4 ms·
> Philanthropy helps revenue by converting those actions into lower taxes for the companies that do philanthropy. This makes zero sense.
by unmole 3y ago
> Philanthropy helps revenue by converting those actions into lower taxes for the companies that do philanthropy.
This makes zero sense.
- pjmlp 3y agoThis is how a capitalist society works, regardless if it makes sense or not.
- unmole 3y agoRevenue is income generated through business operations. Profit is what remains after deducting expenses from revenue. Taxes are paid on profit. Philanthropy reduces profit and thereby reduces taxes. Reducing taxes does not help revenue in any way.
- pjmlp 3y agoWords play, what matters is that amount of money left in the bank to distribute among company owners.
- UncleMeat 3y agoWhich is lower after philanthropic giving.
- unmole 3y ago> Words play And when you use words incorrectly, you don't make any sense. If the tax rate is 30% and I have 100 dollars in profit, I will have 70 dollars left in the bank. Instead, if I donate 10 dollars and write it off, I will still have to pay 27 dollars in taxes, leaving me with only 63 dollars. So, it's not just about words. Your comment is fundamentally wrong.
- pjmlp 3y agoDepending on the jurisdiction.
- squeaky-clean 3y agoThere are no jurisdiction with a >100% tax rate.
- unmole 3y agoSure, if you're talking about Narnia.
- squeaky-clean 3y ago> what matters is that amount of money left in the bank to distribute among company owners. It would still be lower with the philanthropy and tax deductions, rather than not doing the philanthropy and paying more taxes. You can never get a bigger tax reduction than the amount you're putting in. The only way that would be possible is if tax rates exceeded 100%.
- robertlagrant 3y agoPhilanthropy is a concept from a capitalist(-like) situation. If your government is taking everyone's stuff and redistributing it, you aren't being philanthropic.
- pjmlp 3y agoThat's the trick regarding public image, and actual intent.