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.
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 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…
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 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.
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 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