Has anyone properly investigated these buttons.
Part of me wonders if it's just giving them $20 off their taxes.
Edit: Assuming they follow the law, they don’t use your point of sale donations according to this article
https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxvox/who-gets-tax-benefit-those-checkout-donations-0
Half errant OG statement: It’s absolutely a tax write off for them. It’s a double bonus for them because they can choose which charity it goes too as well.
What happens to the money you donate at the cash register?
This is where you round up your bill to give to a charity designated by the retailer, and the donation amount appears on your receipt. The store serves only as a collection agent for your gift. Assuming the business is following the law, it will not include your donation as part of its business receipts, or income, nor will it claim the charitable gift as an expense.
In other words, your gift has zero impact on the store’s income taxes. Keep in mind that the store chooses the receiving charity, so make sure it is one you can support. As a customer, the donation will appear on your receipt and you can claim it as a charitable deduction when you file your income tax return. But you probably won’t.
Assuming the business is following the law
Considering the amount of wage theft that goes on, I never assume that.
I wonder if the credit card processor takes their percentage of the transaction and then kicks some of that back to the retailer for donations. It seems like that would end up being a tiny amount of money, though.
It absolutely isn't.
I did your work for you
You might think so, but the stores don't get to write it off.
They may not get to write it off, but they do get to benefit from the PR of bragging about how much they donate to charity, and they can also handpick the charity, many of which are just fronts for corporations to greenwash/whitewash their activities.
They certainly don't do that sort of thing out of the goodness of their heart.
And? The charity gets its cause in front of millions of people.
A mutually beneficial arrangement isn't a bad thing. This is basically just paying for advertising, which every charity ever does.
Call me cynical, but I think maybe it's not going to go to end child hunger even if someone does decide to click yes
In the 90's, Good Will was exposed for spending 80% of what they took in on running the company and salaries. There was also something about the CEO paying his wife for a bullshit role, or she was the CEO and made millions per year.
Unless I know the charity personally (as in I've looked at what they take in and what they spend), they get fuck all from me.
I have a local charity that publishes a pamphlet every year showing a high level of what they take in, and what they spend money on (buying clothes/food for people, maintenance on their facilities, etc), including any salaries (largely maintenance on facilities, accountants, and a couple folks in management).
Over 80% of what they get in donations goes directly to helping people.
Unless a charity is open like this, they're a scam in my mind.
So according to his autobiography, when Lenny Bruce was young and poor and struggling, he bought himself a priest's outfit and went around soliciting donations for some charity cause.
He said it was a great gig. He would walk around during the day, all these housewives and widows would invite him inside and he'd sit down and they'd make him tea and snacks and hang out with him, hanging on his every word, and then they'd give him lots of money. He sent like 50% of it to the charity cause and kept 50% to live on.
Eventually, the cops figured it out, and he got arrested. This was in the middle of him doing the charity thing, so he was still dressed as the priest, and this army of angered housewives came out of their houses to try to defend him against the forces of evil that were trying to arrest him, and he had to kind of calm them down and say it was okay, and then the cops took him away.
In the end, he was able to prove that he was actually sending along a big chunk of the money to the supposed cause he was fundraising for, actually much higher than the percentage that was sent along from most working charities. So nothing about it was fraudulent. It's not illegal to wear a priest's clothes and he wasn't lying about the charity part, and so they just shrugged and let him go. I think he stopped doing it, though, because he didn't want to create some kind of crazy blowback if the housewives all got wind that he wasn't really a priest.
That's a great story! Thank you for sharing it. What a guy!
I feel the same when celebrities use their “platform” to generate donations for a cause. It’s like you made $100m on your last movie, gave $50k and got the other $1.5m from just regular people.
Yet most are like “yes but good still happened” and I’m like yes but by that logic, I could take 90% of your paycheck and say, “yes well you still made 10% which is way better than nothing!”
Moreover, who gets all the credit and publicity? Yup, the celebrity. Not Joan Lam from MI who gave $50 and makes $45k a year.
I also think that some celebrities charges their appearance so they get paid when participating because they bring more donations.
but by that logic, I could take 90% of your paycheck and say, “yes well you still made 10% which is way better than nothing!”
That's already happening :)
Isn't it because the store or restaurant uses your donation for a tax write off?
They do not. It is not income, so they can't claim it as a deduction. The customer could claim it as a deduction if they wanted, but these donations are small enough I'm sure they really aren't worth tracking for an individual.
No, but they'll mention in their commercials how many millions they helped donate to charity. They'll include a shot of somebody in a wheelchair or with some sort of injury smiling. Then they'll show one of their workers smiling. Then, for some reason, the sun blowing out the camera lens. Finally they'll show their logo and the charity's logo, maybe with a line saying how much they care.
Legally they can't here, BUT they shove it down the customers throat about how much better they are for donating then you are and how you should be disgusted with yourself and buy some 12$ lays potato chips and 65$ ice cream that they so graciously put on sale for $2 off provided you use their app and suck galen Weston's dick in his castle
The cherry on the top is that it is sometimes through some of their own foundations like the kfc youth foundation etc. That is just so rich. Sure here is some more money for you to push agendas. Fucking hell.
Corporations cannot feel guilt. A customer who never goes hungry might, and might be convinced to donate (which, if done through the checkout also means a tax benefit for the supermarket).
which, if done through the checkout also means a tax benefit for the supermarket
No absolutely not. Is the customer that donated and thus gets the benefit of not paying tax on the money that was donated.
This checks out. Thank you for educating me.
For any doubters, here’s a long-form article on the subject: https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxvox/who-gets-tax-benefit-those-checkout-donations-0
"Yeah, I definitely want to give some of my money to a completely unknown and unvetted 'charity' just because an electronic screen that has access to my bank card asked!"
Many stores do donate to charities. (not out of the goodness if their hearts, because they don't have hearts)
Point of sale donation collections are not tax write offs for the companies, no matter how many times the lie is repeated on the internet. Those donations are yours and you can claim them on your taxes.
You should not feel guilted into donating if you cannot afford it, and you shouldn't donate to a cause you don't believe in. But POS donation collections are a force for good, getting charitable causes in front of the eyes of millions.
I guess I just have such a tainted view of corporations that my immediate thought is "what's in it for them?" It makes it pretty easy to accept the misinformation at face value, unfortunately. I still don't trust them to be responsible for collecting and appropriating donations faithfully either way.
The PR is in it for them.
I've been saying this for years! Never donated ever.
Not to mention why the fuck would you trust them with your donation?
Rebecca Watson also has a YouTube channel debunking modern irrationalities and conspiracies.
I have no issues if they match what I give.
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
Related communities:
