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.
Tim Cook Says Apple Has Raised Over $3 Million for Hurricane Harvey Relief Efforts
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I would say that I am quite impressed with Apple's overall generosity when it comes to charitable efforts. A lot of them go largely unnoticed, as do the large dollar figures involved.
One of the first things Mr. Cook did when he became CEO was to put in place a program whereby Apple matches, dollar-for-dollar and up to $10,000 per employee per year, donations which its employees make to 501(c)(3) organizations.
As for Mr. Cook himself, yes, he seems quite the giving sort. A couple of years ago he donated more than $6 million worth of (his own) Apple stock to charity. I don't recall him ever announcing that donation or what it went to. It doesn't seem in his nature to do so. We know about it because he was required to make an SEC filing related to it.
Do you think there's much chance that he didn't?
I would lay considerable odds that he did. But I wouldn't expect him to announce it if he did.
What money does Apple funnel to offshore accounts? We're talking in the context of the U.S. here (as that's the only aspect of Apple's tax payments which would help with these problems as you suggest). And in what way are they not paying their fair share (again, in the context of U.S. taxes)?
Apple pays a very high rate of income taxes on profits that it generates from sales in the U.S., and a very large amount of U.S. income taxes. It does not shift those profits offshore to avoid U.S. taxation. It even pays a considerable amount of U.S. income taxes on profits which come from sales outside of the United States.
When it comes to not paying U.S. income taxes on certain unremitted foreign earnings, I'd say: (1) It shouldn't pay U.S. income taxes on those earnings, the problem is the U.S.'s antiquated extraterritorial taxation policy and (2) if you own stocks, you likely take advantage of much the same facet of how taxation policies generally work. If you don't own stocks, many others do and they take advantage of that same operational aspect of taxation policies. That is to say, they don't have to pay income taxes on profits of corporations which they own part of until those profits are distributed to them. If you own Exxon-Mobil stock, you don't have to pay income taxes on its profits until those profits are given to you (e.g., in the form of dividends). Exxon-Mobil pays income taxes on those profits. And you pay income taxes if you sell Exxon-Mobil stock for a profit. But you don't have to pay income taxes on its profits unless and until they are distributed to you.
[doublepost=1504197243][/doublepost]
Sure.
But my points were (1) there's nothing wrong with disclosing charitable giving for that reason or, at least, it's something that many people and entities do, (2) Apple also has another reason for disclosing that charitable giving and (3) (as suggested in my addition to that post which you might not have seen before responding) being a public company, it is appropriate that Apple disclose such a large donation as doing so is of a different nature than an individual disclosing donations made with their own money.
Last edited:
Can't go by "planning" as people change their mind all the time. Besides, my comment was on the topic of Harvey donation so ur link isn't at all relevant to the subject being discussed. I'm not his friend nor his accountant so I can't judge his character nor his generosity. I was just being curious (although it's not like my life will be drastically better knowing whether he donates money to Harvey victim fund or not).
I don't know that I'd go so far as to call it a "scam," though honestly that feels pretty accurate. If I'm being (no pun intended) charitable, the best thing I could say is that the Red Cross is a well-meaning, horribly run organization and you'd be better off donating to a smaller local charity. I'm not opposed to CEOs of charities/non-profits getting typical CEO salaries, because you'll have a tough time attracting top CEOs otherwise, but from everything I've read it certainly seems like not a lot of money from donations gets tot he actual people who need the help.
And also, F the Salvation Army, too. Donate locally (especially if you don't want constant email blasts from the Red Cross).
Red Cross Built Exactly 6 Homes For Haiti With Nearly Half A Billion Dollars In Donations
Just sayin'
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/04/red-cross-haiti-report_n_7511080.html
Just sayin'
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/04/red-cross-haiti-report_n_7511080.html
Given the issues with the Red Cross, I have to question how much of this money will actually get there? I am not saying money shouldn't be raised, I am just saying let's do it smartly with organizations that have a track record of actually getting services to where they are needed.
Yes. F the Salvation Army indeed...
Most of those bell ringers are actual slaves. They get 3 hots and a cot. That is all. They work 10 hour shifts... driven by van to different locations throughout the day. Just sick.
Seriously. When Thanksgiving rolls around, take a closer look at the bell ringers. Most are homeless people dressed up to look presentable - clothed from donations to the Salvation Army stores. Each Salvation Army is run by a "General"... and s/he gets almost everything FREE from area businesses.
Every time someone exposes the Salvation Army on the 'net, the article soon disappears.
I always give help directly to those who need it - never through a corporation.
Um, unless you know something we dont', the poster doesn't have the power to 'dictate' anything. He's offering his opinion.
So, in a weak attempt to slap down his opinion you make the false statement he's trying to 'dictate' something.
Why should Apple "foot the bill"? Because I believe the most fortunate should take care of the least fortunate. It's called morals and ethics and it's something I believe in.
Yep, not to mention the sexual abuse scandals that they use monies donated to try and cover up.
I read one case in Holland where they kept delivering a boy in their care to the same member who kept abusing him, even though he made it clear what was going on.
Plus the theological blackmailing that goes on, you want help? Pray to jebus....
Here in NZ , they try and coax the elderly into leaving entire estates to them, and when they do, the just throw out all personal effects, they just want the $$$.
F the sallies......twice.
Michael Dell donating $36M and looking to raise $100M via his foundation. Very cool.
Michael Dell (@MichaelDell)
9/1/17, 7:36 AM
Susan and I are committing $36 Million to rebuildtx.org Please join in next 4 days to reach $100 Million goal! @MSDF_Foundation
Such a clickbait headline! It cleverly leaves out the mention of repaired homes and infrastructure.
Here's the Red Cross's response:
Myth:
The Red Cross president promised to provide tens of thousands of people with permanent homes but only built six new homes.
Fact:
• The Red Cross has provided more than 132,000 people with safe and durable housing, through a variety of methods.
• Often, the fastest and most efficient way to get people into safer homes is through rental subsidies, or repairs and/or retrofitting of existing homes.
• We also build and repair infrastructure that is vital to neighborhood recovery – like schools, roadways and water distribution points.
• The bottom line is that there hasn’t been sufficient land available to build new homes – particularly in the most heavily affected areas of Port-au-Prince where people want to live.
• Haitians don’t want to leave the neighborhoods where they lived, worked and went to school before the earthquake.
• Red Cross has fulfilled our promise to make sure tens of thousands of Haitians are back in homes.
- http://www.redcross.org/news/press-release/13-Facts-about-the-Red-Cross-Response-in-Haiti
No doubt the truth is somewhere in between, but disaster survivors often state that the Red Cross is still around helping long after most other groups have packed up and left.
Last edited:
That's a fallacious argument. A middle class person would take an enormous burden by adopting a child or an animal compared to someone with > $120 Million cash with > $500 million in stock options donating $5,000,000. Tim Cook would still have over a hundred million in the bank compared to Joe Guy spending a considerable portion of his discretionary income on an adopted child.
Ah, yet another person who doesn't understand the diminishing marginal utility of money...
Wow indeed. Simply saying it "pays itself" is being really disingenuous. Contrary to wishful thinking, raising money is not cost free. Just like any other business, even a charity has to spend a good chunk on advertising and paying those who do the work of getting donations. In fact, that article points out that the Red Cross is pretty efficient at it:
"The 17 percent the Red Cross has spent on average for fundraising expenses is below the ceilings set by nonprofit watchdogs. The Better Business Bureau Wise Giving Alliance, for example, says that fundraising expenses should not exceed 35 percent of related contributions."
After paying the cost of simply acquiring the donations, it then forwards 91% of the actual available money, spending just 9% on administration, accounting, etc. That's actually pretty remarkable if you think about the costs of creating, organizing and otherwise managing actual relief material and efforts worldwide.
Your post is out of date. All those tech companies and many more have contributed and/or matched donations in the millions.
Last edited:
The governor of Texas has told people to give to the Red Cross but Tim Cook isn’t doing his research. OK.
lul.
Half of these politicians have no idea how crooked the Red Cross is.
You've got access to Google, look it up yourself.