You misunderstood me. I don't think giving to charity a million dollars is good enough. I think its terrible! Apple's executives squandered over a million dollars that did not belong to them. Tim Cook could have matched Apple employees' charitable contributions with his own money, which he could easily afford to do. I don't understand why he used shareholders' money for this purpose. I don't recall being asked to vote on this decision.
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.
Apple and Employees Give $2.6 Million to Charity Through Donation Matching Program
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
You misunderstood me. I don't think giving to charity a million dollars is good enough. I think its terrible! Apple's executives squandered over a million dollars that did not belong to them. Tim Cook could have matched Apple employees' charitable contributions with his own money, which he could easily afford to do. I don't understand why he used shareholders' money for this purpose. I don't recall being asked to vote on this decision.
Seriously? And which charity should be Apple's beneficiary?
I believe creating a valuable job, and then the employee, with disposable income secondary to that job, choosing what is near and dear to him/her, is the best idea. The fact that Apple then matches that "personal" decision with corporate cash is pure icing on the cake,
Or another way of looking at it is that Apple added an employee benefit that's about average for the companies that it competes with for talent.
And, it's not about the charities - Apple has little say in where the money goes. It's about attracting talented people to Apple who feel good knowing that Apple will match their donations to bona fide nonprofits - whether the cause is saving the oceans, fighting disease, or supporting civil rights for gays and lesbians.
No money will be "squandered" on the tea party.
----------
Exactly - like almost every other company here.
The donations are only allowed for bona fide 501(c)(3) organizations - no political or lobbyist or other special interest stuff.
I don't understand. Why should Apple "set a great example"? Just because you think so?
Why do they need "an outstanding show of good will"?
Let me ask you this...
Which is better, Apple donating one billion dollars anonymously or one billion dollars publicly?
Please note, this question is really not directed at the capitalists or shareholders here, because common business sense dictates that answer. This question is more for the posters who simply believe those who have wealth should give, or be required to give, away portions of their wealth. So Scruff, which is it?
Really? Why? I had the chance to visit over 24 companies as a consultant, and EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM has a 1:1 matching... IF ANY, and we are talking about companies that actually make more money than apple, so tell me, why should apple double up the standard?
Also the tax deduction applies only to the donation itself. So for example, you donate $200, your are in the 25% bracket, you basically can get $50 come tax time, you are still out $150.
0.0007263% of their worth
0.00325% of their cash
Unless I'm doing the math wrong. I don't think this should even be a story at these numbers. If I spent that much of my money I wouldn't feel the need to tell anyone.
0.00325% of their cash
Unless I'm doing the math wrong. I don't think this should even be a story at these numbers. If I spent that much of my money I wouldn't feel the need to tell anyone.
Apple is supposed to maximize shareholder value, so that the shareholders can give to the charities that they choose to give to, not what some random executive committee decides is good for Apple PR.
There are plenty of Apple shareholders who would probably prefer that their gifts go to nearly the opposite charities that some Apple execs might decide to support.
There are plenty of Apple shareholders who would probably prefer that their gifts go to nearly the opposite charities that some Apple execs might decide to support.
Even though Apple's board of directors has the authority to pass decisions like this without shareholders' approval, donating to charity flies in the face of the definition of a for-profit corporation. The fact that other for-profit corporations do this to find favor with local governments and other entities does not change the fact that a corporation in its original form is supposed to maximize profits and not supposed to squander them on things like charitable donations. Private companies can give to charity. Individuals can give to charity. Not-for-profit corporations can give to charity. But, for-profit corporations should not give any money to charity unless shareholders decide otherwise.
He didn't. He used Apple's cash on hand. You're acting like he took money out of your pocket. He did no such thing. Not even close.
Did you get to vote whether or not they should spend money on a new "face" to the NYC store? That was WAY more money.
Apple's cash on hand belongs to shareholders, not to Tim Cook. Apple's wealth belongs to shareholders because Apple is not a private company, but a corporation.
Investing money in expansion is something that results in higher revenues an additional profits, which is exactly what every corporation is supposed to do - to maximize profits for the benefit of its shareholders.
As a stockholder, that was not generosity, that was a retention bonus and makes perfect business sense.
missing the point. these are donations made by apple employees from their own salaries and matched by Apple. Are you telling me that those who work for companies worth billion dollars get paid a million each?
You're going to argue semantics.
Apple's wealth is Apple's. Not 100 percent of their spending is up for a vote. On some level - you put faith and trust into the company you invest that they will spend your money in the best possible manner in order to succeed. Meaning - you have invested in the company in hopes that it gives you a return on that investment and more.
There is a difference. Like I said - they didn't spend YOUR money. They spent theirs.
There's little "public" about this. Apple employees choose the organizations and make a contribution. Apple (mostly) silently doubles that donation - up to a limit and a check that the organization is recognized as a non-profit by the IRS.
But to maximize shareholder value, Apple needs to attract and retain the best talent. Other companies offer matching contributions, so Apple misses a "check list" item if Apple doesn't offer matches.
Apple doesn't ask for shareholder approval when it grants a staff member a raise, so deciding to come up to par with other valley companies shouldn't need a shareholder vote either.
Wow. Just Wow. You are so out of touch I'm speechless.
Go to any national non-profit's website, and look at the list of corporate sponsors.
Most non-trivial companies have an organization devoted to "corporate philanthropy", which specifically works for donations to local/regional/national/global non-profit organizations.
Sorry this would fall under day to day operation of a company. AKA CEO call. All you can do is get the board members to change the CEO.
Also it also about PR. Apple in terms of a corporate citizen is very piss poor right now.
You complaint about all this money Apple is donating but what about all that money they give to the CEO. I can promise you it is well pass what is needed. What they give away is pocket change compared to what they are paying their exects.
The matching donations is one of many ways to keep and recruit good talent.
Sorry, I should have gone off 1.3 million, cutting all my figures in half, you're right. The employees donated the same amount as the super rich company they work for. This might sound like a lot of money to you and me but remember Apple just recently promised $400,000,000+ (in stock) to just 7 people as BONUSES.
You mean "very very very very very piss poor". As in the superlative of "piss poor". Or the "super-superlative" of "piss poor".
A small local restaurant group with 12 restaurants in the valley donates more to local non-profit causes than Apple.
The turtlenecked overlord is gone, we can hope that The Tim does better.
Why shouldn't Apple donate, because you think it's a good idea?
It makes no difference how they donate it. The idea is to help people. Apple isn't a person, it's a company. I'm sure if it were Samsung or Google they would be terrible for lack of charity. That's the beauty here, the double standard, Apple is the end all of end all's.
Of course it makes sense, it's Apple. Everything they do makes sense, right? Today, they are great because they don't donate. If they donate a billion dollars tomorrow it will great because they did it. That's the true Apple way, defend them to the death.
----------
Yesterday at the supermarket. How about you?
Why shouldn't Apple donate, because you think it's a good idea?
So how precisely do you know they haven't donated? Or that any of the uber-execs haven't donated?
You don't, that's the point. You want a splashy PR donation. Emphasis on the the 'splashy'.
This isn't about Apple, Google, or Samsung. I don't judge any of them based on their public donations. I judge them on their products and services.
Thankyou thirteen1013. Meanwhile applescruff, Samcraig, et al foolishly spout about what they not know. if this isn't the way you want successful companies to act (on behalf of their shareholders) then you are living in the wrong time and place.
I invest for a living, and I am significantly charitable, but I am not in the business of having my investments be charitable on the firm's behalf. Also, lost in this his whole discussion, is the fact that Aple matches up to 10k. So independently, you have no idea how much anyone at Apple spends (that's to the clown who was saying that Apple employees are $95 mil behind MS employees).
I am merely speculating, but it does seem odd that just announced the matching policy since Jobs death if they had been donating before. Think what you like, there is no evidence to suggest that they do donate other than this new program. As far as your flash, why did Apple announce a paltry donation of 1.3 million if they are donating so much more? Why mention it all if they didn't want the publicity?
----------
So tell us what you know? Do you have the scoop on what Apple is doing? I'd love to hear it. I'd like to hear anything besides the blind defense that goes on here on a daily basis. As to the "clown" that says Microsoft employees are 95 million ahead, that would appear to be true since Apple reported combined donations of 2.6 million, wouldn't it? So that gives us a good idea, doesn't it?