a pre-tax profit of $29.9 million in 2014. In other words, their post-tax profit was higher than their pre-tax profit.

 

[Rick Sanchez]

 

[Fawlty]

Oh that's some serious bullshit on their part.

After hearing that, there is no way am I voting New York Times for President. And to think they almost had my vote...

 

[Limbo Pete]

Oh that's some serious bullshit on their part.

After hearing that, there is no way am I voting New York Times for President. And to think they almost had my vote...

I heard they were dropping $$$ down in Cuba in the 90's

 

[lecter]

Oh that's some serious bullshit on their part.

After hearing that, there is no way am I voting New York Times for President. And to think they almost had my vote...

hehe how clever
The article isn't about Trump, it was written in January.
They have a history of pushing the narrative that it's immoral to take advantage of the tax code and steering up scandals while doing the exact same thing themselves. Doesn't have to influence your opinion on Trump or his taxes, it does influence my opinion on the NYT though. Well, no, actually it doesn't, it confirms it.

 

[Rick Sanchez]

cool story

 

[mike sherry]

LOL'ed at the "Sad!"

I love how trump's pretty much has two templates for tweets

 

[Rod1]

hehe how clever
The article isn't about Trump, it was written in January.
They have a history of pushing the narrative that it's immoral to take advantage of the tax code and steering up scandals while doing the exact same thing themselves. Doesn't have to influence your opinion on Trump or his taxes, it does influence my opinion on the NYT though. Well, no, actually it doesn't, it confirms it.

Good the journalists are not the owners of the paper.

 

[bad seed]

op-eds are not meant to parrot the executive decisions of a paper's boardroom.

 

[HereticBD]

Waits for "Doesn't matter because they aren't running for President!"


Oh', nevermind. I see Fawlty already covered that.

 

[Joe]

I've been seeing this being parroted by the trumpelstiltskins on social media. Like reporters are the ones who are the ones responsible on how the nyt is run.

 

[HOLA]

Individual investigative reporters are not responsible for the NYT's finances. They also stressed in interviews and in writing Trump did nothing illegal. Only inept. And hypocritical.

Everyone knows newspapers are struggling in the 21st century. I'm sure Trump will be up at 3 AM tweeting about it.

 

[SensaiRambo]

Jeeze you annoying 47percenters!

The guy was worth -1billion at the time and youre hating on him for not paying enough taxes; what did you want him to do, sell a kidney so that the federal government would have more money to burn?

 

[Prutfis]

move focus move focus move focus

 

[kpt018]

hehe how clever
The article isn't about Trump, it was written in January.
They have a history of pushing the narrative that it's immoral to take advantage of the tax code and steering up scandals while doing the exact same thing themselves. Doesn't have to influence your opinion on Trump or his taxes, it does influence my opinion on the NYT though. Well, no, actually it doesn't, it confirms it.

Forbes, also being a news publication, should know that the NYT employees many writers of varying opinions and probably all of which have no fucking clue what the company is doing in terms of their taxes. They had a writer do a piece about corporate inversions.

And there is no hypocrisy anyway as long as the NYT didn't do a corporate inversion. You can be against one part of the code and not others, right? Terrible criticism by Forbes.

 

[Falsedawn]

Yeah but have you seen their sex tape though? Ink all over the damn place, it was nasty.

 

[lecter]

Forbes, also being a news publication, should know that the NYT employees many writers of varying opinions and probably all of which have no fucking clue what the company is doing in terms of their taxes. They had a writer do a piece about corporate inversions.

Well, that's obviously a question which you encounter whenever you want to assess the conduct of 'the media' and there are different perspectives.
You say there simply are multiple independent writers who publish their opinions and you can't really group them together and place some sort of responsibility of being consistent on them. That's really seeing a paper in the role of 'the media', sort of standing outside of the economy and society as the neutral observer.
I think news papers aren't that much different from any other 'company'. It's a business, it's a company, they have an owner, their goal is to produce money, every employee has some sort of supervisor and tasks to do, there is something like a policy in place. They just happen make their money by writing about other companies and persons.
If what's published by a paper really just was the accumulation of the work of independent journalists with a variety of opinions, we wouldn't have
news papers who are as clearly left or right as they are most of the time.
Then statistically we'd have -for example- an article in the NYT about Trump's taxes and how it's unethical and another comment about how it's perfectly fine as long as it's legal. Because certainly some of the 1,200 writers share this opinion.
But that's not the policy when it comes to this topic right now. The policy is 'New York Times exposes Donald Trump' and that's what you'll read in the NYT.

And there is no hypocrisy anyway as long as the NYT didn't do a corporate inversion. You can be against one part of the code and not others, right? Terrible criticism by Forbes.

Not really imo.
If you can cherry pick like that, what's the point of anything? What I do is right because I say it's right, what he does is wrong because I say it's wrong.
Either you say as long as it's legal it's fine or you say it's immoral. Especially since the NYT did some advanced tax gymnastic to get their benefits.

 

[MarloStanfield]

trump fanboys are a special type of dumb

 

[kpt018]

Well, that's obviously a question which you encounter whenever you want to assess the conduct of 'the media' and there are different perspectives.
You say there simply are multiple independent writers who publish their opinions and you can't really group them together and place some sort of responsibility of being consistent on them. That's really seeing a paper in the role of 'the media', sort of standing outside of the economy and society as the neutral observer.
I think news papers aren't that much different from any other 'company'. It's a business, it's a company, they have an owner, their goal is to produce money, every employee has some sort of supervisor and tasks to do, there is something like a policy in place. They just happen make their money by writing about other companies and persons.
If what's published by a paper really just was the accumulation of the work of independent journalists with a variety of opinions, we wouldn't have
news papers who are as clearly left or right as they are most of the time.
Then statistically we'd have -for example- an article in the NYT about Trump's taxes and how it's unethical and another comment about how it's perfectly fine as long as it's legal. Because certainly some of the 1,200 writers share this opinion.
But that's not the policy when it comes to this topic right now. The policy is 'New York Times exposes Donald Trump' and that's what you'll read in the NYT.

I'm all for criticizing the media. I am against poor criticisms like the one Forbes did. I already pointed out why.

Not really imo.
If you can cherry pick like that, what's the point of anything? What I do is right because I say it's right, what he does is wrong because I say it's wrong.
Either you say as long as it's legal it's fine or you say it's immoral. Especially since the NYT did some advanced tax gymnastic to get their benefits.

Of course you can cherry pick. The code is constantly changing and has a million cooks in the kitchen, so to speak. It is perfectly reasonable to point out flaws in the bad code that do not work well. The best part is that we can actually change the code, and it happens every year.

For example, I would argue that income taxes are pretty progressive (I would recommend changes, but that is a different topic) but capital gains are regressive and largely only benefit the wealthy. There is no all or nothing proposition here and I would be inconsistent if it was all or nothing. If you believe taxes should be progressive you recognize capital gains are anything but.

 

[snakedafunky]

I think this is the wrong way to go about Trump anyway. They need to keep pushing him on policy or his temperament if they want to get anywhere.
So he didn't pay any taxes for 20 years. I dont see the issue here if he didn't break the law. I also dint see how that would discourage anyone from voting for Trump.