… But they would be donating the value of the money you gave them. So that money shouldn’t be profit, and this would be zeroed out. They did not gain invisible donation money.
You’re extraordinarily angry in both your comments to me. It baffles me as to why.
Perhaps take a moment to read the things I’ve said and the things you’re assuming I meant, and then compare the two.
It’s possible for companies to give money to charity (nobody has suggested otherwise) and gain significant benefit for themselves in doing so. Both parties win, and done within local laws.
Still worth knowing. Which is why your verbose rant is baffling.
The only thing the company does is put their name on it. They do not write it off their taxes because they can’t. That’s a stupid myth that stupid people stupidly spout and then gets spouted again, and I have to spend time explaining why it’s stupid.
Also, if you’re offended by my tone, I dunno, go outside for a bit. Sorry it fucking bugs you. People die every day, and I’m supposed to be happy or something? Fuck on outta here!
Like, if you want to claim stupid tax write offs, buy art, let it “increase in value”, and donate it! Way easier, way more legal, way seedier. There, you got your tax scam. But call it right.
I don’t see anything about point-of-sale donations in that link. Of course a business can write off an actual donation they make, but they’re not donating anything if they are just collecting donations from customers and passing the money along. I can find no evidence to the contrary.
I think it comes down to who the tax authority sees as being the source of the funds. It seems in the UK, at least, the payer to the charity is the donor and, if that donor is a company, they get a corporate tax break for it.
The charity gets their money either way (otherwise would be fraud), but the company isn’t necessarily doing it out of the goodness of their heart: their tax bill goes down as a direct result.
Personally, I think the recipient charity getting the benefit of all those rounding up transactions is a good thing overall. But my original comment was about not allowing yourself to believe a comfortable lie: it’s business, not philanthropy. Or perhaps, philanthropy in the typical rich benefactor style of giving - it’s still a mutually beneficial transaction.
I can’t find any evidence for this being true in any country that speaks English as their primary language. Do you have evidence to the contrary?
Picking the UK at random, this took 10 seconds to find so I doubt you tried to find anything:
It also allows the company to play PR games with how much “they” give to charity.
… But they would be donating the value of the money you gave them. So that money shouldn’t be profit, and this would be zeroed out. They did not gain invisible donation money.
Congratulations on being wrong in ten seconds.
You’re extraordinarily angry in both your comments to me. It baffles me as to why.
Perhaps take a moment to read the things I’ve said and the things you’re assuming I meant, and then compare the two.
It’s possible for companies to give money to charity (nobody has suggested otherwise) and gain significant benefit for themselves in doing so. Both parties win, and done within local laws.
Still worth knowing. Which is why your verbose rant is baffling.
The only thing the company does is put their name on it. They do not write it off their taxes because they can’t. That’s a stupid myth that stupid people stupidly spout and then gets spouted again, and I have to spend time explaining why it’s stupid.
Also, if you’re offended by my tone, I dunno, go outside for a bit. Sorry it fucking bugs you. People die every day, and I’m supposed to be happy or something? Fuck on outta here!
Like, if you want to claim stupid tax write offs, buy art, let it “increase in value”, and donate it! Way easier, way more legal, way seedier. There, you got your tax scam. But call it right.
I don’t see anything about point-of-sale donations in that link. Of course a business can write off an actual donation they make, but they’re not donating anything if they are just collecting donations from customers and passing the money along. I can find no evidence to the contrary.
I think it comes down to who the tax authority sees as being the source of the funds. It seems in the UK, at least, the payer to the charity is the donor and, if that donor is a company, they get a corporate tax break for it.
The charity gets their money either way (otherwise would be fraud), but the company isn’t necessarily doing it out of the goodness of their heart: their tax bill goes down as a direct result.
Personally, I think the recipient charity getting the benefit of all those rounding up transactions is a good thing overall. But my original comment was about not allowing yourself to believe a comfortable lie: it’s business, not philanthropy. Or perhaps, philanthropy in the typical rich benefactor style of giving - it’s still a mutually beneficial transaction.
But they don’t give any money to charity, you do. I would be extremely surprised if that resulted in any reduction in taxes.