4 ms·

They're not condemning the act of charity, they're condemning the working conditions he subjects his employees to. Yes, the act of charity is better than nothi

They're not condemning the act of charity, they're condemning the working conditions he subjects his employees to. Yes, the act of charity is better than nothing but it seems people think that money might be better spent on improving the quality of the jobs he offers from the dismal self-destruction they are famous for. Also pointing out that donating to charity ends up being tax deductible so it is truly the most selfish public display of giving and that treating your workers with human decency would be a selfless act he seems unwilling to do.

leetcrew 8y ago
> Also pointing out that donating to charity ends up being tax deductible so it is truly the most selfish public display i mean, he still ends up with less money. he just doesn't get taxed on the money he gives away. one could argue that donating is more tax efficient than paying workers more, because then their income would be taxed.
- bostik 8y ago
  > donating is more tax efficient than paying workers more, because then their income would be taxed. Eh? Taxing a corporation less is better than having its employees earn more?
  - leetcrew 8y ago
    I was talking about tax efficiency in that post, not any grand moral claim. although since we're on this topic, I would note that the US already spends as much or more money per grade school student than most of the European countries that we look to as models. this leads me to think that just shoving more tax dollars into the bureaucratic rube goldberg machine might actually be less impactful than a targeted charity effort.
brodyprice 8y ago
So condemn the working conditions of the company then. What does that have to do with his personal act of charity? Sure, charitable donations are tax deductible, but you say that this equates to "...truly the most selfish public display of giving..."? Why is the assumption that a wealthy person is only capable of charity for tax benefits? As if he needs the tax deductions to retain his wealth? As if he personally mistreats employees? Imperfect people are capable of honest charity.

leetcrew 8y ago

> Also pointing out that donating to charity ends up being tax deductible so it is truly the most selfish public display i mean, he still ends up with less money. he just doesn't get taxed on the money he gives away. one could argue that donating is more tax efficient than paying workers more, because then their income would be taxed.

bostik 8y ago
> donating is more tax efficient than paying workers more, because then their income would be taxed. Eh? Taxing a corporation less is better than having its employees earn more?
- leetcrew 8y ago
  I was talking about tax efficiency in that post, not any grand moral claim. although since we're on this topic, I would note that the US already spends as much or more money per grade school student than most of the European countries that we look to as models. this leads me to think that just shoving more tax dollars into the bureaucratic rube goldberg machine might actually be less impactful than a targeted charity effort.

brodyprice 8y ago

So condemn the working conditions of the company then. What does that have to do with his personal act of charity? Sure, charitable donations are tax deductible, but you say that this equates to "...truly the most selfish public display of giving..."? Why is the assumption that a wealthy person is only capable of charity for tax benefits? As if he needs the tax deductions to retain his wealth? As if he personally mistreats employees? Imperfect people are capable of honest charity.