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.
Company collects $1 donation from customer
Company has $1 extra income
Company donates $1 to charity
Company writes that dollar off of their income.
Company reports the exact same profit/loss as if they had not collected donations.
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.
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!
Also the political/social influence is real. Why bribe the government when you can outsource it to you and say it’s for a good cause. But the reality of the situation is they are giving a politician what they want and if the politician do something they don’t like they can move that “donation” to someone else.
The non-profit can hire the company executive and pay them, which if I understand correctly is exempt from income tax.
I think this can be a way for executives to avoid income tax: basically donate to a foundation through obscured means (crypto, purchase from third party, etc), then get non-profit money with exemption. They probably need to jump through many hoops and it is very likely still illegal, but I wouldn't be surprised if this is common.
But anyway the couple dime people are donating probably is neglegible for tax purposes (I am guessing, I don't have data). Yet I see no reason not to just donate to a charity you trust online...
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.
They do get a whole lot of advertising, social capital, and influnce over which causes get proped up, on the back of donating customers
Sure, but that's not a tax write-off as originally said. Stick to the things that are actually things.
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
If your donations for the year exceed the standard deduction (hint: the standard deduction is about $15k. Most people take that instead of itemizing). Doesn't have to be one single donation, and if your receipt shows the donation (it should) and it's for a legitimate charity I don't see why you couldn't use that to deduct that donation if you itemize.
That leaves out when the company prompting you charges an administration fee to collect part of that sum donated for their own profits.
It leaves out when they, like CVS did with the diabetes association charity collecting at checkouts, take the money as an IOU to the charity while making money out to offset loans in the near term.
It leaves out structuring of collected funds to allow a 503C arm of the corporation to have tax advantaged status while also specifically being chartered to help the for profit company that you are shopping at.
There are a variety of scummy practices employed by organizations collecting those funds and it absolutely can benefit them to do so.
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.
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.
Depends. Double book accounting would require you to write it down as income in order to properly write the charity a check. It's a wash either way though.
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
If they match donations, they are entitled to a tax break on their own donations.
The only issue with matching is that you don’t have a say in the charity. Do your homework. If it’s a legitimate charity, then it’s better to donate through a company that matches donations.
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.
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):
EITC (Earned Income Tax Credit)
@~$50k (if you have 1 kid) you miss out on a $4k tax credit. So there's no point to getting a raise that puts you between $50k and $54k (don't actually reject the raise, just make sure you lower your income by contributing to an IRA or something like that).
https://www.nerdwallet.com/article/taxes/can-you-take-earned-income-tax-credit
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
Roth IRA
@ $150k you start to lose out on benefits from having a Roth IRA
@ $165k you can no longer contribute to a Roth IRA, so if you're close to this limit, you're going to do what you can to stay under this income bracket as much as possible (contribute to an HSA, 401k, IRA, etc).
https://www.nerdwallet.com/article/investing/roth-ira-contribution-limits
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
I mean, isn't the reason that they do it so they can claim it as a tax break?
It isn't like they're giving money to charities out of the goodness of their hearts. They get to take the money you donate, give it to a charity that they choose and write the total number off of the company's taxes. It costs nothing except making their lowest grunts ask.
That's not evil per se, but it's not really good either considering they're basically fleecing their customers with the implicit threat of "Hey we won't help the children if you don't round up to the nearest dollar"
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...
When this happens you get a the receipt showing your donation to these charities. They can't take a program, where they collect donations on behalf of others, and then claim that intake was part of their income. This is something they use to put feel good PR in their ads, and cynically act like they do anything worth while for these people. They don't get a tax break for it though.
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.