Corporate Charity [Pic+]

Submitted by: sutra46 3 years ago

A new concept
There are 25 comments:
Male 1,444
Well considering as a "corp tax expert" you had never heard of AMT for Corp, quite frankly your company has far bigger problems them "me" possibly doing their taxes.
0
Reply
Male 15,832
And I`m glad you`re not doing my taxes.
0
Reply
Male 1,444
You can use all the big words or small words you want it will not change the fact you are an idiot busting people`s chops about not knowing Corp Taxes when you have no idea what you are even talking about.

Shocker, you could not post one thing to prove anything I said was wrong, although I was looking forward to an example of somebody breaching their fiduciary responsibility because something was not tax deductible - that is certainly one of the more idiotic statements you have made yet.

I find it laughable that you are so concerned about how charities can better spend $1.40 vs $1.00 to them and $0.40 to the Government (which I will say is the only logical thing you have yet to say and I agree with) but if you can`t save $0.40 in taxes, screw the charity they do not get a dam thing.

I am glad the businesses and individuals who donate to us are not self absorbed jackasses like you.
0
Reply
Male 15,832
Okay, I`ll try this one more time, and this time, I`ll try to use small words. I can do a lot more good by giving $1.40 to charity than I can by giving $1.00 to charity and $0.40 to the government. If I don`t know in advance whether a gift will be deductible, I wait until I do know. That way, I do the most good with the least waste.

Is that too f***ing complicated for your tiny little brain?
0
Reply
Male 1,444
Because I use facts, data and logic? Show any facts I stated as being incorrect like I have shown yours to be. Pull up forms 1120 or 4626 and show me where I am wrong. Show me how a company can make a charitable donation at the beginning of the year and know that it will be 100% tax deductible at the end of the year. Show me any business man that feels spending a $1 for the sole purpose of saving $0.40 in taxes is a good decision. Show me 1 case where somebody was charged with “breach of fiduciary responsibility” because a company’s charitable contributions were not tax deductible.

You are great at running the mouth but when it comes to actual facts and data you are quite incapable of even stepping into the ring.
0
Reply
Male 15,832
@Viking864 I`ll just let my previous statement stand, except to add that you just proved you really are a fapping f***tard.
0
Reply
Male 1,444
@OldOllie

Once again you prove you do not know what you are talking about. If you believe that any company would spend $1 for the sole purpose of saving $0.40 in taxes then you are a far bigger idiot than I ever imagined. That by the way would be an example of breach of fiduciary responsibility – not losing out on a tax deduction.

The only time you will ever know if it will be 100% tax deductible is when you do your taxes at the end of the year so that is just another idiotic statement on your part.

Most companies do charitable acts or contribute monies to charities to generate goodwill not for a tax deduction. I am amazed you can even breath with your head so far up your a**.
0
Reply
Male 15,832
@Viking864, if your employers were pissing away their stockholders` money on non-deductible charitable contributions, they should be fired and sued for breach of fiduciary responsibility. They should also have known whether a contribution was deductible BEFORE they made it, but if you were doing their taxes, I can see how they might have f***ed that up.
0
Reply
Male 15,832
[quote]If a company is not paying a high enough wage,[/quote] you`re perfectly free to go work someplace else.
0
Reply
Male 15,832
@patchouly, your overly simplistic view has two major flaws. One is that everyone will buy at one price, but no one will buy for a penny more. People will by more or less depending on price. The idea is to find the "market price" of a product.

If it costs $20,000 to make a car, and I price it at $1 million, I won`t sell any, and my profit will be $0. If I sell them for $20,000 each, I might sell a lot, but my profit will still be $0. Somewhere in between is the market price that makes the maximum profit -- any higher, and I lose more in sales than I gain with a higher margin, any less, and I leave money on the table.

However, if my COSTS go down, so does the market price. I can lower the price, sell more cars, and INCREASE my profits.

You also failed to address foreign competition. I might pay $25,000 for a car, but not if I can get an import that`s just as good for $20,000.

You just proved you don`t understand the free-market.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@patchouli

[quote]And that is exactally what needs to happen.[/quote]
How would you propose doing so in a cost-effective way that does not drive employers away while also not destroying businesses that treat their employees fairly?
0
Reply
Male 4,746
HumanAction:
"@patchouli
the least likely outcome is that the business owner(s) will pay the tax by cutting their own profits and/or benefits."
---------

And that is exactally what needs to happen. If something is over priced, people need to not buy it. If a company is not paying a high enough wage, they need to be forced to pay it (a "living minimum wage" would be a great start). This way, the only other place to get the money is from their greedy little pockets.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@patchouli

There are only three possible outcomes when "taxing a business".

First, the least likely outcome is that the business owner(s) will pay the tax by cutting their own profits and/or benefits.

Second, the employees will pay the tax by a reduction in hours, benefits, wages, and/or total employment.

Third, the consumer will pay the tax via increased prices.

The reason for this is quite simple - you cannot tax the mythological business. Simply put, businesses do not exist as an entity which can be interacted with; only PEOPLE exist in such a capacity. Therefore, any "business tax" must be paid by people.

Raising the "business tax" is the same as raising income taxes; it`s just another way to hide the total impact of taxation from citizens. Unfortunately, a massive number of fools fall for this trick.
0
Reply
Male 1,444
@OldOllie

There is only one thing worse then not knowing something, it`s insisting you know something when you do not and as a person who has prepared Corp Income Tax returns, you obviously have no idea what you are talking about. I don`t blame the public education system like you were so "kind" to accuse Skypirate, but I blame an idiot who prefers to talk instead of learning (ie you).

Charitable deductions are not always deductible for purposes of taxes, whereas Salaries in the US are. When you prepare a form 1120 for C Corp taxes, you have to breakout certain expenses, Charitable Deductions being one of them (line 19 if you care to lean). Then you have to run it through form 4626 - Alternative Minimum Tax for Corporations to see if you are allowed to deduct all or part so no, they are no where near being the same.

Perhaps before you start telling people they are ignorant of Corp Taxes, you should pull your head out of your (cough) and learn ab
0
Reply
Female 2,549
@Crakr the `new` part is the substitution of money with expertise :-)
0
Reply
Male 4,746
OldOllie:
"That`s why we should end it completely."
----------

There is a major flaw with this thinking. You are assuming that corporations aren`t greedy and, if we removed corporate tax, the price of goods would reflect that. However, we all know that isn`t the case. Corporations figure out what the maximum amount that people are willing to pay is and then charge that. It has nothing to do with balancing the budget with in vs. out. That`s why we need to tax the living crap out of these people. They can`t raise the costs more than what people will pay. They are already at the maximum. Raising the cost too high will result in the company going under.
0
Reply
Male 15,832
[quote]i know that charitable donations arent the same as a operating expenses.[/quote]
Actually, when they file their taxes, they go in the same column.

People`s ignorance of how corporate taxes work (or, rather, DON`T work) is a HUGE problem. Most people actually believe corporations pay taxes. In fact, all they do is COLLECT taxes from their customers. When you fill up your tank or pay your cell phone bill, YOU are paying the corporate income tax for Exxon or Verizon. To them, taxes are just another expense like payroll, insurance, rent, utilities, or charity. They have only one place to get that money, and that`s from their customers, i.e., YOU.

However, the corporate income tax does have one important effect: since we have the highest corporate tax rate in the world, it makes American-made good more expensive compared to imports from countries with lower corporate income tax rates. That`s why we should end it completely.
0
Reply
Male 2,543
@OldOllie ya, im sure americas education problems stem the general population not knowing enough about corporate tax code.

anyways, im not an accountant but i know that charitable donations arent the same as a operating expenses. im sure [big corporation] has some one smart enough to figure out how to manipulate that. but at the end of the day it was just a quick second thought on a internet post.
0
Reply
Male 15,832
@skypirate [quote]although if this does become more popular how easy would it be for companies to say an employee was working charity when they werent and still write off the salary[/quote]
Companies can already write off wages and salaries of employees. It`s a cost of doing business, so therefore it`s a deductible expense.

You have, however, done a worthwhile service by pointing out a miserable failing of our public education system by the fact that you didn`t know this.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
Corporate charity is nothing new. Corporations have been giving to charitable causes since the great depression, at least.
0
Reply
Male 3,412
I`ve always said that for-profit groups know how to run things better than non-profits and government.

Can we convince Toyota`s RnD to work for the Department of Education now?
0
Reply
Female 1,540
Pretty freaking awesome!
0
Reply
Male 2,543
although if this does become more popular how easy would it be for companies to say an employee was working charity when they werent and still write off the salary
0
Reply
Male 2,543
so basically toyota pays people to work for charities...f-ing brilliant. love it.
0
Reply
Female 2,549
Link: Corporate Charity [Pic+] [Rate Link] - A new concept
0
Reply