this post was submitted on 17 Nov 2024
488 points (93.7% liked)

Comic Strips

12602 readers
3044 users here now

Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.

The rules are simple:

Web of links

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
all 36 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Bassman1805@lemmy.world 95 points 6 hours ago (5 children)

Ah, this again.

The mega corporation did not receive any tax benefit from collecting donations. They are able to write off the amount of donations from their income, so that they aren't paying tax on the money they collected specifically to be donated.

  1. Company collects $1 donation from customer
  2. Company has $1 extra income
  3. Company donates $1 to charity
  4. Company writes that dollar off of their income.
  5. Company reports the exact same profit/loss as if they had not collected donations.
[–] TheBraveSirRobbin@lemmy.world 2 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

Couldn't the CEO of the nonprofit be the spouse of the CEO and make a huge percentage of what they donate?

Not saying donating through a mega corporation is always bad, but I'd prefer to look into who I'm donating to rather than a split second thought at the end of a transaction.

[–] Jyek@sh.itjust.works 1 points 32 minutes ago* (last edited 32 minutes ago)

Then it's not a non-profit now is it?

[–] Olhonestjim@lemmy.world 3 points 1 hour ago

Yeah, because corporate charity is super regulated and never ever misused.

[–] danc4498@lemmy.world 35 points 6 hours ago (6 children)

I assumed this was true also, but I also believe the company is receiving some sort of kick back from this otherwise they wouldn’t be doing it.

[–] iAmTheTot@sh.itjust.works 71 points 6 hours ago (2 children)

The "kick back" is good PR.

[–] Serinus@lemmy.world 10 points 3 hours ago

And, if it's a big enough portion of the charity's funding, influence over the charity. But not tax breaks.

[–] Ethalis@jlai.lu 30 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

And decision-makers at that company feeling good about themselves at no cost whatsoever for the company or themselves.

[–] thisbenzingring@lemmy.sdf.org 10 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

exactly

its not really charity if you don't give something up

[–] kambusha@sh.itjust.works 7 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

They really should match all donations.

[–] TheLowestStone@lemmy.world 1 points 57 minutes ago

The C-level executive should match all donations. Otherwise that's money that should be going to improving conditions for the workers.

[–] ininewcrow@lemmy.ca 33 points 6 hours ago

The kickback is also in saying that they donated the money to charity .... which was collected from other people

It's like I asked you to donate money to a charity and I said I had to be the one to collect it .... then I take your money and donate it in my name ... basically, I took your generosity and claimed it as my own.

In many cases company's also understand that they can't openly do this because it would be too obvious ... instead they just ride the generosity gravy train ... they encourage people to donate to charities through their store/company/business ... then the company may or may not give their own contributions but they get to attach their name to the donated amounts.

It's like a billionaire selling you a can a beans and then asking you to donate a penny to a charity .... I always say no because the idiot billionaire could spare 1% of their wealth and give millions of dollars to charities everywhere, why the hell are you asking me?

I never give to charities through a store/company or business ... I give directly to charities on my own.

[–] very_well_lost@lemmy.world 16 points 6 hours ago

It's a marketing thing. Stuff like this creates the illusion that they're good corporate citizens.

Of course, they could donate a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a percent of their own profits and make a much bigger impact, but that would set a bad precedent! Giving away your money is only for the working class!

[–] zante@slrpnk.net 8 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

It’s true but it’s not the full story .

Who gets to go the charity dinner and presents the check to the orphanage?

Who gets in Time magazine for “taking a stand” for corporate responsibility?

A corporation is not capable of benevolence. Give directly to the charity yourself, you’ll get a sticker and sometime a free pen.

[–] MajorHavoc@programming.dev 5 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago)

Give directly to the charity yourself, you’ll get a sticker and sometime a free pen.

Lol. I can confirm, it's true!

Joking aside, some of my most cherished possessions are hand-written thank-you notes from worthwhile causes that I support.

(Especially ones from children! "Donors Choose" is great when I need some crayon drawn notes in exchange for buying some school supplies.)

(And given the context, I should clarify, from my own money, not someone else's.)

[–] stupidcasey@lemmy.world 3 points 6 hours ago

Also the political/social influence is real. Why bribe the government when you can outsource it to you and say it’s for a good cause. But the reality of the situation is they are giving a politician what they want and if the politician do something they don’t like they can move that “donation” to someone else.

[–] coherent_domain@infosec.pub 1 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago)

The non-profit can hire the company executive and pay them, which if I understand correctly is exempt from income tax.

I think this can be a way for executives to avoid income tax: basically donate to a foundation through obscured means (crypto, purchase from third party, etc), then get non-profit money with exemption. They probably need to jump through many hoops and it is very likely still illegal, but I wouldn't be surprised if this is common.

But anyway the couple dime people are donating probably is neglegible for tax purposes (I am guessing, I don't have data). Yet I see no reason not to just donate to a charity you trust online...

Source about income tax: https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/08/nonprofit-tax.asp

[–] iAmTheTot@sh.itjust.works 11 points 6 hours ago

They don't even report it as income, because it's not income. It's your donation, not the company's donation.

[–] zante@slrpnk.net 0 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Company launches marketing campaign about how much they raised for charity …. Company matches donations and get relief on that…..

NEVER give to charity through a corporation.

[–] disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world 6 points 5 hours ago

If they match donations, they are entitled to a tax break on their own donations.

The only issue with matching is that you don’t have a say in the charity. Do your homework. If it’s a legitimate charity, then it’s better to donate through a company that matches donations.

[–] iAmTheTot@sh.itjust.works 34 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago) (7 children)

So sick and tired of this myth, how are Americans so goddamn ignorant of their own tax system that this continues to persist.

Corporations are evil for a million and one reasons. This isn't one of them.

Because when someone has been lying for a long time, any truth they might tell would be assumed to be lies, any good deed would be assumed to have an ulterier motive.

"Boy who cried wolf" basically.

[–] BlackPenguins@lemmy.world 8 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

how are Americans so goddamn ignorant

I mean did you see who we just elected?

[–] Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago

Oh shoot.....I missed it. I DVR'd the election results, and never got around to watching it. Don't tell me! No spoilers! I want to see if it we finally elect our first black president. It's Obama vs McCain.

.........also, I've been in a coma for a while. 2024, huh? Do we have flying cars yet?

[–] i_stole_ur_taco@lemmy.ca 24 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

I know people who still repeat the line that earning more money will push them into a higher tax bracket and they’d end up with less money than if they stayed at their current income.

[–] iAmTheTot@sh.itjust.works 14 points 5 hours ago

Oh man don't even get me started on that one too. I knew some people that genuinely thought a bonus would make them earn less overall.

[–] Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world 0 points 1 hour ago

Because we're Americans. Ignorant is kind of our power play! We'll angrily defend a position we know nothing about, and then call YOU wrong for being well versed on the matter.

[–] very_well_lost@lemmy.world 14 points 6 hours ago

This myth is probably prevalent because corporations have spent the last 40 years squeezing every cheat and every advantage they can out of the system — to the point where anything that even smells like a "good gesture" is rightfully met with suspicion and contempt from the people they've been so blissfully exploring.

[–] edgemaster72@lemmy.world 14 points 6 hours ago

how are Americans so goddamn ignorant

It's what we do best

[–] lakemalcom10@lemm.ee 23 points 6 hours ago

https://taxpolicycenter.org/taxvox/who-gets-tax-benefit-those-checkout-donations-0

Tldr: no, it doesn't work that way. They can't get any tax breaks from your money.

[–] KingJalopy@lemm.ee 8 points 6 hours ago (2 children)

I've been told since you donate it's a tax write off for yourself and therefore the company can't double write it off on theirs. Not sure I believe that these companies follow the rules but that's what I've been told.

[–] moody@lemmings.world 2 points 2 hours ago

When you make a donation, you will get a receipt for it and that's what you use to declare it on your taxes.

The company taking your donation will have a copy of that receipt showing that you made the donation and not them.