Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
iTunes Store Now Accepting Donations for Superstorm Sandy Relief
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Your statement is probably correct. However, the correct answer is "The Red Cross CEO's annual salary."
Interesting,
I would want to know how much The Red Cross brings in (in donations) and if they have any other sources of income that could account for that salary.
Wow! Wow. Do you actually donate to anything, ever? Or do you always have some rationalization that lets you feel like you are a saint without ever actually making the tiniest sacrifice?
Whether or not you actually manage to get out of your bubble of self-righeous self-satisfaction, your reason for not doing so now is pretty weak.
Right now there are still a lot of people in the northeast with serious needs. Maybe some of them have Porsches, maybe those Porsches are even high-and dry right now, but it doesn't really matter if their house is wrecked and they have no place to stay, roads are blocked and flooded. At this moment, it doesn't really matter how much money they have if there is a food shortage because the power is out and semis can't bring in food. And even if the supermarkets are open, and the trucks can make deliveries, those rural families you say you will deign to help, their farms are flooded, so they aren't producing food, which means that those Porsche drivers still don't have anything to buy.
You have no idea how quickly modern civilization retreats in the face of disruptions. If roads are blocked, it doesn't take long for supermarket shelves to go bare, even without hoarding behavior.
Where do you get that number? This information is published annually, and the latest numbers put her salary at ~$500,000k. The total value of her compensation package is, of course higher.
But that begs the question, so what? The American Red Cross has an annual budget of something in excess of $3B dollars, 92% of which goes to program expenses. If she is a good CEO, is it outrageous that she makes that kind of salary? She used to be a financial services exec, so you can be sure that she could be making a hell of a lot more money. I guess though that you'd prefer she work for free?
I personally don't think she should. I will tell you what I find outrageous though: People who object to contributing even a small percentage of their income to charity because it bothers them that the people who work at the charity should be working for significantly less than they do.
Look, some charities, just like some companies, are deeply corrupt, but that doesn't mean they all are. Similarly, some are more efficient than others, but face it, any human activity is going to involve inefficiency and waste. Focusing solely on such things is stupid and pointless. One also needs to consider the benefits. I personally think that the American Red Cross delivers a lot of benefits, and right now, there are a lot of Americans who are likely learning that first hand.
Where to start...
First, the underlying premise that all for-profit corporations exist solely to maximize shareholder value is dogma. Like all dogma, it should be questioned, and like most dogma, when it is questioned, it starts looking shaky.
Even if we accept the dogma, we realize that the situation is complicated:
For one thing, generally accepted accounting principles for publicly traded companies try to assign value to "Goodwill," which covers various intangibles like brand value In Apple's case, a recent 10-K statement valued that goodwill at $1B (though one could easily argue that it is worth much more). Charitable activities can increase goodwill, and therefore increase shareholder value.
Further, a the value of a big multinational company like Apple depends greatly on the overall value of the national and world economy. Charitable contributions (particularly to health and education) can help support and expand economic activity, which helps provide shareholder value. Even more narrowly, supporting the Red Cross might help the NE get back to normal faster, insuring that residents of the region are more likely to buy Apple products this holiday season.
I'm, really just scratching the surface here, but I think the complexity of the situation litmus tests for the purity of intentions are a hopeless endeavor, which is fine, because I think for the most part, particularly in times of crisis: the motives are less important than the outcome.
As for the tax code, it is deliberately structured to create incentives for private funding of charitable endeavors, but ultimately, it doesn't concern itself with motives.
Personally, I've made charitable contributions, and taken tax deductions for them for my entire adult life. I don't make the contributions because I get a tax deduction, but if nothing else, the tax deduction means I have more discretionary income that I can put to charitable donations. I also do a bunch of charitable work, and that work incurs expenses for which I could take tax deductions. I don't, because, well, I'm too lazy to document all the expenses, and doing so would take time and energy away from the work itself. My motives for doing the work, I can easily make the case that they are entirely selfish: I get satisfaction from helping the people I help, and I get satisfaction from working with professionals and other volunteers. I've also gained leadership skills and made connections to people that could easily benefit me financially in the future. Of course, its more complicated than that, but does it really matter that I get something out of it? I think it matters more than lots of people get something good out of my efforts, including me.
Applying this perspective to the current topic at hand:
* The Red Cross helps a lot of people in need.
* Apple has made it easy and inexpensive for people to help fund the Red Cross's efforts.
* Apple gains some goodwill (offset by some suspicion) for their efforts.
* The tax situation for contributors isn't entirely clear. It appears that Apple is deliberately disclaiming any responsibility for whether or not a contribution made through iTMS is tax deductible, but the other language they use seems to provide information (that the contributor receives no consideration of value for their contribution) that could be used as a justification for deducting the full amount from one's taxes.
Seems like everyone wins.
Last edited by a moderator:
How is this generous? It's not like Apple is giving any money anyway. And even if they were, you can count on that being at least mostly for the purpose of appearing "generous". Even this is most likely not purely out of the goodness of Apple's heart, but it is a good move that will help needy people.
----------
Insurance covers that. Also, even if your money goes to that somehow, that will prevent other money from going to that. All dollars are equal.
----------
It's easier. One click, and you've donated to the Red Cross. Just because we've been ripped off by the government so many times already, I'll let the government handle the disaster, though.
Looks like some other people disagree with you also. Eeek, these people are on the ground in the region and probably have a good perspective on things.
http://politicker.com/2012/11/staten-island-borough-president-dont-give-money-to-the-red-cross/
I guess when hurricane hits land during a full moon, it gets upgraded to "superstorm" status. At least it does now, apparently.
Looks like it's going to cookies and hot chocolate.
Not exactly the kind of help they need right now.
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/11/02/staten-islanders-on-sandy-response-weve-been-left-far-behind/
the awkward moment when u read the news from 1 week ago after apple donated 2.5 mio $$$$
