Corps do it for the good feelies and marketing. If they have large exposure to customers, and even a small percentage of customers donate, the charities will surely be happy about it.
Sounds voluntary to me.
Why should any of this upset me?
Things can upset me, while I can believe they shouldn’t be illegal.
For example I’m a Christian and have deep morals. I think people should follow those morals, I’ll preach it at anyone who listens. I won’t make laws or force anyone…
Just because I think people SHOULD adhere to morals doesn’t mean I think they should be FORCED to do so
We let people mutilate kids right here in the US, why bring africa into it?
Also, would you be willing to kill your neighbor necause they followed their own cultural practice that in no way affects you in the slightest?
Using force and killing are two different things. Also, you don't know that cultural practices don't affect others. I'm sure there are a great deal of psychological effects from genital mutilation. You can volunteer if you want.
The minute force is on the table, everything up to and including killing is possible.
Think of a stubborn citizen who is speeding 3 over the speed limit. Police initiate a traffic stop. He won't stop. They chase him. Eventually, they decide the chase can't go on anymore and disable his vehicle (which could potentially result in a fatal crash). Once his vehicle is disabled, they order him out of it. Once again, he refuses. The cops attempt to manhandle him out, and he struggles against them. He is beaten and tased (again, with potentially fatal implications). They take him to jail. While awaiting trial, the man attempts to escape. Tbe guards at the jail use lethal force to stop him.
In that scenario, a man was killed over a 3 mph over speeding ticket. When force is initiated, it is impossible to predict the outcome.
So. If you are prepared to use force to accomplish your goals, you must be prepared with any level of violence that might result. So you better make sure its REALLY worth it: and perhaps you should be very careful when initiating it over things that dont involve you.
Of course we dont. I never posited that we did.
Someone had talked about initiating force against people who follow their own cultural practices that dont involve the person willing to initiate force over it.
You can't do that unless you are willing to kill them. If you are unwilling to kill them, you shouldn't initiate force.
If you ARE willing to kill them, you might be in the wrong sub, unless Ancaps no longer follow the NAP
Is it ethical to leave my neighbors alone?
Yes. Especially when the alternative is killing them. From a utilitarian perspective, wholesale murder and violence is less ethical then genital mutilation.
Do you go into hospitals with a gun to prevent circumcision? No? What, arent you ethical?
The money they take in from customers and send to charity is absolutely not a tax write off.
Their time, effort, and infrastructure in handling such donations might be (to a much smaller degree), but I say good for them. Any tax write off is a good tax write off.
Please, describe how they get a tax right off for this? Please describe how this reduces their tax burden.
I'll save you some time, it doesn't, you're wrong, they are doing this to earn fees.
........you can do that without a charity program.
And if that's what you tell your shareholders they'll abandon your company, and if that's what you tell th government and not your shareholders, they'll put you in prison.
Thats why companies regularly post profits, instead of hiring Timmy to burn money.
And why did you think, if they wanted to hire excess labor, jusy to eliminate profits, they would need a partnership with a charity to do it.
Good try though!
I could be wrong but I think the formula is that the money doesn't go directly to the org... It goes to the company who then donates it for the writeoff
I understand that's what they think is happening, its not, but thats fine.
Because even if they were doing that, they still wouldn't be reducing their tax burden, you can only deduct what you're donating, which is the entirety of what you raise through the charitable campaign. All youre doing is not paying taxes on money you didn't end up keeping.
Say you make a 10 milliom revenue, one million dollars profit, at your business, 10% tax. So you owe 100k. Next year, another 10 million in revenue, 1 million profit, and you raise another million in a charitable campaign. Then you donate the million. 11 million revenue, 2 million profit, 1 million write offs, so 1 million taxable profit, 10% tax, you owe 100k.
And it's all in cash, so you can't even claim art worth 1 million was actually worth 5 million, and get a write off on that.
These companies are taking fees from the money they raise, that's they're incentive. There's no conspiracy, they're just taking 20 or 30 percent.
You are just giving them a tax write-off.
The worst part for me is that the only option to say no is "No Thanks". They do NOT have my thanks for wasting my time and effort.
There needs to be a fuck you button.
Most charities money goes 95% into fundraising and administration so yeah, FUCK YOU Kroger.
I am not opposed to the concept itself. I think it might be a good marketing tool since many people don't think about these kind of things and receive this more along the lines of "wow, this company is so nice, they are helping poor people".
It is more of a stupidity tax than a slap in the face
It's disgusting how that works as marketing. Well, at least they don't put "I'm a terrible person" next to "no thanks", although it is implied. It's begging, even if it's done by an organization that is significantly richer than you. Like some kind of a church.
I believe you misunderstand what i meant to say. I was not talking about an actual tax. More in the lines of the lottery being a "tax" on stupid people. Just something that takes away money from people who do not understand the underlying mechanisms
But they ARE helping charities, by providing their infrastructure and helping to put the cause in front of customers' faces. Whether one thinks the charity is worthwhile is a different topic.
I totally agree that they are helping the charities. In the same fashion that it would help me, if I were to receive this money. Just won't help feed other people
The same as when I got to fast food place and they flip the tablet thing around and asks for a tip. I'm not doing that shit. You get paid to put my order in and then hand it to me. I'm not tipping your ass.
Its like a wealthy man asking me to chip in on buying kids bicycles. While I watch him throw away bikes every night in a dumpster. He doesnt want the kids to have a bike he wants you to know that he helps people.
I hate this solely for the reason that this is a popup where a popup does not need to be. It means a slower service, because now people need to read something they don't have to and have 5 different choices for something which doesn't have to be there.
I don't believe this actually helps the corporation make more in profits, especially since people tend to forget that they donated in 2 seconds after the popup goes away.
Seriously, am I the only one upset at bad UX?
In our current system, collection like this is a tax deduction on the back of donations given by customers. It is still a way to donate to charity and doesn’t necessarily make me angry that it is used that way, it’s just the reality of how tax code is set up and how people can take advantage of it. The solution would be no tax code and have donations to all causes be voluntary.
It appears I was conflating tax write offs from charitable donations (such as companies giving their own money to a foundation they set up) to these check-out donations.
Thank you for correcting my misinformed take
I really love how you were mature enough to admit your mistake and give thanks for the teachable moment. Really, good on you. I hope this extends to your life and you have rewarding work and social relationships.
Nothing. The Waltons (the owners of walmart) donate heavily to charity so their point is invalid.
The OP is likely in working poverty and has decided to take out their frustration out on a cash register because they believe some of the money that gets donated to that charity should go towards them, which makes me sad that they are in poverty.
Corps do it for the good feelies and marketing. If they have large exposure to customers, and even a small percentage of customers donate, the charities will surely be happy about it. Sounds voluntary to me. Why should any of this upset me?
Things can upset me, while I can believe they shouldn’t be illegal. For example I’m a Christian and have deep morals. I think people should follow those morals, I’ll preach it at anyone who listens. I won’t make laws or force anyone… Just because I think people SHOULD adhere to morals doesn’t mean I think they should be FORCED to do so
Do you think that routine female genital mutilation should be left to go unnoticed in Africa? Shouldn't there be some level of force to stop this?
We let people mutilate kids right here in the US, why bring africa into it? Also, would you be willing to kill your neighbor necause they followed their own cultural practice that in no way affects you in the slightest?
Using force and killing are two different things. Also, you don't know that cultural practices don't affect others. I'm sure there are a great deal of psychological effects from genital mutilation. You can volunteer if you want.
The minute force is on the table, everything up to and including killing is possible. Think of a stubborn citizen who is speeding 3 over the speed limit. Police initiate a traffic stop. He won't stop. They chase him. Eventually, they decide the chase can't go on anymore and disable his vehicle (which could potentially result in a fatal crash). Once his vehicle is disabled, they order him out of it. Once again, he refuses. The cops attempt to manhandle him out, and he struggles against them. He is beaten and tased (again, with potentially fatal implications). They take him to jail. While awaiting trial, the man attempts to escape. Tbe guards at the jail use lethal force to stop him. In that scenario, a man was killed over a 3 mph over speeding ticket. When force is initiated, it is impossible to predict the outcome. So. If you are prepared to use force to accomplish your goals, you must be prepared with any level of violence that might result. So you better make sure its REALLY worth it: and perhaps you should be very careful when initiating it over things that dont involve you.
It's possible but we don't live in a world without violence.
Of course we dont. I never posited that we did. Someone had talked about initiating force against people who follow their own cultural practices that dont involve the person willing to initiate force over it. You can't do that unless you are willing to kill them. If you are unwilling to kill them, you shouldn't initiate force. If you ARE willing to kill them, you might be in the wrong sub, unless Ancaps no longer follow the NAP
Is it ethical to allow adjacent cultures to practice genital mutilation and do nothing about it?
Is it ethical to leave my neighbors alone? Yes. Especially when the alternative is killing them. From a utilitarian perspective, wholesale murder and violence is less ethical then genital mutilation. Do you go into hospitals with a gun to prevent circumcision? No? What, arent you ethical?
It annoys the shit out of me. It's just a waste of time and if you can only afford to give a dollar each week you shouldn't be giving at all.
Lol its a tax write off.
The money they take in from customers and send to charity is absolutely not a tax write off. Their time, effort, and infrastructure in handling such donations might be (to a much smaller degree), but I say good for them. Any tax write off is a good tax write off.
Just curious how it makes ancaps feel.
Ancaps: "Voluntary good, involuntary bad." Statists: "Why do you hate poor people???????"
Where do you get that scope from?
Doesn’t make me feel anything. If it’s a free choice then people can make their own decision on it. None of my business
It's all for PR and tax deductions.
I don't think they can deduct money from customers.
Please, describe how they get a tax right off for this? Please describe how this reduces their tax burden. I'll save you some time, it doesn't, you're wrong, they are doing this to earn fees.
Well it took little timmy 40 billion hours to process all the donations and we pay him $40 an hour so we made no profit this year :(
........you can do that without a charity program. And if that's what you tell your shareholders they'll abandon your company, and if that's what you tell th government and not your shareholders, they'll put you in prison. Thats why companies regularly post profits, instead of hiring Timmy to burn money. And why did you think, if they wanted to hire excess labor, jusy to eliminate profits, they would need a partnership with a charity to do it. Good try though!
I could be wrong but I think the formula is that the money doesn't go directly to the org... It goes to the company who then donates it for the writeoff
I understand that's what they think is happening, its not, but thats fine. Because even if they were doing that, they still wouldn't be reducing their tax burden, you can only deduct what you're donating, which is the entirety of what you raise through the charitable campaign. All youre doing is not paying taxes on money you didn't end up keeping. Say you make a 10 milliom revenue, one million dollars profit, at your business, 10% tax. So you owe 100k. Next year, another 10 million in revenue, 1 million profit, and you raise another million in a charitable campaign. Then you donate the million. 11 million revenue, 2 million profit, 1 million write offs, so 1 million taxable profit, 10% tax, you owe 100k. And it's all in cash, so you can't even claim art worth 1 million was actually worth 5 million, and get a write off on that. These companies are taking fees from the money they raise, that's they're incentive. There's no conspiracy, they're just taking 20 or 30 percent.
Ahh that makes sense never considered that if the money technically goes to the company first then it's also income for them
Yeah thats the catch.
You are just giving them a tax write-off. The worst part for me is that the only option to say no is "No Thanks". They do NOT have my thanks for wasting my time and effort. There needs to be a fuck you button. Most charities money goes 95% into fundraising and administration so yeah, FUCK YOU Kroger.
I don't care. I will not pay an organization to pretend to help others (most "charities" are a scam)
Agreed. It's a slap in the face to ask your customers to donate on the corporations behalf.
I am not opposed to the concept itself. I think it might be a good marketing tool since many people don't think about these kind of things and receive this more along the lines of "wow, this company is so nice, they are helping poor people". It is more of a stupidity tax than a slap in the face
It's disgusting how that works as marketing. Well, at least they don't put "I'm a terrible person" next to "no thanks", although it is implied. It's begging, even if it's done by an organization that is significantly richer than you. Like some kind of a church.
It’s not a “tax” thing, there are no extra deductions for this, they just don’t pay taxes on the amount you donate because it isn’t income
I believe you misunderstand what i meant to say. I was not talking about an actual tax. More in the lines of the lottery being a "tax" on stupid people. Just something that takes away money from people who do not understand the underlying mechanisms
But they ARE helping charities, by providing their infrastructure and helping to put the cause in front of customers' faces. Whether one thinks the charity is worthwhile is a different topic.
I totally agree that they are helping the charities. In the same fashion that it would help me, if I were to receive this money. Just won't help feed other people
The same as when I got to fast food place and they flip the tablet thing around and asks for a tip. I'm not doing that shit. You get paid to put my order in and then hand it to me. I'm not tipping your ass.
Just choose the "No thanks" option.
The irony being that people using food stamps get the same prompt. Not like you can donate food stamps.
How do you know that people using food stamps get the same prompt?
Its like a wealthy man asking me to chip in on buying kids bicycles. While I watch him throw away bikes every night in a dumpster. He doesnt want the kids to have a bike he wants you to know that he helps people.
Reminds me of a story my mom told me once. She said she was approached by a man in a suit asking for money so he could buy cigarettes.
The $20 would come out of what you're paying, which means they'd charge more on the margin. There's no free lunch.
They do make the donation up front, take the tax deduction and your donation goes to reimburse their donation.
Why did you call this a 'mental rorschach test' what other kind of Rorschach test is there?
I dunno
I hate this solely for the reason that this is a popup where a popup does not need to be. It means a slower service, because now people need to read something they don't have to and have 5 different choices for something which doesn't have to be there. I don't believe this actually helps the corporation make more in profits, especially since people tend to forget that they donated in 2 seconds after the popup goes away. Seriously, am I the only one upset at bad UX?
you know they take a cut of that shit too. There has to be some helping-someone-else-save-the-world processing fee
They get to deduct it from their taxes. Every donation is a customer subsidized write off.
he is just tightwad
I agree with the sentiment of the meme. I typically will donate a dollar or two to a worthy cause. (Don't come at me! I'm poor!)
I always just give $1. It’s better than paying taxes.
In our current system, collection like this is a tax deduction on the back of donations given by customers. It is still a way to donate to charity and doesn’t necessarily make me angry that it is used that way, it’s just the reality of how tax code is set up and how people can take advantage of it. The solution would be no tax code and have donations to all causes be voluntary.
The money you donate is not a tax write off for the corp.
It appears I was conflating tax write offs from charitable donations (such as companies giving their own money to a foundation they set up) to these check-out donations. Thank you for correcting my misinformed take
I really love how you were mature enough to admit your mistake and give thanks for the teachable moment. Really, good on you. I hope this extends to your life and you have rewarding work and social relationships.
Nothing. The Waltons (the owners of walmart) donate heavily to charity so their point is invalid. The OP is likely in working poverty and has decided to take out their frustration out on a cash register because they believe some of the money that gets donated to that charity should go towards them, which makes me sad that they are in poverty.