Apple Institutes New Charitable Matching Program for Employees

[foodog]

I think that's called "fraud" or "money laundering".

Its only fraud if I get caught ;-)

 

[Mattie Num Nums]

Its only fraud if I get caught ;-)

Seeing how a lot of bogus charities exist today I'd say you have a fair chance of getting away with it. (Not condoning!)

 

[organerito]

Waste of corporate resources, including valuable time managing the program. Arbitrary and ripe for abuse. Incompatible with Jobs' successful policy of simplifying and focusing on making great products.

Overall a bad sign for the future of the company. Suggests that management feels the need to maintain power by playing a political game, and "being nice" rather than performing well and producing great products.

Another great American company will likely go down the tubes after Jobs is gone. It won't be long before the Chinese own, design and produce everything of importance.

I prefer Steve Jobs's approach, as he expounded on it when he came before the Cupertino local government people when unveiling the "Spaceship One" proposal. I don't remember the exact wording, but it was something like, "I'm a simple guy. The way I see it, we pay the taxes, and you guys [the government] provide the public services." This was in response to someone on the city council suggesting they could "do something for the community" as for example Google providing free Wifi in the town surrounding their headquarters.

Apple pays taxes. So do their employees, who only have jobs and pay taxes because Apple is successful. That's your charity right there. Steve Jobs has provided for far more charity than just about any other CEO in the country over the last decades.

This despite what journalists wanna-be-productive-members-of-society "choose your favorite charity" dilettantes have been writing about Jobs in the last several months. Way to dance on a better man's grave just before he seems likely to pass away.

Oh well, just another lame political game that is little more than a distraction to people doing their jobs and doing them well. Like I said, a bad omen. Either this will be a program with poor oversight that is likely to be abused, or it will be a distraction to management. In any case, it never makes sense to throw money around wantonly when times are good, because chances are, they won't always be so good. You think the folks at Apple would know this more than others. Just follow the rules and pay your taxes. That's all they need to do.

Id' be happy if whoever is responsible for bringing this to fruition at Apple got demoted.

That's not charity. That's their duty to pay taxes.
Taxes=Charity

 

[Lochias]

Oh really

Exactly. They're not losing anything by doing this.

Never ran a business, I am guessing. At a 30% tax rate, if you can deduct a dollar, you pay thirty cents less tax. How do you not "lose" the seventy cent difference?

You can do it on your personal tax return, too. But if you come out ahead, you may have a serious problem with the DA.

 

[EnergonCube]

It's not as altruistic as it sounds. This could be a huge tax write-off for Apple. Now, if they refused to right it off their taxes, then I would think otherwise.

 

[*LTD*]

First of all - your use of the word retarded is offensive. Find another word.

No.

Second - You want to choose to see this as Apple caving - that's fine - but that's a pretty negative connotation.

Probably why I chose it.

I don't see it as caving and more than I see them offering FCP 3 again caving.

I have my reservations about that, too.

They are business decisions. Smart and full of purpose.

Sans Steve Jobs. Apple has yet to define "smart and full of purpose" in a post-August 24 2011 environment.

But I don't expect you, specifically, LTD - to understand that.

I understand that the time for cheer-leading Apple's non-product moves will be at least 3-4 quarterly reports down the road, if not more.

 

[TallManNY]

It's not as altruistic as it sounds. This could be a huge tax write-off for Apple. Now, if they refused to right it off their taxes, then I would think otherwise.

As other's have stated, you don't understand how tax deductions work. The write-off will only cover at most 35% of the cost of the charitable donation.

 

[Avatar74]

The problem is Apple has an agenda and they aren't afraid to show it. Look this is a great idea and its about time but it has to have restrictions. Apple donated $100000 to the Cal Prop for gay marriage. What if 3/4 of Apples employees decide they want to donate to a charity that helps preserve Man/Woman union. I don't think Apple would match those donations seeing how its against its already established agenda. Again, all I want to see out of this is money going to the right places not for politics.

Apple has policies that allow same sex benefits, etc. so if an employee has an issue with that, they have every right to seek employment elsewhere... or accept that the company doesnt' necessarily share their view. I don't particularly see the problem.

What you want to see does not have disproportionate influence over and above whatever collective response their policy choices will receive from shareholders, employees, board members and customers... all of which have an influence. But remember, Apple is not the government. They are fundamentally not taking away or infringing upon anyone's rights.

 

[Mattie Num Nums]

Apple has policies that allow same sex benefits, etc. so if an employee has an issue with that, they have every right to seek employment elsewhere... or accept that the company doesnt' necessarily share their view. I don't particularly see the problem.

What you want to see does not have disproportionate influence over and above whatever collective response their policy choices will receive from shareholders, employees, board members and customers... all of which have an influence. But remember, Apple is not the government. They are fundamentally not taking away or infringing upon anyone's rights.

Its not Apple's place to mix social politics with work. They need to make iPhone 5's and stop losing prototypes in bars.

 

[iChrist]

Looks like Tim has a different approach to charity.

Yes true. Steve had the greed to donate charity but only to sell more iPod. Yet his charity is provide beautiful iPhone for which I love so much. So for me don't care about charity as long as I can have wonderful phone. Steve was great for that. Very great.

 

[Avatar74]

I am sure given his health problems and his possible fight for life charity is the last thing on Jobs' mind at the moment and rightly so

And rightly so.... I agree. It's his choice. Just for clarity, though: The giving pledge doesn't require that he leave 50% of his wealth at any particular time... and it's not a contract to commit. The contributions could be over a period of time, after their death, whatever.

He could opt to leave 50% or more of whatever remains of his estate after his death. Warren Buffett, the originator of the pledge, has opted to leave 99%.

----------

Its not Apple's place to mix social politics with work. They need to make iPhone 5's and stop losing prototypes in bars.

I hope this is sarcasm. Apple's place is for Apple's shareholders, managers and directors to decide.

 

[iChrist]

No.


Probably why I chose it.


I have my reservations about that, too.


Sans Steve Jobs. Apple has yet to define "smart and full of purpose" in a post-August 24 2011 environment.



I understand that the time for cheer-leading Apple's non-product moves will be at least 3-4 quarterly reports down the road, if not more.

How are you demi-god and not banned?

 

[juliandroms]

That's not charity. That's their duty to pay taxes.
Taxes=Charity

I realize that paying taxes doesn't fill your emotional hole, but frankly, who cares?

Taxes pay for schools, welfare, medicaid, medicare and social security for the elderly, fire stations, drug rehabilitation programs, asylum programs, international aid to underdeveloped nations, social security and medicaid for the handicapped, food stamps, the list goes on.

Yes. Steve Jobs pays taxes. The company creates jobs and supports people and their families. These people also pay taxes that go towards the above. Steve Jobs has paid more taxes and therefore provided more charity than any of the whiners posting on the forum. End of story.

 

[Mattie Num Nums]

As other's have stated, you don't understand how tax deductions work. The write-off will only cover at most 35% of the cost of the charitable donation.

With the 35% they deduct they could reinvest and make more money. 1.5% of 500,000,000 is a lot especially over a long period.

 

[jetlife2]

Nothing new here

I work for another very large (Fortune 10) corporation who have been doing this for years. Their limit is higher, $50,000 per year, but otherwise the program is the same. Last year the company match totaled $38 million. There are 300,000 employees worldwide, I would guess 200,000 in the USA.

The company matches any donation to a registered US 501 3 (c) charity. They verify that the organization is properly registered, and they verify that each gift that the employee/retiree claims was actually made. They do not screen the organizations in any way.

Separately the company through a foundation makes donations to causes it chooses to support, as is its right, as overseen by the board, and ultimately visible to shareholders. But the employee match has no screen.

I think it is a great move by Apple and I wish them well.

 

[Mattie Num Nums]

I hope this is sarcasm. Apple's place is for Apple's shareholders, managers and directors to decide.

Politics and Corp. shouldn't mix. They have all the resources and money in the world to lobby. Pretty soon corp. will be running this country... oops... to late

 

[Floris]

Steve Jobs' lack of a public record of philanthropy was highlighted just last week, with U2 singer Bono coming to Jobs' defense and noting that Apple has contributed "tens of millions of dollars" to the (Product)RED campaign against AIDS.

Bono then got his Google+ profile suspended by Google Inc for not having a real name. And probably because they're jealous.. </troll>

Sorry, couldn't resist.

On topic now: Awesome! I am happy to hear that properly paid full timers at Apple Inc. are being provoked and motivated to think twice about the position they're in - that they're disposable money they're getting can be used to not just better the world with technology but with contributions to the right orgz.

And yes, it's a nice PR stunt by Tim to make a proper start, but I think it's not a bad PR stunt. thumbsup.

 

[Avatar74]

Separately the company through a foundation makes donations to causes it chooses to support, as is its right, as overseen by the board, and ultimately visible to shareholders. But the employee match has no screen.

I think it is a great move by Apple and I wish them well.

True, a lot of companies do this. I might be mistaken in that our company possibly doesn't screen the matches except for valid 501(c) status but we do have a separate foundation that does the exact same thing and vets the sponsorships or philanthropy done in the corporation's name.

 

[juliandroms]

Fraud, abuse, distraction, stupidity.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2102532

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&sugexp...gc.r_pw.&fp=56616f6c6494ef77&biw=1112&bih=720

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&sugexp...gc.r_pw.&fp=56616f6c6494ef77&biw=1112&bih=720

Why should Apple donate tens of thousands of dollars to feed and house dogs, cats, raccoons and other vermin (which it will invariably do once this program is implemented.) If that's your schtick, donate the money yourself.

Just dumb.

 

[Avatar74]

Politics and Corp. shouldn't mix. They have all the resources and money in the world to lobby. Pretty soon corp. will be running this country... oops... to late

The problem is not what corporations choose to do. The problem is that the corporation as an entity has the legal status of an individual, and limited shareholder liability. This has removed a significant check/balance against disproportionate influence. What needs to happen is that corporations should not be allowed to act as perpetual individuals with no officer liability since officers make decisions.

That alone would significantly change the behavior of corporations... but this philosophical idea that groups of people should have no influence is a slippery slope. The problem is when that group is allowed to exist as though its decisions, liabilities, risk exposure, etc. were incurred by the inanimate corporate charter and not by the officers, managers, directors and employees that make those decisions.

Fix that and your argument takes care of itself.

 

[Rodimus Prime]

Steve J. cut the program because Apple was floundering at the time. They didn't have cash to give away.

At the time it was fine. Steve Jobs cut the program and stated he would bring it back when Apple was doing better.
A promised he failed to deliver on. Apple has been doing great for a long time now and he still did not bring it back.

This to me is a good thing and it high time Apple started being a better corporate citizen. It still pretty poor but this is a major step forward in the right direction. It is going to take a long time to undo the damage Steve Jobs did in the good corporate citizen department.

 

[CWT1965]

And rightly so.... I agree. It's his choice. Just for clarity, though: The giving pledge doesn't require that he leave 50% of his wealth at any particular time... and it's not a contract to commit. The contributions could be over a period of time, after their death, whatever.

He could opt to leave 50% or more of whatever remains of his estate after his death. Warren Buffett, the originator of the pledge, has opted to leave 99%.

----------



I hope this is sarcasm. Apple's place is for Apple's shareholders, managers and directors to decide.

Hopefully it won't come about for another 20 years but no one knows the contents of Steve's will bar himself, Mrs Jobs and his solicitor I would imagine, for all we know he will leave a huge amount to charity, Mrs Jobs could not spend $8.5bn in her lifetime so without signing to a pledge it does not mean that Steve will not leave money to charity

 

[juliandroms]

Oh well. I guess I'll be selling my Apple shares in the not-too-distant future, since obviously this is a firm that doesn't fully appreciate Jobs's legacy, and which has little idea what's in store for them a few short years from now when "the next great thing" becomes today's average thing. The money will start spiraling outwards then, just like it did in the 90's.

It's like watching a bunch of little kids who just left home and went to college with a big wad of daddy's money.

 

[notjustjay]

Why should Apple donate tens of thousands of dollars to feed and house dogs, cats, raccoons and other vermin (which it will invariably do once this program is implemented.) If that's your schtick, donate the money yourself.

But you DO donate the money yourself. Then Apple donates some too. That's the whole point. They donate to causes that their employees think are important.

 

[foodog]

You know there are like a million federal regulations on charities right?

Does NO ONE on this board have a modicum of humor?

I work for one, I sat on the board of another, and helped create a third. There are not a million regulations. It is also completely false a Not-For-Profit can make a profit.... it is all in how about how the money is spent and how the money is dispersed if the entity ceases to exist.