this post was submitted on 17 Nov 2024
793 points (94.2% liked)

Comic Strips

12616 readers
3173 users here now

Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.

The rules are simple:

Web of links

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] rational_lib@lemmy.world 17 points 5 hours ago

Never trust a corporation, period. Their incentives are to maximize profits from whatever revenue streams they have, no matter what they tell you. There are ways they can do this that are at least in the gray area of legality,such as:

A class-action lawsuit was filed against CVS Health Corporation (CVS) in May 2022 accusing the company of “deceptive fund-raising in a campaign it held for the American Diabetes Association,” according to The Boston Globe. Also according to The Boston Globe article, “Prior to each customer’s transaction, a checkout screen prompts the customer with several options for pre-selected dollar amounts, as well as an opt-out option, allowing donations to the diabetes association. Yet, the plaintiff alleges, CVS did not forward donations to the diabetes association, but instead applied the donations toward a legally binding $10 million obligation CVS made to the diabetes association.”

Side note: I'm not an expert on these donations or anything, but rather the practice of corporations exploiting everything they can is so predictable that I knew all I had to do was search...

[–] auzy@lemmy.world 31 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago) (1 children)

My gym took $2 from everyone's account in a once off for charity unless you opted out.

And then bragged about all the money they raised in their marketing.

Yeah, by illegally stealing it from members

[–] jaschen@lemm.ee 13 points 7 hours ago

Gym's. The original shitty subscription company.

[–] Bassman1805@lemmy.world 156 points 15 hours ago (8 children)

Ah, this again.

The mega corporation did not receive any tax benefit from collecting donations. They are able to write off the amount of donations from their income, so that they aren't paying tax on the money they collected specifically to be donated.

  1. Company collects $1 donation from customer
  2. Company has $1 extra income
  3. Company donates $1 to charity
  4. Company writes that dollar off of their income.
  5. Company reports the exact same profit/loss as if they had not collected donations.
[–] Kichae@lemmy.ca 20 points 7 hours ago

They do get a whole lot of advertising, social capital, and influnce over which causes get proped up, on the back of donating customers, while you're out a few bucks that you could have pooled for a single charity and gotten a tax receipt of your own for.

[–] Sauerkraut@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 4 hours ago

I hate how charities are run by rich assholes who pay themselves or their family and friends 6 to 7 figures while doing very little to actually help people

[–] Olhonestjim@lemmy.world 13 points 10 hours ago

Yeah, because corporate charity is super regulated and never ever misused.

[–] TheBraveSirRobbin@lemmy.world 11 points 10 hours ago (4 children)

Couldn't the CEO of the nonprofit be the spouse of the CEO and make a huge percentage of what they donate?

Not saying donating through a mega corporation is always bad, but I'd prefer to look into who I'm donating to rather than a split second thought at the end of a transaction.

[–] grepe@lemmy.world 6 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

this! the megacorporation receives 500k donations, which they transfer to CEO's son's "charity" that spends 99% of it on the said son's salary. he buys another ferrari and the charity sends some flowers to a children cancer hospital.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] danc4498@lemmy.world 47 points 15 hours ago (6 children)

I assumed this was true also, but I also believe the company is receiving some sort of kick back from this otherwise they wouldn’t be doing it.

[–] iAmTheTot@sh.itjust.works 105 points 15 hours ago (2 children)

The "kick back" is good PR.

[–] Serinus@lemmy.world 17 points 12 hours ago

And, if it's a big enough portion of the charity's funding, influence over the charity. But not tax breaks.

[–] Ethalis@jlai.lu 41 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

And decision-makers at that company feeling good about themselves at no cost whatsoever for the company or themselves.

[–] thisbenzingring@lemmy.sdf.org 15 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

exactly

its not really charity if you don't give something up

[–] kambusha@sh.itjust.works 12 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

They really should match all donations.

[–] TheLowestStone@lemmy.world 4 points 9 hours ago

The C-level executive should match all donations. Otherwise that's money that should be going to improving conditions for the workers.

[–] ininewcrow@lemmy.ca 41 points 15 hours ago

The kickback is also in saying that they donated the money to charity .... which was collected from other people

It's like I asked you to donate money to a charity and I said I had to be the one to collect it .... then I take your money and donate it in my name ... basically, I took your generosity and claimed it as my own.

In many cases company's also understand that they can't openly do this because it would be too obvious ... instead they just ride the generosity gravy train ... they encourage people to donate to charities through their store/company/business ... then the company may or may not give their own contributions but they get to attach their name to the donated amounts.

It's like a billionaire selling you a can a beans and then asking you to donate a penny to a charity .... I always say no because the idiot billionaire could spare 1% of their wealth and give millions of dollars to charities everywhere, why the hell are you asking me?

I never give to charities through a store/company or business ... I give directly to charities on my own.

[–] very_well_lost@lemmy.world 22 points 15 hours ago

It's a marketing thing. Stuff like this creates the illusion that they're good corporate citizens.

Of course, they could donate a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a percent of their own profits and make a much bigger impact, but that would set a bad precedent! Giving away your money is only for the working class!

[–] zante@slrpnk.net 12 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

It’s true but it’s not the full story .

Who gets to go the charity dinner and presents the check to the orphanage?

Who gets in Time magazine for “taking a stand” for corporate responsibility?

A corporation is not capable of benevolence. Give directly to the charity yourself, you’ll get a sticker and sometime a free pen.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] iAmTheTot@sh.itjust.works 14 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

They don't even report it as income, because it's not income. It's your donation, not the company's donation.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] iAmTheTot@sh.itjust.works 56 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago) (9 children)

So sick and tired of this myth, how are Americans so goddamn ignorant of their own tax system that this continues to persist.

Corporations are evil for a million and one reasons. This isn't one of them.

[–] grepe@lemmy.world 3 points 7 hours ago

maaaan! you must come from a country where the laws actually protect customers from the corporations rather than the other way around... otherwise you could never come up with such a naive statement.

[–] Lightsong@lemmy.world 1 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

I don't know much about this. How is this not "one of them"? It seems to be like one of them.

[–] iAmTheTot@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 hours ago

The company doesn't get any benefit at all on its taxes by collecting donations from customers. Those donations belong to the customers, who themselves can claim them on taxes. The company is doing a good thing by encouraging and soliciting charity.

[–] i_stole_ur_taco@lemmy.ca 38 points 15 hours ago (3 children)

I know people who still repeat the line that earning more money will push them into a higher tax bracket and they’d end up with less money than if they stayed at their current income.

[–] NotAnotherLemmyUser@lemmy.world 2 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

So, there are some misconceptions about this on both sides. While some may misunderstand how tax brackets work, there absolutely are certain income thresholds where barely going over a certain amount will net you less money overall.


Edit: To clarify, you should accept the raise. In most cases all you need to do to avoid "losing money" at any of these points is to lower your AGI by contributing to an IRA, 401K, etc.


For example (using 2025 numbers here for a single filer):



  • Medicare Premium Increase (for those on medicare)
    @ $106k your medicare tax increases by $888, so you don't want a raise that puts you between $106k and $~107k
    @ $133k medicare tax increases by $1.3k, so you don't want a raise between $133k and $134k
    @ $167k medicare tax increases by $1.3k again
    @ $200k medicare tax increases by $1.3k again
    @ $500k medicare tax increases by $444... https://www.nerdwallet.com/article/insurance/medicare/what-is-the-medicare-irmaa



There are probably a few other taxes/credits I didn't include, but this is just a quick example with what I could look up at the moment.

[–] phar@lemmy.ml 1 points 4 hours ago (2 children)

Isn't this possible? Tax brackets for 2024 I thought for single filer is 24% below 191k and 32% over 191k, isn't it?

[–] pez@lemmy.world 2 points 3 hours ago

The higher rate gets charged only on the portion above the threshold. So with those rates someone earning 192k pays ($191k * .24) + ($1k * .32) = $46,100 not ($192k * .32) = $61,400.

Where you can be worse off earning more is if it puts you over a threshold for some social services (food stamps for example) with a hard cutoff rather than progressively lower benefits.

[–] i_stole_ur_taco@lemmy.ca 1 points 4 hours ago

In places with marginal tax brackets, no. The numbers are different where I live, but the principle (hah) is the same:

If you earn 291k a year, the first 191k is taxed at 24%. The money left over (100k) gets taxed at 32%. So if you get a raise or bonus, the “tax problem” is only that your extra money is immediately taxed at 32%.

[–] iAmTheTot@sh.itjust.works 19 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

Oh man don't even get me started on that one too. I knew some people that genuinely thought a bonus would make them earn less overall.

[–] 9488fcea02a9@sh.itjust.works 2 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago)

If i was a manager and someone turned down a raise/bonus because "tax" reasons, i would seriously evaluate my own managerial skills....

Like, how did i not notice this person is a complete moron and why did i offer them a raise?

Because when someone has been lying for a long time, any truth they might tell would be assumed to be lies, any good deed would be assumed to have an ulterier motive.

"Boy who cried wolf" basically.

[–] BlackPenguins@lemmy.world 13 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

how are Americans so goddamn ignorant

I mean did you see who we just elected?

[–] Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world 2 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

Oh shoot.....I missed it. I DVR'd the election results, and never got around to watching it. Don't tell me! No spoilers! I want to see if it we finally elect our first black president. It's Obama vs McCain.

.........also, I've been in a coma for a while. 2024, huh? Do we have flying cars yet?

[–] BlackPenguins@lemmy.world 1 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago) (1 children)

Nah but we got the hoverboards in 2015 as predicted by BTTF.

[–] noxy@yiffit.net 2 points 5 hours ago

they were neither boards nor did they hover

[–] very_well_lost@lemmy.world 26 points 15 hours ago

This myth is probably prevalent because corporations have spent the last 40 years squeezing every cheat and every advantage they can out of the system — to the point where anything that even smells like a "good gesture" is rightfully met with suspicion and contempt from the people they've been so blissfully exploring.

[–] edgemaster72@lemmy.world 16 points 15 hours ago

how are Americans so goddamn ignorant

It's what we do best

[–] Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world 2 points 10 hours ago

Because we're Americans. Ignorant is kind of our power play! We'll angrily defend a position we know nothing about, and then call YOU wrong for being well versed on the matter.

[–] lakemalcom10@lemm.ee 29 points 15 hours ago

https://taxpolicycenter.org/taxvox/who-gets-tax-benefit-those-checkout-donations-0

Tldr: no, it doesn't work that way. They can't get any tax breaks from your money.

[–] Shardikprime@lemmy.world 1 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

You don't donate because you don't want to give a mega corporation the benefit of tax breaks

I don't donate because I want to keep those starving starved

We are not the same

[–] RagingRobot@lemmy.world 2 points 4 hours ago

Starving children murdered my family

[–] KingJalopy@lemm.ee 10 points 15 hours ago (4 children)

I've been told since you donate it's a tax write off for yourself and therefore the company can't double write it off on theirs. Not sure I believe that these companies follow the rules but that's what I've been told.

[–] moody@lemmings.world 5 points 11 hours ago

When you make a donation, you will get a receipt for it and that's what you use to declare it on your taxes.

The company taking your donation will have a copy of that receipt showing that you made the donation and not them.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›