• qyron@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 hours ago

    I wasn’t going to comment initially but, thinking again, I will.

    According to what I was once explained, the scheme runs like this.

    a) organization X starts a fund raising campaign

    This alone can be deducted as an expense, as any amount of hours can be attributed to planning, preparing, etc, the entire thing.

    As this time as no profitable end, it can be deducted.

    b) You donate. But now it’s their money.

    Your money is siphoned to a separate bank account or just tallied and earmarked as for charitable purpouses but this does not mean the entity needs to hand it over immediatly.

    That money is held within the company’s vaults, figure of expression, and, as such, counts towards the overall financial assets of the company.

    It still needs to be handed to the end recipient but until it does it can be used to leverage loans and be invested into short term investment products, like overnight deposits (with hundreds of thousands or even millions it does gain interest overnight).

    c) the money gets donated eventually but not by you

    Eventually, all that money gets handed over but it is now their money, not yours. And as such, they get the tax deduction. And, again, with hundreds of thousands to millions in donations, the deduction gets very high.

    This deduction, on your expense, goes towards clearing more of their profits.

    Want to do something good?

    Volunteer. Help your neighbour. With your own efforts, actions and work. Don’t hand over money.

    • brendansimms@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      53 minutes ago

      As mentioned in other comments - the tax deduction thing is not true. It is true, however, that they can '‘donate’ the funds to a charitable foundation that is run by the same people as the company (i.e. they are on the board of the charity as well as being C-suite execs of the company) thereby creating a slush fund disguised as charity that may only need to actually use 5% for charitable activities.

  • Fetus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 hours ago

    Why do they never offer to match donations? I’d probably consider it if they did.

    • filcuk@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 hours ago

      Someone correct me, but I understood that donations serve as a tax write-off.
      So they don’t care about the donations as much as their own savings.

      • hakobo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 hours ago

        Since you asked, the tax write off stuff is basically a myth. If you donate, let’s say $20, then they have to mark down $20 of additional income, raising their tax burden by $20 x 21% (federal, plus whatever state tax there is). Then, when they hand over the money to the charity, they get to take a $20 deduction (not a credit) which means their tax burden is lowered by $20 x 21% (again plus any state tax). So comes out even in the end. The deduction basically says, hey, remember the $20 I put down as income? Don’t tax me on that because I used it for a tax-exempt purpose. They report it as income, then report the donation. Nothing fishy there.

        However, depending on how long they hold onto that money, it’s possible to use the money to make other money, like investing it or even just sticking it in a savings account where it would get a little interest. And with enough donations, that might add up.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      5 hours ago

      Why do they never offer to match donations?

      Why would they bother? It costs them next to nothing to stick an ad on the screen. But matching donations would be far more expensive.

      Besides “matching donations” has always been a scam. These agreements inevitably amount to “Person/Org X agrees to donate up to $X in matching funds”. But $X is so small that its trivial to hit. And I’ve never heard of someone failing to get the whole amount regardless of the donation rate. It’s just an excuse for the folks running the donation drive to scream “PLEASE! PLEASE! PLEASE! Your refusal to donate an extra $1 is costing us $10!!! Why are you being so stingy!!!”

    • Red0ctober@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 hours ago

      Because you’re giving them money that they then donate and claim as their own. It’s a way to get around actually donating money from their profits, while making it look like they’re donating a ton for the tax write off.

      • entwine413@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        6 hours ago

        That’s not how it works, at all. Businesses can’t claim donations they collect on behalf of a charity as a deduction.

        • WhyIAughta@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 hours ago

          A friend in the field had told me that they preemptively make donations to offset their taxes. Let say it’s 1million dollars. they put up 1 million dollars of their own money, then they gather donations at the till towards this charity to pay themselves back for the money they spent.

          Again just what I’ve heard.

          • teejay@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            5 hours ago

            I had a friend who once told me his brother discovered Alaska while riding in a hot air balloon. I wonder if we have the same friend.

            • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              5 hours ago

              “Had a friend at a business report that the business was casually doing fraud to lower their tax liability.”

              “Oh yeah? Well I had a friend who reported he is a talking monkey who lives in Mars.”

              “Damn, both of these stories sound equally far-fetched and unbelievable.”

  • grte@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 hours ago

    Congrats, you understand that the government taxing them and using the money to fix social problems will work infinitely better than charity ever has.

  • MagosInformaticus@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    9 hours ago

    The purpose of these is that the company gets to deduct charitable donations from its revenue before taxation. Even if you are in a position to give you probably shouldn’t use this method.
    If they’ll actually open their own wallet in e.g. a fund matching program, there might be net benefit, but don’t do it just to help companies avoid their fair share of taxes.

    • entwine413@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 hours ago

      You’re wrong. Companies that collect donations on behalf of a charity can’t deduct a single penny of it.

    • surewhynotlem@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 hours ago

      This isn’t correct.

      If they get an extra million in these donations, they can deduct that extra million. It’s a net zero improvement. It does not help them at all financially.

      But it’s free good will and they can advertise that THEY donated a bunch. It’s just to make them look good.

          • entwine413@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            6 hours ago

            Because it’s not income and they’re just passing the money through. Why would they pay taxes on it?

            • surewhynotlem@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              4 hours ago

              They wouldn’t.

              My original point is that there’s no additional financial benefit to the company by doing this. They don’t win or lose financially.

              People make these donations out to be some kind of financial scam. They’re not. They’re a perception scam, because the company can say “we donated X, aren’t we great”.

  • hardtrip@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 hours ago

    The reason they ask for donations is because they can pool the donations together, say they’re donating, and then get a tax write off. They are just trying to make free money.

    • ImplyingImplications@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 hours ago

      This is a commonly repeated myth but it isn’t true. Nobody gets a tax write off in point-of-sale fundraising. Charities ask stores to do it because it’s one of the most efficient and effective ways for a charity to raise money. Chairty events are costly, and asking people on the street gets a lot of rejection. Stores agree to do it because they get to run ads saying they helped raise millions for charity and the charity will usually shout them out as well.

      • RattlerSix@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 hours ago

        I’ve always been curious how the money gets to the charity. Does the corporation put the donations into an account and collect interest on it before they give it to the charity?

        • 0x01@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          7 hours ago

          And who pays the cc fees? And do they have an agreement with the cc provider for a kickback? There are so many hands involved with simple monetary transactions most people wouldn’t believe it.

      • Ethalis@jlai.lu
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        8 hours ago

        I work for a retailer and have been loosely involved in a project like that a few years ago.

        Basically, it felt like it was mostly a very inexpensive way for the company to get everyone involved feel good about themselves. The free advertising was definitely an argument to get the higher-ups on board, but my impression was that it was kinda secondary compared to the kinda fake good conscience it gave everyone.

        There was definitely no tax breaks for that initiative though, so at least in my country that is indeed a myth

      • hardtrip@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 hours ago

        Damn, I didn’t know I was duped. I do wonder how this holds up in countries other than the US.

    • alexc@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 hours ago

      Don’t forget the press release they can also make saying how nice they are for donating, too…

  • YappyMonotheist@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 hours ago

    Remember that none of the people working there have any say in the matter either, and are most likely struggling themselves. The system was made broken.

  • oni ᓚᘏᗢ@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    52 minutes ago

    I don’t know. I don’t know how high finance works, but a company who has the oportunity to take 1 dollar from every person is a big no for me. I do not care if they do donate the money or not, I don’t do it because we let them carry that ridiculy amount of money, to the people that does know how high finance work. Maybe the money it is donate it, yea, but, what’s next? I do not want to be rewarded, I wanna know if my money the money of everyone was delivered as it should, that’s all, and I don’t think that a company uses the same time that spent to ask you for a dollar for letting you know that everything is fine.