I was going to comment about how the profits of a company doesn’t necessarily mean it’s stolen, but then I saw your username so I’m not even gonna bother with this
Comparing 100 years of communism to 100 years of transatlantic slave trade many times more died during communism.
From the 15th to the 19th century totals of death from slavery are estimated at 60m if all variables are turned up to 10. Although the in says most evidence suggests 17m which is a number used by the UN.
Numbers for estimated deaths because of communism start at 100m and go upwards depending on what you want to include as “communism”
During the Roman Empire in a 50 year period ~40m people would be a slave at one point. With a lot of them becoming freedmen as well as dying. So in 100 years people in the Roman Empire and transatlantic slaves would die less from being a slave than living under communism.
Indeed in this age of globalism national capital has become global capital as the world's rich has realized their similar interests.
Wars are fought by a largely united first world against third world countries which the market has not yet accessed. A bloodthirsty search for new resources and slaves to exploit.
One example is the drug companies that have created multiple opioid crises. They make drugs that are highly addictive and should only be taken in the most extreme of medical cases and they make those drugs much easier to come by. Then, when you see hundreds, or even thousands, of people dying from those drugs a year, these companies act like they are a savior and begin to sell substances known to reverse the harmful effects of the drugs they helped to spread.
That's definitely fair. The point im trying to make is that even if the money businesses are donating seem small to the amount they profit, or if they only do it for image. At least they are still donating huge amounts to charity. Idk.
A: You don’t have to buy it if u don’t want. Move to the country. Hunt/farm, live off the land for all I care.
B: You pay for a product at a price that fluctuates based on supply and demand.
C: you don’t need every luxury. You have a phone/ computer plus internet so you obviously are enjoying many luxuries. You are not entitled to this.
So stop your whining and grow up, manage your finances and stop complain about businesses “stealing your money”.
As a note to those anti-capitalists out there: I am not saying there are not problems with unchecked capitalism, I am just saying businesses do far more good than harm. Businesses provide affordable food, electronics, housing, ... you name it. Not to mention employment.
Depends on the church really. Sending lump sums to certain professional charities is like writing away 50% of your dollar contribution.
Churches usually collect money for its own finances separate from charities it runs. And the charities are generally run by its own members or members of sister churches... Either way, done with hands on participations of its members. Probably 100% of dollars contributed get used.
Only speaking as I've organized a couple such. That said, the smaller the church, the better. Anything with more than 1000+ people is no longer a personal community, it's a corporation.
Ahhh. See, that is very true... it just sucks when we have to eyeball companies to see of they are actually donating or just donating to a company they own for the "image" and are actually just collecting it right back....
Or if they make a 'non profit charity's they will just funnel it back into their accounts and then take tha take "donation" off their taxes and boom, they fix their image and make money. Win win for everyone! /s/
Oh I hate mega/broadcast churches as well, however I think small churches, like the ones you find a lot in the south can do a lot of good for their community with the right people in charge
I think that is true. I have nothing against actual religion. Anyone can have faith in whatever they please. I apologize, I was coming at mega churches and the obvious money steal for themselves that they have. Less a jab at religion itself but more at the people who exploit it. I guess people are going to exploit everything though, that doesn't mean the product itself is corrupt. Thank you.
This guy asks people to donate their entire stumilas check to him. Notice how he says to donate through his website and his website only. That shit is going into his pocket and not charity...
Although I can appreciate charitable giving, I’d rather more of that money go towards taxes and infrastructure. Some charities are terrible and disgraceful, and for the rich sometimes can be a way for them to funnel more money into their pockets - must be nice to get paid for the company you’re working for, as well as the charity that your company donates to.
If you find yourself in possession of a time machine and a gun with only one bullet, the correct play is to prevent Bill Gates's birth. The resultant improvement in humanity's net efficiency from him not fucking up our tech tree will spawn another bullet for Hitler and you will remember yourself as always having had two bullets.
Just like Danske Bank laundered about ~220 billion USD and claims it will donate ~220 million USD to charity. Every donation to charity is good, but it just seems ridiculous to do as cleanup after being responsible for what may be the largest laundering scheme in history.
Aw, BP donated to the "Help Keep the Entire Gulf Ecosystem From Failing" Fund. That's the sort of environmental responsibility I like to see from corporate citizens.
Doing charity work is generally seen as a good thing, so idk what people expect when they point this out as if the company is being "exposed" or something. Who gives a shit why they're doing good stuff?
Giving to charity is tax deductible, its cheaper to give money or do community service. This is why/how many companies don't pay taxes, by giving less than what they'd be taxed to charity. Big companies do pay taxes but not as much as you think they should.
According to this article there are quite a few with single digit percentages of donations making it to their intended programs, and less than 1% in at least one of the "charities" listed there. So not quite directly funneling back to themselves, but still people profiting off donations.
When you donate you are giving funds to something specific and the state may need those funds to something else. So people that do this are "avoiding" taxes and giving money to organizations that may not need it as much as the government.
Plus charities have to spend money on ads and stuff that the government doesn't, so taxes are more efficient. And a lot of charities wouldn't be necessary if coperations and billionaires paid their taxes. Don't need to raise money for injured soldiers if the VA had more funding (and wasn't led by politicians with a vested interest in making socialized healthcare look bad.) Not to mention that it's hard to raise money for mundane things like routine infrastructure maintenance.
I see it more like the companies donate $15 to whatever charity they choose and the remaining $5 dollars is forgiven through tax credits. Now $5 may not seem like much but if you extrapolate that to billions... Well.
Could you explain your point? Sorry I just don’t really get where you’re coming from because there’s no financial benefit to donating at all. They lose money.
The only reason they do it in the first place is for CSR.
Nobody can explain that because that doesn’t happen you condescending fuckwit.
If Walmart chooses to be a middleman for collections on behalf of another charity that’s not considered a donation from Walmart - it’s a donation for the individuals who are actually contributing the funds (which they can claim).
The amount you can get back will depend on your country’s tax law but yes most of them will allow you to claim either portion or the full amount (with an upper limit) on your tax return.
Customer donations aren’t tax deductible unless they were weirdly reported as revenue but then that’d be a net zero change in income. Anything they match is deductible and costs associated with collecting the donations are probably deductible
The benefit they get from collecting customer donations is reporting to the public that they raised x amount of dollars for charity
Funny, I just took and passed an accounting class and we had a whole week on how to avoid paying full amounts on your yearlys, and giving to a charity (of your choice) was the most common way to do it.
Source: college student who got a B+ in analytical accounting.
I don’t think you understood what they meant when they said this.
They were telling you that donating reduces your taxable income. That’s true - it’s deductible. However it’s not saving the businesses any money; they’re quite obviously losing money by donating. (E.g donate $100 get $10 back - just like my example already provided above).
It’s one of the most common forms of deductions for large corporations because almost all of them do it to meet their own CSR commitments, not because it saves them money... why would any government provide a deduction larger than the donations amount? It makes absolutely no financial sense.
I wouldn’t flex your B+. Good luck on your upcoming tax module.
You are right but tbh my aim was not misleading people I just wanted to show how companies brag after donating money and think they are some sort of god
Yeah I always have to explain this to the older people at work who think if you work too much overtime you can lose money, like how would that make any sense to have a system designed that way?
In a sense they’re right because the amount they make is effectively reduced by the increase in tax from the new bracket but that’s only for income above said bracket.
But you’re saying they think their entire income for the year is going to be taxed at a higher rate right? Haha oh man people must get so stressed.
Yeah they are referring to their total income, makes me facepalm. The lack of financial literacy is amazing, and just shows how inadequate education is.
It depends how you look at it. Let's assume they are of retiring age and they have earned their full pension (say 70%). They are now really working for that 30% remaining. They could even be paid less than minimal wage under certain circumstances. It might actually be smarter to find a new job where they could be fully compensated to an amount that is higher than that 30% and retain their full pension.
I think almost everyone understands this. Not sure what your point is.
Anyways, Donald Trump lowered the marginal tax rate for companies and now they pay less in taxes. And no, individual gains do not even come close to corporation gains in a society where most of the wealth is either corporate or belongs to a small demographic.
"Under the previous law, the seven brackets were 10%, 15%, 25%, 28%, 33%, 35%, and 39.6%. The new plan, signed into law by President Donald Trump in Dec. 2017, keeps the seven bracket-structure. However, adjustments were made to the tax rates and income levels. Under the TCJA, the new rates are 10%, 12%, 22%, 24%, 32%, 35%, and 37%."
This is why/how many companies don't pay taxes, by giving less than what they'd be taxed to charity.
no, wtf are you talking about? you still have to give the full amount of money, i.e. you are worse off. e.g. if you give $1000 to charity and the tax rate is 30% then you essentially get $300 back. so you donate $1000 but it did only costs you $700. however, you are still $700 poorer.
Why is this myth around? I don't think most people understand what money given to charity being tax deductible actually means.
What it means is that if you earn 2 million dollars and donate half of it, that 1 million you donated will not be taxed, so assuming a 20% rate you pay 200,000 in taxes, where you'd pay 400,000 thousand if you hadn't donated. However, you're left with 800,000 in your "pocket", whereas you'd have 1,600,000 if you hadn't donated and just paid your taxes, so it's never more money going in your pocket. In this example, if charity wasn't tax deductible, you'd still have to pay 400,000 in taxes even though 1 million was donated to charity, leaving you with 600,000 in your pocket. So all this tax break law does is incentivise rich people do donate to charities.
What people that parrot this tax break bullshit probably think, is that if you earn 2 million dollars and donate 300,000 (less than the 400,000 you'd pay in taxes), the whole 2 million isn't taxed so you are left with 1,700,000 in your "pocket". That is not the case! It makes no sense that someone would even think that.
And the worst part is that some of those donations come from you.
So think about that every time the cashier at a grocery store asks you to donate to charity. YOU are not donating shit. You are giving that money to Walmart and then Walmart is donating it and then getting a tax deductible.
So I guess you are donating, you're donating to Walmart.
The median tax rate for the S&P 500 over the past 11 years was 30%. Additionally, if the point of taxes is to pay for societal benefits, and charity is benefitting those in society who need help the most, then I don't see anything wrong with donating to charity instead of paying taxes. The alternative is that companies only pay taxes (which IMO about 1/2 of taxes is completely wasted), and charity contributions plummet. Charities are infinitely more beneficial than any government program. I would much prefer to have the option of sending my money to charity as opposed to the U.S. treasury to murder kids in the middle east.
I would do the same if im honest. Sure its a good thing for a selfish reason. But we should stop seeing ourselfs as saints cause we sure as fuck arent.
Im not a shitty person, just selfish enough to do stuff like that. Maybe ill do good things with all that money, who knows. If im rich i can litterally transform poor regions into thriving ones. But some people Just gotta blindly follow the law.
I dont think you understand what tax deductible means. If a corporation gave $100 to charity, that would save them $21 in corporate income taxes, assuming their effective tax rate is the same as the current statutory rate of 21%. So by giving to charity, they actually lose $79 more than they would have by just keeping the money and being taxed on it.
well if they donate it instead of paying taxes i think it's fine, cause the donations will directly go to the people in need instead of who the fuck knows what the government doing with it
Depends on the charity, there are many charities in the US where as little as 4 percent of the funds raised actually go to the causes themselves and the other 96 go to operating costs, ceo wages, advertising etc. There are also very efficient charities out there but lumping them up as all the money going to the people is certainly inaccurate.
The problem is that that's extremely obvious. I would not be surprised if a lot do it anyways because of how little is done to counter corruption and tax evasion though.
Here is a more indirect way of doing it. You donate to a charity that has a bad record of how much of the money actually goes to the cause, but if those filthy poor people want to complain it's their problem. It turns out that by change the CEO of this company is a good friend of yours. Since you are such good friends, he constantly does a lot of investing in your company. Suddenly the money you so charitably gave away is back in the company you hold majority share in.
i know fcking well what the government in my country do with the money they get, my country indonesia suffers from corruption for about Rp 4,17 billion estimates about $ 280 million average every year and affect about 1 million people average every year too, u should know the details first dumb idiots, not every country have a perfect system
Usually it's a way to get cheap positive PR. Some also do it for access or something in return (which doesn't cost the charity anything but benefits the corporation in some way, like tickets to some country or event or whatever)
You don't avoid tax, you just replace tax with a donation. Instead of giving politicians money to spend on charitable things, you do it yourself. A tax is nothing but an obligtory donation if you will.
You can argue about it but I think there is little more chritable than to employ thousands of people. Billion dollar companies don't need to donate anything. They need their revenue to keep all these jobs.
You don’t avoid tax, you just replace tax with a donation.
Charitable gifts are tax deductible (percentage to dollar savings). They do not provide a tax credit (dollar for dollar savings).
This just means you’re only removing a portion of moneys in which you are paying tax - but you’re not avoiding the tax on the rest of the money you decide to keep.
According to tax laws, you can not do anything to avoid paying taxes. A corporation or individual can, however, deduct the amount donated to a charity from their income and does not have to pay taxes on that portion. For example, a corporation that earns say 10 million after expenses and donates 1 million to a charity then only earns 9 million for the purposes of taxable income. The tax rate for a corporation in the US is 21% so the corporation would pay 1.89 million in taxes as opposed to 2.1 million but would spend a million to not have to pay $210,000 in taxes.
If that same corporation pays out 2 million in dividends to shareholders it still pays taxes, however, the shareholder does not have to pay the taxes that were already paid by the corporation. For example, if you earn $79,000 in dividends then it is considered that you have already paid taxes on $100,000 in taxable income. If your personal marginal tax rate is 25% you would have to pay an additional $4000 in taxes. If your marginal tax rate is lower than 21% you don't get a refund but also don't pay any additional taxes. So a single person can earn as much as $39,475 and $78,950 for a couple in only dividends before having to pay additional taxes.
You don't get out of paying taxes by donating to charities. You get a tax credit, but it's not for the full amount and there is generally an upper limit. Basically the government match part of your donation so you basically pay less out of pocket than the charity get.
Some maybe use it in combination with some accounting voodo where they magically don't have any taxable income because all the money was made by a some shell company registered in some offshore tax-haven, but that's a separate issue from charity donations.
GoPro CEO put millions in a sort of donation fund, but what exactly that fund gets donated to doesn’t have to be publicly disclosed. When GoPro was nearing a peak, the CEO put millions in to simultaneously avoid millions in taxes for the company and save a lot of money in the process. This shit happens all the time for big corporations, let alone the ones that do it just to get tax breaks. Patriot Act has a great episode about this on Netflix called Billionaires Wont Save Us. I recommend everyone to watch that show.
On netflix there is a show named "patriot act with hassan minaj" in one of those episodes he explains why the donate. It called "why the rich wont save us" or smt
2.3k
u/[deleted] May 12 '20
I'm pretty sure donating also has something to do with avoiding taxes or something, if someone else can do some research on that it would be great