▲ 1162 ▼ Then they share their lifestyle on tiktok for likes (thelemmy.club) submitted 2 months ago by VetOfTheSeas@discuss.online to c/whitepeopletwitter@sh.itjust.works 63 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] Zephorah@discuss.online 102 points 2 months ago (18 children) This is also how round ups at checkouts like Walmart work. permalink fedilink source hideshow 18 child comments replies: [–] MeatPilot@sh.itjust.works 26 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children) I always seem like an asshole, but I never round up. I used to work at a nonprofit and those collections are nothing stacked against a big 500k donation from a corp. They are mostly for awareness. That and I don't know what some of them are supporting. If I donate something I like to know what it is first. The 18 year old worker is not going to enlightened me well they scan my cans of green beans. I still donate to a few causes everytime I can, but I do it in larger amounts than 10 cents and directly through them. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] fartographer@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago I never donate through large companies like that, either. I'm not here to help whitewash some billionaire's machinations to prey on the masses. I know they can't take credit for your donations, but they get to say bullshit things like, "through our partnerships, we helped charities..." permalink fedilink source parent [–] Zephorah@discuss.online 3 points 2 months ago I never do. I don't trust the Waltons. They have $423 billion. They could handle it if they chose to. permalink fedilink source parent [–] sandwich@lemmy.zip 18 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (12 children) And fuck them for taking my money, donating it, and taking the tax write off themselves Edit: the CPA cartel has notified me this indeed fake news. I think the book cookers are in this thread permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] WhyIHateTheInternet@lemmy.world 11 points 2 months ago (7 children) I've been told that's not how it works. Mostly because you donated it, so it's your write off. I don't know though. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] RattlerSix@lemmy.world 17 points 2 months ago (2 children) This. It's illegal for them to take the deduction. The only way they could is if they claimed your donation as income then claimed it as a deduction, which would get them nowhere. I'm not saying trust big companies, but on the checkout charity things I think the risk far outweighs the reward for them to cheat. One thing I do wonder about is if they put the donated money into an account and collect interest on it before donating it. I've never been able to find an answer to that, but I suspect it's the same. Big risk, little reward. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] HootinNHollerin@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 months ago (1 child) Laws don’t mean anything anymore if they’re simply not enforced and the criminals are in charge permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] RattlerSix@lemmy.world 6 points 2 months ago That doesn't mean it's happening. At a large corporation, there would be employees setting up the charity drive, the accounting department, probably the legal department involved. They'd need to keep track of the charity money coming in, make sure it's not counted as charity, make sure it's not counted as income, make sure none of the departments ask questions, pay the charity from money that is not shown as income or charity, get a receipt from the charity saying the money came from the company's money and not the big nationwide charity drive they held for 6 months that ended last week, file taxes saying they paid X amount to charity from company money but they can't show it coming from company money. Not a single person involved in this would profit from it and most would be mortified at what they saw. The company would barely even profit from it. I mean, Wal-mart getting a tax deduction for a million dollars they raised for charity would probably pay for the remodeling of the deli department at one store. This is a situation where not only are the risks not worth it, the work isn't worth it. It's a thousand times easier to just do it right. permalink fedilink source parent [–] tempest@lemmy.ca 12 points 2 months ago* It's not really for the write off. Walmart doesn't give a shit about your paltry pennies. It's mostly so they get the PR and the ability to hand over a giant check and say 'they' raised such and such. The amount on the check will seem like a large number to idiots but it will be a relatively small number in comparison to profits etc. You're effectively bank rolling their advertising / good will campaign. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Zarobi@aussie.zone 3 points 2 months ago* It was very dodgy for a while, like Woolies owned the charity you were donating to, and the name was weird too. Basically "give us extra money and we might give homeless people our expired food items instead of throwing them in the trash" so you're paying them to deal with their own waste. But the name was like, Support Local Farmers or something I don't remember. Then they tightened the laws, and now it's only moderately dodgy because that money isn't separated out properly and only a percentage of it ends up going to the charity. That's the last I heard of it in Australia at least. permalink fedilink source parent [–] sandwich@lemmy.zip 1 point 2 months ago (1 child) I would hope so, do they provide a tax receipt at the end of the transaction? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] TheRealKuni@piefed.social 2 points 2 months ago If you ask for a receipt, yeah. permalink fedilink source parent [–] usualsuspect191@lemmy.ca 8 points 2 months ago That's not how write offs work... permalink fedilink source parent [–] Zephorah@discuss.online 2 points 2 months ago It would be better if, af the very least, they matched the amount. Even so, people shopping at Walmart are not, middle of the bell curve, people who afford to donate. The ideal option would be just donating. The Waltons are worth $423billion, together, last check. They could probably end hunger in the US if they wanted to. permalink fedilink source parent [–] fizzle@quokk.au 2 points 2 months ago Not how that works. permalink fedilink source parent [–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago The myth that just won't die no matter how many times it's corrected. Every thread, every time, someone says this myth. permalink fedilink source parent [–] lectricleopard@lemmy.world 14 points 2 months ago I just assume they have a charity relationship that meets the minimum to not technically lying, while allowing them to just keep 90% of the money. permalink fedilink source parent [–] fizzle@quokk.au 1 point 2 months ago That's mostly virtue signalling. You're right that the corporation should be donating, but the reason they do it is to imply that they have some social responsibility when they really don't. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] MeatPilot@sh.itjust.works 26 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children) I always seem like an asshole, but I never round up. I used to work at a nonprofit and those collections are nothing stacked against a big 500k donation from a corp. They are mostly for awareness. That and I don't know what some of them are supporting. If I donate something I like to know what it is first. The 18 year old worker is not going to enlightened me well they scan my cans of green beans. I still donate to a few causes everytime I can, but I do it in larger amounts than 10 cents and directly through them. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] fartographer@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago I never donate through large companies like that, either. I'm not here to help whitewash some billionaire's machinations to prey on the masses. I know they can't take credit for your donations, but they get to say bullshit things like, "through our partnerships, we helped charities..." permalink fedilink source parent [–] Zephorah@discuss.online 3 points 2 months ago I never do. I don't trust the Waltons. They have $423 billion. They could handle it if they chose to. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] fartographer@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago I never donate through large companies like that, either. I'm not here to help whitewash some billionaire's machinations to prey on the masses. I know they can't take credit for your donations, but they get to say bullshit things like, "through our partnerships, we helped charities..." permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Zephorah@discuss.online 3 points 2 months ago I never do. I don't trust the Waltons. They have $423 billion. They could handle it if they chose to. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] sandwich@lemmy.zip 18 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (12 children) And fuck them for taking my money, donating it, and taking the tax write off themselves Edit: the CPA cartel has notified me this indeed fake news. I think the book cookers are in this thread permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] WhyIHateTheInternet@lemmy.world 11 points 2 months ago (7 children) I've been told that's not how it works. Mostly because you donated it, so it's your write off. I don't know though. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] RattlerSix@lemmy.world 17 points 2 months ago (2 children) This. It's illegal for them to take the deduction. The only way they could is if they claimed your donation as income then claimed it as a deduction, which would get them nowhere. I'm not saying trust big companies, but on the checkout charity things I think the risk far outweighs the reward for them to cheat. One thing I do wonder about is if they put the donated money into an account and collect interest on it before donating it. I've never been able to find an answer to that, but I suspect it's the same. Big risk, little reward. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] HootinNHollerin@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 months ago (1 child) Laws don’t mean anything anymore if they’re simply not enforced and the criminals are in charge permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] RattlerSix@lemmy.world 6 points 2 months ago That doesn't mean it's happening. At a large corporation, there would be employees setting up the charity drive, the accounting department, probably the legal department involved. They'd need to keep track of the charity money coming in, make sure it's not counted as charity, make sure it's not counted as income, make sure none of the departments ask questions, pay the charity from money that is not shown as income or charity, get a receipt from the charity saying the money came from the company's money and not the big nationwide charity drive they held for 6 months that ended last week, file taxes saying they paid X amount to charity from company money but they can't show it coming from company money. Not a single person involved in this would profit from it and most would be mortified at what they saw. The company would barely even profit from it. I mean, Wal-mart getting a tax deduction for a million dollars they raised for charity would probably pay for the remodeling of the deli department at one store. This is a situation where not only are the risks not worth it, the work isn't worth it. It's a thousand times easier to just do it right. permalink fedilink source parent [–] tempest@lemmy.ca 12 points 2 months ago* It's not really for the write off. Walmart doesn't give a shit about your paltry pennies. It's mostly so they get the PR and the ability to hand over a giant check and say 'they' raised such and such. The amount on the check will seem like a large number to idiots but it will be a relatively small number in comparison to profits etc. You're effectively bank rolling their advertising / good will campaign. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Zarobi@aussie.zone 3 points 2 months ago* It was very dodgy for a while, like Woolies owned the charity you were donating to, and the name was weird too. Basically "give us extra money and we might give homeless people our expired food items instead of throwing them in the trash" so you're paying them to deal with their own waste. But the name was like, Support Local Farmers or something I don't remember. Then they tightened the laws, and now it's only moderately dodgy because that money isn't separated out properly and only a percentage of it ends up going to the charity. That's the last I heard of it in Australia at least. permalink fedilink source parent [–] sandwich@lemmy.zip 1 point 2 months ago (1 child) I would hope so, do they provide a tax receipt at the end of the transaction? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] TheRealKuni@piefed.social 2 points 2 months ago If you ask for a receipt, yeah. permalink fedilink source parent [–] usualsuspect191@lemmy.ca 8 points 2 months ago That's not how write offs work... permalink fedilink source parent [–] Zephorah@discuss.online 2 points 2 months ago It would be better if, af the very least, they matched the amount. Even so, people shopping at Walmart are not, middle of the bell curve, people who afford to donate. The ideal option would be just donating. The Waltons are worth $423billion, together, last check. They could probably end hunger in the US if they wanted to. permalink fedilink source parent [–] fizzle@quokk.au 2 points 2 months ago Not how that works. permalink fedilink source parent [–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago The myth that just won't die no matter how many times it's corrected. Every thread, every time, someone says this myth. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] WhyIHateTheInternet@lemmy.world 11 points 2 months ago (7 children) I've been told that's not how it works. Mostly because you donated it, so it's your write off. I don't know though. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] RattlerSix@lemmy.world 17 points 2 months ago (2 children) This. It's illegal for them to take the deduction. The only way they could is if they claimed your donation as income then claimed it as a deduction, which would get them nowhere. I'm not saying trust big companies, but on the checkout charity things I think the risk far outweighs the reward for them to cheat. One thing I do wonder about is if they put the donated money into an account and collect interest on it before donating it. I've never been able to find an answer to that, but I suspect it's the same. Big risk, little reward. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] HootinNHollerin@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 months ago (1 child) Laws don’t mean anything anymore if they’re simply not enforced and the criminals are in charge permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] RattlerSix@lemmy.world 6 points 2 months ago That doesn't mean it's happening. At a large corporation, there would be employees setting up the charity drive, the accounting department, probably the legal department involved. They'd need to keep track of the charity money coming in, make sure it's not counted as charity, make sure it's not counted as income, make sure none of the departments ask questions, pay the charity from money that is not shown as income or charity, get a receipt from the charity saying the money came from the company's money and not the big nationwide charity drive they held for 6 months that ended last week, file taxes saying they paid X amount to charity from company money but they can't show it coming from company money. Not a single person involved in this would profit from it and most would be mortified at what they saw. The company would barely even profit from it. I mean, Wal-mart getting a tax deduction for a million dollars they raised for charity would probably pay for the remodeling of the deli department at one store. This is a situation where not only are the risks not worth it, the work isn't worth it. It's a thousand times easier to just do it right. permalink fedilink source parent [–] tempest@lemmy.ca 12 points 2 months ago* It's not really for the write off. Walmart doesn't give a shit about your paltry pennies. It's mostly so they get the PR and the ability to hand over a giant check and say 'they' raised such and such. The amount on the check will seem like a large number to idiots but it will be a relatively small number in comparison to profits etc. You're effectively bank rolling their advertising / good will campaign. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Zarobi@aussie.zone 3 points 2 months ago* It was very dodgy for a while, like Woolies owned the charity you were donating to, and the name was weird too. Basically "give us extra money and we might give homeless people our expired food items instead of throwing them in the trash" so you're paying them to deal with their own waste. But the name was like, Support Local Farmers or something I don't remember. Then they tightened the laws, and now it's only moderately dodgy because that money isn't separated out properly and only a percentage of it ends up going to the charity. That's the last I heard of it in Australia at least. permalink fedilink source parent [–] sandwich@lemmy.zip 1 point 2 months ago (1 child) I would hope so, do they provide a tax receipt at the end of the transaction? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] TheRealKuni@piefed.social 2 points 2 months ago If you ask for a receipt, yeah. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] RattlerSix@lemmy.world 17 points 2 months ago (2 children) This. It's illegal for them to take the deduction. The only way they could is if they claimed your donation as income then claimed it as a deduction, which would get them nowhere. I'm not saying trust big companies, but on the checkout charity things I think the risk far outweighs the reward for them to cheat. One thing I do wonder about is if they put the donated money into an account and collect interest on it before donating it. I've never been able to find an answer to that, but I suspect it's the same. Big risk, little reward. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] HootinNHollerin@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 months ago (1 child) Laws don’t mean anything anymore if they’re simply not enforced and the criminals are in charge permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] RattlerSix@lemmy.world 6 points 2 months ago That doesn't mean it's happening. At a large corporation, there would be employees setting up the charity drive, the accounting department, probably the legal department involved. They'd need to keep track of the charity money coming in, make sure it's not counted as charity, make sure it's not counted as income, make sure none of the departments ask questions, pay the charity from money that is not shown as income or charity, get a receipt from the charity saying the money came from the company's money and not the big nationwide charity drive they held for 6 months that ended last week, file taxes saying they paid X amount to charity from company money but they can't show it coming from company money. Not a single person involved in this would profit from it and most would be mortified at what they saw. The company would barely even profit from it. I mean, Wal-mart getting a tax deduction for a million dollars they raised for charity would probably pay for the remodeling of the deli department at one store. This is a situation where not only are the risks not worth it, the work isn't worth it. It's a thousand times easier to just do it right. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] HootinNHollerin@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 months ago (1 child) Laws don’t mean anything anymore if they’re simply not enforced and the criminals are in charge permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] RattlerSix@lemmy.world 6 points 2 months ago That doesn't mean it's happening. At a large corporation, there would be employees setting up the charity drive, the accounting department, probably the legal department involved. They'd need to keep track of the charity money coming in, make sure it's not counted as charity, make sure it's not counted as income, make sure none of the departments ask questions, pay the charity from money that is not shown as income or charity, get a receipt from the charity saying the money came from the company's money and not the big nationwide charity drive they held for 6 months that ended last week, file taxes saying they paid X amount to charity from company money but they can't show it coming from company money. Not a single person involved in this would profit from it and most would be mortified at what they saw. The company would barely even profit from it. I mean, Wal-mart getting a tax deduction for a million dollars they raised for charity would probably pay for the remodeling of the deli department at one store. This is a situation where not only are the risks not worth it, the work isn't worth it. It's a thousand times easier to just do it right. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] RattlerSix@lemmy.world 6 points 2 months ago That doesn't mean it's happening. At a large corporation, there would be employees setting up the charity drive, the accounting department, probably the legal department involved. They'd need to keep track of the charity money coming in, make sure it's not counted as charity, make sure it's not counted as income, make sure none of the departments ask questions, pay the charity from money that is not shown as income or charity, get a receipt from the charity saying the money came from the company's money and not the big nationwide charity drive they held for 6 months that ended last week, file taxes saying they paid X amount to charity from company money but they can't show it coming from company money. Not a single person involved in this would profit from it and most would be mortified at what they saw. The company would barely even profit from it. I mean, Wal-mart getting a tax deduction for a million dollars they raised for charity would probably pay for the remodeling of the deli department at one store. This is a situation where not only are the risks not worth it, the work isn't worth it. It's a thousand times easier to just do it right. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] tempest@lemmy.ca 12 points 2 months ago* It's not really for the write off. Walmart doesn't give a shit about your paltry pennies. It's mostly so they get the PR and the ability to hand over a giant check and say 'they' raised such and such. The amount on the check will seem like a large number to idiots but it will be a relatively small number in comparison to profits etc. You're effectively bank rolling their advertising / good will campaign. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Zarobi@aussie.zone 3 points 2 months ago* It was very dodgy for a while, like Woolies owned the charity you were donating to, and the name was weird too. Basically "give us extra money and we might give homeless people our expired food items instead of throwing them in the trash" so you're paying them to deal with their own waste. But the name was like, Support Local Farmers or something I don't remember. Then they tightened the laws, and now it's only moderately dodgy because that money isn't separated out properly and only a percentage of it ends up going to the charity. That's the last I heard of it in Australia at least. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] sandwich@lemmy.zip 1 point 2 months ago (1 child) I would hope so, do they provide a tax receipt at the end of the transaction? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] TheRealKuni@piefed.social 2 points 2 months ago If you ask for a receipt, yeah. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] TheRealKuni@piefed.social 2 points 2 months ago If you ask for a receipt, yeah. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] usualsuspect191@lemmy.ca 8 points 2 months ago That's not how write offs work... permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Zephorah@discuss.online 2 points 2 months ago It would be better if, af the very least, they matched the amount. Even so, people shopping at Walmart are not, middle of the bell curve, people who afford to donate. The ideal option would be just donating. The Waltons are worth $423billion, together, last check. They could probably end hunger in the US if they wanted to. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago The myth that just won't die no matter how many times it's corrected. Every thread, every time, someone says this myth. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] lectricleopard@lemmy.world 14 points 2 months ago I just assume they have a charity relationship that meets the minimum to not technically lying, while allowing them to just keep 90% of the money. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] fizzle@quokk.au 1 point 2 months ago That's mostly virtue signalling. You're right that the corporation should be donating, but the reason they do it is to imply that they have some social responsibility when they really don't. permalink fedilink source parent