Google doodle

[Zombie_Babies]

Linky-dinky

First things first: This thread is not for discussion of the statement the doodle was meant to make. We can't talk about that here so forget whether you're pro-rainbow or not.

Ok, with that out of the way, here's why I posted this link: How do you feel about corporations taking stands like this (any stand at all - the article is just a handy example)? Do you think it's fair to the company's employees to take a global position on something like this? Do you think it reflects on the nation the company is based in in any way? Is it something that we need to look at on a case by case basis - in other words, is a making a statement about something like green energy or global warming different than one about civil rights?

I don't know how I'd feel if the company I work for did something like this. I mean, it gives money to charities like St Jude and ACA every year but I see that as different. I mean, what if I didn't agree with what they told the world they obviously do? Just who do people see that 'they' as? It's interesting that Google did this but I have to wonder what exactly it means to their employees.

 

[Kaodi]

Why mention employees and not the more obvious stakeholders: shareholders? For shareholders the concern is more direct: money going to charitable causes is not going to their pocketbooks. For employees it is less obvious that money going to be charity could potentially be going to paying them higher wages. And in most cases it probably would not be. So unless you are losing out on higher wages due to your employers activism, how are you entitled to feel injured by their activist stance? You could quit. If you disagree with their politics, that is an option.

 

[Kramodlog]

Is it something that we need to look at on a case by case basis - in other words, is a making a statement about something like green energy or global warming different than one about civil rights?

I'm all for not considering corporations as people and thus give them different rights and responsabilities than ordinary people. Google statement is not done during a electoral cycle, it does not incite hate/violence or is diffamatory, it does not misrepresent anything, I see no reason why this should be regulated.

 

[Kramodlog]

Why mention employees and not the more obvious stakeholders: shareholders? For shareholders the concern is more direct: money going to charitable causes is not going to their pocketbooks. For employees it is less obvious that money going to be charity could potentially be going to paying them higher wages. And in most cases it probably would not be. So unless you are losing out on higher wages due to your employers activism, how are you entitled to feel injured by their activist stance? You could quit. If you disagree with their politics, that is an option.

Giving to charities is tax deductable, so it is not too bad for shareholders. Plus you get good PR.

 

[Umbran]

For shareholders the concern is more direct: money going to charitable causes is not going to their pocketbooks.

Charitable donations are tax deductions. Sometimes, strategic use of such can lower the company's tax burden, and end up raising either their dividends or share price. Plus, making charitable donations is, in effect, marketing. "We do good things!" makes the public want to buy your products or services.

I'm guessing most major companies aren't losing their shareholders much with their charitable work.

But, to address the larger question in the OP:

Companies don't operate in a vacuum, they don't "just do business and make money". What they do has impact on people who work for them, people in the supply chain, people who buy the products - all over the place. So, whether or not they made a public statement, they take an effective stand o any number of things. Better they do so thoughtfully and deliberately, rather than just by happenstance and not considering the repercussions of their actions. And at that point, why not be public about it?

If I don't like the ethics of my employer, I start seeking other employment. If I agree with their ethics, why should I not want them to be public about them?

 

[Kaodi]

I actually rather wish charitable donations were not tax deductible. I understand why they did that in the first place but I am not convinced it is just. There must be alternative viable mechanisms for determining where money from the Government should be allocated for charity. If nothing rested on the status of charitable donations then we would not be having case in Canada right now where the Canadian Revenue Agency is apparently going after seven environmental charities for "political activities" ; they did or are going to de-list them so they will no longer be eligible for collecting tax deductible donations. I am probably bending the rules of the forum a bit even by mentioning it so I would suggest anyone who wants to know what I am talking about just Google it.

Also I suddenly think that we already had a discussion about charitable donations not that long ago here...

 

[Kramodlog]

I actually rather wish charitable donations were not tax deductible. I understand why they did that in the first place but I am not convinced it is just. There must be alternative viable mechanisms for determining where money from the Government should be allocated for charity. If nothing rested on the status of charitable donations then we would not be having case in Canada right now where the Canadian Revenue Agency is apparently going after seven environmental charities for "political activities" ; they did or are going to de-list them so they will no longer be eligible for collecting tax deductible donations. I am probably bending the rules of the forum a bit even by mentioning it so I would suggest anyone who wants to know what I am talking about just Google it.

Also I suddenly think that we already had a discussion about charitable donations not that long ago here...

I can relate to the sentiment. If people give to charities, it should its own reward. No need to have society reimburse you for it. That money is needed elsewhere.

 

[Umbran]

I understand why they did that in the first place but I am not convinced it is just.

I think it might be. Let us consider a charity that does something the government might do - say... getting meals to lower-income senior citizens who need them.

Who is likely more *efficient* at administering the money for this task - the government, or a local charity?

If giving directly to the charity actually saves money, then reducing the tax burden to encourage it may actually be a financial win for the government.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

[COMMENT][/COMMENT]

Who is likely more *efficient* at administering the money for this task - the government, or a local charity?

Depends on how you measure efficiency.

Somewhat paradoxically, government welfare operations actually spend more of each dollar in their budget on the people they're meant to serve as opposed to administrative costs than most private charities do. Economies of scale make that happen. So do government wages.

For example:

In fiscal year 2013, the federal government spent about $82.5 billion on SNAP. About 92 percent went directly to benefits that households used to purchase food. Of the remaining 8 percent, about 5 percent was used for state administrative costs, including eligibility determinations, employment and training and nutrition education for SNAP households, and anti-fraud activities. About 3 percent went for other food assistance programs, such as the block grant for food assistance in Puerto Rico and American Samoa, commodity purchases for the Emergency Food Assistance Program (which helps food pantries and soup kitchens across the country), and commodities for the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations.

(US Dept. of Agricultire report, 2013)

So, 8% of the entire SNAP (aka Food stamp program) goes to administration costs (and more than half of that is for reimbursing state-level administrative costs). Most charities are doing well if they only allocate 25% of their budget administrative costs. Not only do they keep admin costs low, but the current US Ag estimate on SNAP fraud is between 2-3%.


Government welfare programs also tend to hit economic sectors private charities simply don't.

However, local private charities tend to be more "agile" and responsive. They can adapt and adjust their practices in accord with local needs. In contrast, a government agency might actually require a literal act of Congress to change a policy in the face of an unexpected need.

 

[Kaodi]

Who is likely more *efficient* at administering the money for this task - the government, or a local charity?.

I do not think it is about who is more efficient with the money, though that is a closely related question. The tax deduction for charity is not really about spending money but rather allocating it. The question, really, is "Is it more efficacious for the government to allow citizens to choose which charities the government gives to by forking up the money initially, or would some alternative method of determining how the government allocates the same money (say, with a kind of rating system made up from aggregated taxpayer preferences) work better?" Whether the same charities would get roughly the same amount of money from the government without the tax deduction method of allocation is the real issue.