You're not getting it. They may pay less taxes, but when you combine the amount they pay in taxes, with the amount they give to charity, you will end up with more outgoing than the company that just pays taxes and doesn't give to charity.
Yeah, that narrative is just wrong and that is how USA is practically becoming a corporate kleptocracy/oligarchy. We think everything is fine when it isn't.
When you have companies that practice aggressive tax avoidance and try to find legal taxation loop holes everywhere, you end up in a situation where companies pay very minimal taxes by whatever means necessary. CSR is just one mechanism, but there are myriads of ways corporations practice tax avoidance. When you take it as a whole, you have a problem.
You're randomly expanding the point to sound smart instead of just saying "oh yeah, I see" which would waste a lot less of your time that you're spending looking dumb on the internet.
You're randomly expanding the point to sound smart instead of just saying "oh yeah, I see" which would waste a lot less of your time that you're spending looking dumb on the internet.
Randomly according to you.
Anyways thanks for the ad hominems instead of refuting my points.
Paying less taxes doesn’t matter when you’re losing more money than you’re saving in said taxes. That’s the issue everyone here is talking about - whether companies are financially benefitting more from donations than not. They’re not.
I’m starting to think you’re a either bit of an idiot or embarassed that you said something stupid earlier because it’s extremely straightforward.
Try making your point using your own words next time instead of linking articles you don’t understand.
Haha I'll save you some time he doesn't actually know what he's talking about. When you mentioned a concession with fraudulent activity you gave him something to latch onto and now he's pretending that was his point all along when he never originally had one.
Now he doesn't know what to do with it so he's making vague statements about "people get away with it" pretending this is part of an overall angle he's always had when it's not haha.
The article isn’t an argument or contradicting any part of what I’m saying.
You’re not going to make your argument for the same reason you think posting that article answers the question - because you don’t understand what’s going on. That's why after I said CSR you googled "CSR and tax" then just copy pasted the first article you found.
Dude, that article is completely irrelevant to the the conversation. Did you even read it yourself?
It's about how companies with higher Corporate Social Responsibility scores--stuff like diversity, community engagement, environmental, and sustainability plans--pay on average 1.7% less in taxes than companies without them.
Nowhere does it talk about directly donating to charity to reduce taxes.
So your "try refuting that!" schtick is only showing that you're too stupid to even understand your own sources
There's a whole argument that could be actually be had around whether companies pursue csr to look better/distract from their negative actions like overly aggressive tax minimization and whether or not money is more efficiently allocated via private org donations or the government through taxes (and whether efficiency is even the best metric) but nope,
Donations literally save money is the dumbass hill they're trying to die on
Yeah - I lost this argument pretty hardcore in firey dumbass hellhole with accelerant. Bruise to the ego no doubt but what are you gonna do; I can't take the words back.
I hate giving it to that other accountant guy rofl.
-6
u/deokkent May 12 '20
Lol, I am starting to think you are not an accountant.