The company I work for puts on Summer Camps for kids throughout the area.
Last year a major US corporation headquartered in our area held a camp fair--where their employees had the option of spending their lunch hour visiting 20 or so summer camp providers invited to the fair.
It was a good thing for everyone.
So my boss thought this good thing should go to other companies too. He asked around town to see if others offered the fairs, but none did.
So being the capitalist he is, (He's started 2 successful companies, sold one for multi-millions, and is in management of a third that his father founded) he decided that there was a need that he could fill.
He asked around and found a dozen other companies willing to host the fairs.
We asked around and found 20 camp providers willing to pay $750 to attend all those fairs.
So far so good.
These companies had on average 800 employees.
One final organization, a banking institution known for its investment strategies has between 4500 and 5000 employees on its main campus.
They were interested in hosting a camp fair.
Then they found out that we were charging the camps to come.
They couldn't allow that.
The fact that we were making a profit by servicing them, was some how against their code.
Instead, they are willing to pay us to set up the camp fair for them.
They are willing to pay us money they didn't have to in order for us not to be able to make more money off of third parties.
This is a MAJOR BANKING INSTITUTION!!!
They don't want us to make money unless they themselves are paying it.
posted
Your heads hurts due to our current tax law. The major bank is willing to contribute to non-profit organizations since it is a tax wright off for them. Not too worry, Obama administration has reduced the charitable deduction so that that the evil company cannot avoid paying taxes by giving to organizations such as yours.
Tax law is the oar of our society. Tax cigarettes to discourage smoking. Give deductions to encourage charity.
Since your organization is a greedy profit organization (like health insurers with their 3% profit - I bet yours makes >3%) you do not deserve any sympathy.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
The complaint was that the large banking institution wouldn't donate and their complaint was:
"The fact that we were making a profit by servicing them, was some how against their code."
How can a beggar judge the giver's reason for not donating? The donor is motivated by the laws of the land. Obama reducing the tax deduction for charity as a "loophole" hurts organizations in need. Don't blame the evil corporation for cutting off the aid, go to the government for aid.....good luck.
Look at Haiti,....the majority of their help will come from the religious, conservative right.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:How can a beggar judge the giver's reason for not donating?
Read the OP again. There was no donation involved. It was an agreement whereby one party gained an advertising venue and the other gained a small perk for their employees.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The power plant used to ask my dad about the charitable stuff he did outside of work. I think they somehow got credit for it, though what exactly it did for them I have no idea.
And the bank I worked for was real bad about announcing to us what charity we were raising money for and how we were going to do it. (A bake sale for the diabetes foundation? Really?) I don't know if it was a marketing thing or part of satisfying their Community Reinvestment Act requirements, but there was obviously something in it for them.
I'm with mal, you making money would probably have undone whatever was in it for them to offer it to their employees. I remember my bank days well enough to feel confident saying that they didn't do it for your benefit, anyway.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Tax law is the oar of our society. Tax cigarettes to discourage smoking. Give deductions to encourage charity.
I'm not sure I understand the analogy... help please?
Hobbes
The idea is that government uses taxes to engage in social engineering. Tax breaks for things they want to encourage. Heavy taxes for things they want to discourage.
Even if you accept the idea that the government should be able to take our money in order to fund programs, how can anyone justify that kind of blatant manipulation?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Since your organization is a greedy profit organization (like health insurers with their 3% profit - I bet yours makes >3%) you do not deserve any sympathy.
You know, what you think is wit comes off as nastiness, especially given all the spelling and grammatical errors in your posts.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Look at Haiti,....the majority of their help will come from the religious, conservative right.
Would that include the segment of the religious, conservative right who believes, "And they got together and swore a pact to the devil," malanthrop? Because I dunno, man, donating money to people who are being smited by God for making deals with Satan? That just don't sound like a religious conservative move to me.
quote:Source?
Now, Katarain, why would you ask a question so guaranteed to disappoint? Are you an Internet forum masochist or something? You need help! Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Tax law is the oar of our society. Tax cigarettes to discourage smoking. Give deductions to encourage charity.
Well, considering we're up a creek without a paddle, maybe we need a couple more oars to get things moving.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Spelling or grammatical errors don't have much to do with what is or is not nasty.
----
Anyways, as to the topic of the thread, I think capitalism is being misrepresented here. Capitalism is not the idea that people or institutions should make monetary profit their sole purpose. Capitalism allows for the notion that many things other than money may have value to people, and that people are free to work towards those things as ends in themselves. There is nothing uncapitalist, for instance, in someone volunteering their time to do something that they simply enjoy doing or value doing for its own sake.
It seems that some employees at this bank think it is wrong to make extra profit off of summer camps for kids. If they value doing the right thing enough, then it is worth the extra money for the bank to pay for the camp fair themselves. It also may give them other potential intangible benefits, like a positive reputation. Therefore, I'd think this action is consistent with capitalism - and in fact may really be smarter than those other companies. That might be a reflection of part of why they are known for their investment strategies: they understand the value of intangible non-monterary things.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Gordon Brown, who first suggested the idea of a transaction tax at last November's G20 summit of finance ministers in Scotland, says that there could only be a tax if it was agreed and implemented around the world.
At the time, Mr Brown's proposal - whilst welcomed by most G20 countries - was all but dismissed by the US and Canada.
But things have changed quite a bit since last autumn.
The Canadians may still be resisting any transaction tax but the American position is almost unrecognisable.
US President Barack Obama's radical call on Thursday, for the effective break-up of America's largest banks, may lead to dramatic changes to the banking environment all over the world.
quote:Originally posted by Hobbes: It's the 'oar' reference I'm not getting. Seemed more like 'rudder' if we want nautical references so maybe I'm not getting it?
Hobbes
You are correct. This is why I like this writer's forum. The oar is more fitting to the corporations. Not quite sure I would call taxation a rudder, more like an anchor. The rudder would probably be the "demand" side of supply and demand...capitalism. Government is only an oar when it comes to GM......they'll make cars congress wants rather than cars the people want. Funny,....Ford stock is doing quite well and they refused the bailout. Not to worry, GM will make cars that don't sell but the US taxpayer will keep them in business.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
