You must log in or # to comment.
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.
- Company collects $1 donation from customer
- Company has $1 extra income
- Company donates $1 to charity
- Company writes that dollar off of their income.
- Company reports the exact same profit/loss as if they had not collected donations.
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.
The “kick back” is good PR.
And, if it’s a big enough portion of the charity’s funding, influence over the charity. But not tax breaks.
And decision-makers at that company feeling good about themselves at no cost whatsoever for the company or themselves.
exactly
its not really charity if you don’t give something up
They really should match all donations.
The C-level executive should match all donations. Otherwise that’s money that should be going to improving conditions for the workers.
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!
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.
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.
They don’t even report it as income, because it’s not income. It’s your donation, not the company’s donation.
deleted by creator
Yeah, because corporate charity is super regulated and never ever misused.
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.
this! the megacorporation receives 500k donations, which they transfer to CEO’s son’s “charity” that spends 99% of it on the said son’s salary. he buys another ferrari and the charity sends some flowers to a children cancer hospital.
Reminds me of something a criminal would pull.
Then it’s not a non-profit now is it?
Non profits can still have employees that get paid, they are just required to report who gets paid and how much (at least in my state).
Yeah obviously they have employees who get paid, but if a large portion of new donations just paid a CEO pay, that’s not exactly discreet fraud when the IRS comes around looking.
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.
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.
how are Americans so goddamn ignorant
It’s what we do best
how are Americans so goddamn ignorant
I mean did you see who we just elected?
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?
Nah but we got the hoverboards in 2015 as predicted by BTTF.
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.
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.
Ha! I’m going to retort one example of an extremely rare edge case, and that invalidates your entire argument!
deleted by creator
I don’t know much about this. How is this not “one of them”? It seems to be like one of them.
The company doesn’t get any benefit at all on its taxes by collecting donations from customers. Those donations belong to the customers, who themselves can claim them on taxes. The company is doing a good thing by encouraging and soliciting charity.
maaaan! you must come from a country where the laws actually protect customers from the corporations rather than the other way around… otherwise you could never come up with such a naive statement.
My gym took $2 from everyone’s account in a once off for charity unless you opted out.
And then bragged about all the money they raised in their marketing.
Yeah, by illegally stealing it from members
Gym’s. The original shitty subscription company.
Never trust a corporation, period. Their incentives are to maximize profits from whatever revenue streams they have, no matter what they tell you. There are ways they can do this that are at least in the gray area of legality,such as:
A class-action lawsuit was filed against CVS Health Corporation (CVS) in May 2022 accusing the company of “deceptive fund-raising in a campaign it held for the American Diabetes Association,” according to The Boston Globe. Also according to The Boston Globe article, “Prior to each customer’s transaction, a checkout screen prompts the customer with several options for pre-selected dollar amounts, as well as an opt-out option, allowing donations to the diabetes association. Yet, the plaintiff alleges, CVS did not forward donations to the diabetes association, but instead applied the donations toward a legally binding $10 million obligation CVS made to the diabetes association.”
Side note: I’m not an expert on these donations or anything, but rather the practice of corporations exploiting everything they can is so predictable that I knew all I had to do was search…
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.
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.
What you were told isn’t true. Both you and the company are able to write it off.
Most Americans aren’t donating enough for it to affect their taxes, though.
Lol a donation cannot be written off by two entities. Americans would need to itemize their deductions, which very few do.
The company does not write off the donation. It’s not their donation, it’s your donation. The company is a collector only.
Sure, the more correct wording would be “neither the customer nor the company are taxed on the donation”. Assuming the customer itemizes their taxes, which a you’ve pointed out is rare.
I’m trying to speak at the level of people who post stuff like the OP. Some of the details don’t shake out correctly but I’m not trying to get in the weeds of US tax code here if the main point holds up.
You don’t donate because you don’t want to give a mega corporation the benefit of tax breaks
I don’t donate because I want to keep those starving starved
We are not the same
Starving children murdered my family
Starving children turned me into a newt!
