Never change, Fred

Discussion in 'FedEx Discussions' started by ManInBrown, Nov 17, 2019.

  1. ManInBrown

    ManInBrown Well-Known Member

  2. MrFedEx

    MrFedEx Engorged Member

  3. ManInBrown

    ManInBrown Well-Known Member

    Of course not. He’s pure scum
     
  4. ManInBrown

    ManInBrown Well-Known Member

    Where’s the poster who said UPS driver is just as dead end of a job as FedEx Ground? Quite possibly the funniest post I have ever read on Brown Cafe
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • Optimistic Optimistic x 1
    • List
  5. 59 Dano

    59 Dano This is 1980, can't you afford a f***ing haircut?

    First time I've seen an article that hints that a company is doing something wrong for obeying tax law. Fred must have ticked off someone at the NYT.
     
  6. Paswingcourier

    Paswingcourier New Member

    Just read this article and fat Freddy staying true to who he is. Yes raises came 6 months early then there was no step increase, but a 3% raise instead to keep the topped out personnel happy and screw all those in the step program, then also increase insurance costs and let’s also charge an extra 150 dollars a month to add your spouse. Corporate America at its finest
     
    • Like Like x 3
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • List
  7. Paswingcourier

    Paswingcourier New Member

  8. bacha29

    bacha29 Well-Known Member

    Notice something here. Fat Freddy doesn't seem to be denying the fact that X paid zero taxes but instead tries to deflect the focus onto what he perceives to be the benefits of the tax cut to "lower and middle class wage earners" Hahahaha!. In another interview a few weeks ago he was belly aching about wages in his opinion being too high.
    At the same time it's not fair to single him out for simply doing what the others have done with their tax cut. Buying back stock and handing out big bonus money to top executives while the increase in cap x spending fell well short of what was promised in exchange for the tax cut. Unfortunately, too many people swallowed that lie hook, line and sinker.
     
  9. 59 Dano

    59 Dano This is 1980, can't you afford a f***ing haircut?

    You make it sound as though the tax cut was granted on the condition that FedEx (and others) take specific actions with the savings from the tax cut.
     
  10. bacha29

    bacha29 Well-Known Member

    It was granted on the basis of what industry paid lobbyists told congress. The promise of significantly expanded cap x spending . Trouble is that increase has amounted to little more than inflation adjusted increases.

    Face it Dano. The problem with your company is that a huge sum of money was invested in China with the expectation of expanded trade but instead what you've got is a trade war with no end in sight. Isn't it about time that Fat Freddy owe up to his miscalculation instead of trying to find a way to deflect blame onto someone else?
     
  11. 59 Dano

    59 Dano This is 1980, can't you afford a f***ing haircut?

    You mean to tell me that a GOP Senate and a GOP House and a GOP president had to be lobbied to pass tax cuts? You are INSANE.

    Hmmm. FedEx made a lot of investments in China, which you say they promised to make in order to get tax cuts, but there's a trade war and you think Fat Freddy should have to pay higher taxes? HMMMM. That would hit Express employees hardest and you'd complain about that.

    That raises the question as to why you want to punish Express employees because Fat Freddy made investments in the company. I can answer that question: it's because you're not that bright.
     
  12. bacha29

    bacha29 Well-Known Member

    LMAO. The primary constituency of the GOP has always been the business community and that's who fills up their campaign coffers. There were still committee hearings but they had their minds made up before they were even convened .

    I never said anything about punishing Fedex employees. Gaming the system to avoid paying taxes in order to lessen the impact of an enormous miscalculation is punishing enough . Not just to X employees but the nation as a whole given the tax cuts impact on the federal deficit . Offsetting the revenue losses from the tax cut required a perennial 4% GDP growth. It hasn't happened and projections are for a growth rate of 2-3% and we'll be lucky if we even get that.
     
  13. 59 Dano

    59 Dano This is 1980, can't you afford a f***ing haircut?

    No one is gaming the system. Someone else makes the rules, the rest of us follow them.

    Revenue has increased. Try again.
     
  14. bacha29

    bacha29 Well-Known Member

    Not enough to keep pace with the revenue losses created by the tax cuts.
     
  15. Like you actually care lol.
     
  16. UnconTROLLed

    UnconTROLLed perfection

    It is a dead-end job. Because one is compensated more, deals with more unnecessary bs including the union, does not make it less dead-end. Truck driver is the definition of a dead-end job, actually. There's nowhere else to go. Your only platform for upward mobility is to put in your letter.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • Creative Creative x 1
    • List
  17. bacha29

    bacha29 Well-Known Member

    It's not a question of caring or not caring . It's about the deficit expansion that proponent's of the tax cut were warned would happened but willfully ignored.
     
  18. Like you actually care lol.
     
  19. 59 Dano

    59 Dano This is 1980, can't you afford a f***ing haircut?

    Tax revenue is either up or it's down. Make up your mind.
     
  20. 59 Dano

    59 Dano This is 1980, can't you afford a f***ing haircut?

    As opposed to the deficit expansion that would have occurred regardless.