Its worse than that. A corporation starts a charity or gives 100k to one. Real nice right? Nope.
They will:
use that to decrease their tax burden, robbing the commons of their share of taxes to repair the infrastructure their semi-trucks and businesses disproportionately use and tear up, the public educated, pre-literate workforce they have access to, and then…
they ADVERTISE how noble they are, spending millions upon millions in ad buys to tell you what how awesome they are for donating that 100k. They use the guise of what is supposed to be giving with no expectation of return, ie “charity,” as a marketing strategy, and then…
They use such initiatives as lobbying tools to explain why their industry doesn’t need to be taxed to institutionally, societally address the issue that is currently subject to the transient whims of charity.
There is nothing a publically traded corporation does that isn’t done out of greed, that isn’t calculated to provide more return than dispursment. Nothing.
Charity with any expectation of return, beyond a warm fuzzy feeling inside, isn’t charity at all, but there is a word for it: a transaction.
At least for point number 2 they should just make it so that if a company advertises that they gave to charity it’s no longer a tax write off. It’s basically a marketing expense at that point and should be treated like that.
I’d support that. I’ve experienced companies that do more donation with their own employees’ time. Pay the employee the same as they would doing normal work. Employee works as a volunteer in something not business related to further the community or whatnot. That work (as far as I can tell) is never communicated outside the company besides some lame message saying “we care”. The donation is actually an incentive to keep around employees who want to make an impact instead of the public side. Sure it’s selfish but it does work. I respect that side more than crazy tax breaks and ad campaigns like what has been brought up in this thread.
Its worse than that. A corporation starts a charity or gives 100k to one. Real nice right? Nope.
They will:
use that to decrease their tax burden, robbing the commons of their share of taxes to repair the infrastructure their semi-trucks and businesses disproportionately use and tear up, the public educated, pre-literate workforce they have access to, and then…
they ADVERTISE how noble they are, spending millions upon millions in ad buys to tell you what how awesome they are for donating that 100k. They use the guise of what is supposed to be giving with no expectation of return, ie “charity,” as a marketing strategy, and then…
They use such initiatives as lobbying tools to explain why their industry doesn’t need to be taxed to institutionally, societally address the issue that is currently subject to the transient whims of charity.
There is nothing a publically traded corporation does that isn’t done out of greed, that isn’t calculated to provide more return than dispursment. Nothing.
Charity with any expectation of return, beyond a warm fuzzy feeling inside, isn’t charity at all, but there is a word for it: a transaction.
At least for point number 2 they should just make it so that if a company advertises that they gave to charity it’s no longer a tax write off. It’s basically a marketing expense at that point and should be treated like that.
I’d support that. I’ve experienced companies that do more donation with their own employees’ time. Pay the employee the same as they would doing normal work. Employee works as a volunteer in something not business related to further the community or whatnot. That work (as far as I can tell) is never communicated outside the company besides some lame message saying “we care”. The donation is actually an incentive to keep around employees who want to make an impact instead of the public side. Sure it’s selfish but it does work. I respect that side more than crazy tax breaks and ad campaigns like what has been brought up in this thread.