[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: Another View (Was Review of AMNH Lost World Exhibit)

> From:          Wabandco@aol.com

> In a message dated 97-08-09 20:14:38 EDT, Judy Molnar writes:
> << In fact, a few corporate sponsors start out as just donors to get the tax
> break >>
> Actually, this is never true unless the sponsor doesn't understand the tax
> system; the maximum rate of taxation in any state in the US is a bit over
> 40%; thus, for a 40 cent tax savings, a donor must spend a whole buck,
> resulting in a 60 cent cost.  So there MUST be some other, additional
> motivation behind it - presumably, a decent sense of what is right.
>  Charitible contributions never make sense on the basis of their tax
> deductibilty alone.  So give any contributor some credit...

Corporate sponsors do not contribute money to be nice.  Corporations 
have one purpose: to maximize profit for their investors.  If they 
can create a positive impression about their organization by giving 
money to some popular cause-of-the-moment, they'll do it, especially 
if it takes some of the heat off of them for, say, selling tobacco to 
children in the so-called Third World.

I've sat around in deal closings when there's a delay for some reason 
and heard the signatories (usually board members) discuss their 
contributions.  You know what they want to know about the choices, 
without fail? "What's in it for us?"  (I have heard these exact words 
several times.)

And why shouldn't they ask?  If  the board of directors used 
corporate funds to "do what is right," they would be betraying their 
charge to serve the shareholders and would, in most states, also be 
breaking the law (it IS the shareholder's money, after all).  

Another cheerful message from me,

"Atheism: a non-prophet organization"