5 ms·

So, to recap, bribing individuals is bad, but bribing the school is fine. Got it.

by lph 8y ago

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
kbenson 8y ago
Yes? Paying someone to go against the best interests of their employer is different than paying the employer directly. Paying a grocery store cashier separately to put aside the best fruits for you is not the same as paying the store extra for a higher grade of fruit.
- lotsofpulp 8y ago
  Paying the store an unknown extra amount, calling it a donation, getting your name on a building (i.e. advertising your brand) and getting a tax deduction for it isn't the same as paying the store extra in the amount of a publicly listed price available to all for a higher grade fruit.
  - kbenson 8y ago
    I didn't say it was a publicly listed price. You could have a deal set up with the store's owner, that's fine. Having an individual deal with a cashier that results in the rest of the customers having a slightly lowered experience to the benefit of one person and it not going to the owner is the problem. If the owner is fine with the quality for the general public going down and what that does to his business, that's fine and the owners's call to make as to whether it's beneficial overall. If an employee is taking all the benefit and giving the negative consequences to the business, that's a problem. There are portions of what schools are doing here which are perfectly normal. There are portions which may not be (I imagine public funding may preclude certain admittance options, but I'm not sure). If the school is willing to put up with now the public perceives these actions and how it affects their business (because it is a business), then that's their decision.
    - lotsofpulp 8y ago
      I mentioned the non-public price information to indicate that it's to lend a helping hand for those also wishing to commit tax fraud and deducting the "donations". If there was a public price, then they would lose that. My intent was to demonstrate that whatever is going on is hush hush for a reason, and not comparable to a legitimate transaction where a private business owner chooses to sell a product or service to someone at whatever price the two agree upon.
      - kbenson 8y ago
        Whether you think it's tax fraud probably depends on what purpose you think being able to deduct donations to non-profits serves. I would say that every donation carries with it the possibility of some benefit to the donator, no matter who does it. There's always the public relations or social benefit or being seen as "doing a good thing". Without this benefit, some amount charity might go away. Does it matter that people or organizations give because they see benefit to themselves in it? I think not, and I think the tax law is set up specifically to turn a blind eye to this. In that respect, it's not fraud at all, it's how the system is designed to work to promote charitable giving. Also, since to my understanding most of this "advertising" for donations which results in naming a building is to individuals, it also depends on how you classify advertising. Is establishing a legacy for yourself so you're looked on favorably after you're dead advertising? We generally don't call it as such, but even it is, so what? Does is promote more good or harm to society in general? That's the only metric we should measure it by.
        lotsofpulp 8y ago
        That’s why I’m against any preferential tax treatment, to prevent theft from everyone in the nation via this impossible to prosecute white collar crime.
        kbenson 8y ago
        You think donating tens of millions of dollars for an individual to get their name on a building is theft from everyone in the nation? What if it's a hospital or clinic in an area? Are those people being stolen from or left worse off for it being possible in their area because someone gets their name there? I can't help but feel you're being both far too pedantic in wanting to prosecute a crime that doesn't seem to actually hurt anyone (and actually benefits large groups and communities), and also completely misidentifying it as a crime when it's allowed by tax law. I mean, at least part of the purpose of the law is to encourage people to give their wealth for the good of society by encouraging additional benefits (write-offs) in addition to the benefits that have always existed (recognition), so all I see here is a system functioning as designed, for the good of all. I'm not sure how you're seeing some great miscarriage of justice here.
- freewilly1040 8y ago
  The comparison of massive and powerful organizations to ma and pa grocery stores is really tiresome. Stanford university has a hell of a lot more power than your grocery store and occupies a privileged position in society. They should have proportionally more responsibility to society than your grocery store.
mikedouglas 8y ago
Placements at the university aren't the property of the individual being paid, so it's illegal in the same way that embezzling funds or stealing trade secrets would be.
XCabbage 8y ago
It's not "bribing" the school, because what's being paid for is something that the school has the right to give. This comment makes about as much sense to me as saying: > So, to recap, paying someone to steal my car is bad, but paying me to give you my car is fine. Got it.

So, to recap, bribing individuals is bad, but bribing the school is fine. Got it.

by lph 8y ago

So, to recap, bribing individuals is bad, but bribing the school is fine. Got it.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

kbenson 8y ago

Yes? Paying someone to go against the best interests of their employer is different than paying the employer directly. Paying a grocery store cashier separately to put aside the best fruits for you is not the same as paying the store extra for a higher grade of fruit.

lotsofpulp 8y ago
Paying the store an unknown extra amount, calling it a donation, getting your name on a building (i.e. advertising your brand) and getting a tax deduction for it isn't the same as paying the store extra in the amount of a publicly listed price available to all for a higher grade fruit.
- kbenson 8y ago
  I didn't say it was a publicly listed price. You could have a deal set up with the store's owner, that's fine. Having an individual deal with a cashier that results in the rest of the customers having a slightly lowered experience to the benefit of one person and it not going to the owner is the problem. If the owner is fine with the quality for the general public going down and what that does to his business, that's fine and the owners's call to make as to whether it's beneficial overall. If an employee is taking all the benefit and giving the negative consequences to the business, that's a problem. There are portions of what schools are doing here which are perfectly normal. There are portions which may not be (I imagine public funding may preclude certain admittance options, but I'm not sure). If the school is willing to put up with now the public perceives these actions and how it affects their business (because it is a business), then that's their decision.
  - lotsofpulp 8y ago
    I mentioned the non-public price information to indicate that it's to lend a helping hand for those also wishing to commit tax fraud and deducting the "donations". If there was a public price, then they would lose that. My intent was to demonstrate that whatever is going on is hush hush for a reason, and not comparable to a legitimate transaction where a private business owner chooses to sell a product or service to someone at whatever price the two agree upon.
    - kbenson 8y ago
      Whether you think it's tax fraud probably depends on what purpose you think being able to deduct donations to non-profits serves. I would say that every donation carries with it the possibility of some benefit to the donator, no matter who does it. There's always the public relations or social benefit or being seen as "doing a good thing". Without this benefit, some amount charity might go away. Does it matter that people or organizations give because they see benefit to themselves in it? I think not, and I think the tax law is set up specifically to turn a blind eye to this. In that respect, it's not fraud at all, it's how the system is designed to work to promote charitable giving. Also, since to my understanding most of this "advertising" for donations which results in naming a building is to individuals, it also depends on how you classify advertising. Is establishing a legacy for yourself so you're looked on favorably after you're dead advertising? We generally don't call it as such, but even it is, so what? Does is promote more good or harm to society in general? That's the only metric we should measure it by.
      - lotsofpulp 8y ago
        That’s why I’m against any preferential tax treatment, to prevent theft from everyone in the nation via this impossible to prosecute white collar crime.
        kbenson 8y ago
        You think donating tens of millions of dollars for an individual to get their name on a building is theft from everyone in the nation? What if it's a hospital or clinic in an area? Are those people being stolen from or left worse off for it being possible in their area because someone gets their name there? I can't help but feel you're being both far too pedantic in wanting to prosecute a crime that doesn't seem to actually hurt anyone (and actually benefits large groups and communities), and also completely misidentifying it as a crime when it's allowed by tax law. I mean, at least part of the purpose of the law is to encourage people to give their wealth for the good of society by encouraging additional benefits (write-offs) in addition to the benefits that have always existed (recognition), so all I see here is a system functioning as designed, for the good of all. I'm not sure how you're seeing some great miscarriage of justice here.
freewilly1040 8y ago
The comparison of massive and powerful organizations to ma and pa grocery stores is really tiresome. Stanford university has a hell of a lot more power than your grocery store and occupies a privileged position in society. They should have proportionally more responsibility to society than your grocery store.

mikedouglas 8y ago

Placements at the university aren't the property of the individual being paid, so it's illegal in the same way that embezzling funds or stealing trade secrets would be.

XCabbage 8y ago

It's not "bribing" the school, because what's being paid for is something that the school has the right to give. This comment makes about as much sense to me as saying: > So, to recap, paying someone to steal my car is bad, but paying me to give you my car is fine. Got it.