As you point out there is good reason to keep charity out to the public eye. I have to believe this comes from the same idiots that demand that we tax the rich as they all seem to want to live on somebody else's money. Whatever happened to minding ones own affairs first?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damn_Its_Hot
Why should anyone have a public record about philanthropy. That is for the chest pounders looking for approval from others. It is those that give anonymously that get the best reward -- helping people who need help cause they can and want to not because they are looking for some spin from it or great publicity. Too bad more don't give like Steve.
The other thing that people seem to forget is that many of the wealthy give after death. Hardly a year doesn't go buy that we don't read of someone passing and find alter that some college or institution benefitted greatly from their wealth.
Quote:
I should qualify that by saying that just because a donation becomes public does not down play its importance. Bill Gates, et ux have done marvelous things (not a Microsoft fan) for humanity and I really think that is the goal. After all, I can think of many ways he could get notoriety without tossing some much money around. (Just think of his protege MonkeyBoy .)
I'm not exactly thrilled by the Gate foundation approach to be honest. Again it is the idea that charity really shouldn't be about public promotion of ones self. While they seem to resist this to some extent I still think they see it as a way to spin public opinion to their way of thinking.
In the end I'd like to see charity made private by law and with the same privacy requirements as we see in the medical field now. Oh and people like Andrew Ross Sorkin need to be severely penalized for sticking their nose into other peoples business. Like in having his nuts roasted over an open fire (peanuts if you will). Why things like Sorkins article even get published is beyond me, it is like the press in America is now owned by the British.
There are a lot of good charities in the world but more than a few bad ones and frankly I don't even think you had come close to the worst. In any event I'm not sure it is in Apples best interest to have a restrictions free program. Yeah I can hear the noise now about censorship and freedom but once Apple does things publicly everything is then free to be examined by everybody and their brother. That is one of the points behind charitable contributions being a private matter instead of a public one.
I'd think there would have to be a list of approved charities otherwise employees could technically create their own charities to get an additional $10k per year, even as silly as that would be to risk your job on.
I'd think there would have to be a list of approved charities otherwise employees could technically create their own charities to get an additional $10k per year, even as silly as that would be to risk your job on.
The matching contributions are connected to organizations with 501 tax status. Going by Cook's e-mail Apple isn't going to be paring the list down based on "Apple preferences". That would be a highly unusual stance for a large corporation to take regarding employee-matching. If the charity has 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status that's all that's required. Good luck creating your own and getting the IRS to go along.
Forget about the cost, it would just be a "bag of hurt" from a perception/politics angle. There are too many controversial organizations and Apple would either be tarred by associating with them or lamasted for cherry picking who was allowed in. Nice idea, but let the United Way deal with it.
This I believe is why they don't allow 'charity apps' is the iOS store
This is not controversial. Many large and medium-sized companies do this. It's driven by individual employees' intentions for giving - thus completely democratic - and a charity's eligibility is determined only by their 501c3 status. This ensures the company will not play favorites, at least in this portion of their philanthropy - of which these programs are usually only one of several components.
Corporations are governed by their shareholders, and their agendas are not necessarily limited to maximizing profit, even assuming there was some objective way to measure whether profit was "maximized" in every decision. Corporations typically pursue some variation on the agenda of maximizing return on shareholder investment, but they are also chartered to serve the public trust, however nebulous that sounds, and contribute to the common good (obey laws). You don't hear much about that part of corporate governance these days, but that's just the cultural fashion of our times.
Comments
Why should anyone have a public record about philanthropy. That is for the chest pounders looking for approval from others. It is those that give anonymously that get the best reward -- helping people who need help cause they can and want to not because they are looking for some spin from it or great publicity. Too bad more don't give like Steve.
The other thing that people seem to forget is that many of the wealthy give after death. Hardly a year doesn't go buy that we don't read of someone passing and find alter that some college or institution benefitted greatly from their wealth.
I should qualify that by saying that just because a donation becomes public does not down play its importance. Bill Gates, et ux have done marvelous things (not a Microsoft fan) for humanity and I really think that is the goal. After all, I can think of many ways he could get notoriety without tossing some much money around. (Just think of his protege MonkeyBoy
I'm not exactly thrilled by the Gate foundation approach to be honest. Again it is the idea that charity really shouldn't be about public promotion of ones self. While they seem to resist this to some extent I still think they see it as a way to spin public opinion to their way of thinking.
In the end I'd like to see charity made private by law and with the same privacy requirements as we see in the medical field now. Oh and people like Andrew Ross Sorkin need to be severely penalized for sticking their nose into other peoples business. Like in having his nuts roasted over an open fire (peanuts if you will). Why things like Sorkins article even get published is beyond me, it is like the press in America is now owned by the British.
There are a lot of good charities in the world but more than a few bad ones and frankly I don't even think you had come close to the worst. In any event I'm not sure it is in Apples best interest to have a restrictions free program. Yeah I can hear the noise now about censorship and freedom but once Apple does things publicly everything is then free to be examined by everybody and their brother. That is one of the points behind charitable contributions being a private matter instead of a public one.
I'd think there would have to be a list of approved charities otherwise employees could technically create their own charities to get an additional $10k per year, even as silly as that would be to risk your job on.
I'd think there would have to be a list of approved charities otherwise employees could technically create their own charities to get an additional $10k per year, even as silly as that would be to risk your job on.
The matching contributions are connected to organizations with 501 tax status. Going by Cook's e-mail Apple isn't going to be paring the list down based on "Apple preferences". That would be a highly unusual stance for a large corporation to take regarding employee-matching. If the charity has 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status that's all that's required. Good luck creating your own and getting the IRS to go along.
http://www.irs.gov/charities/charita...=96099,00.html
Forget about the cost, it would just be a "bag of hurt" from a perception/politics angle. There are too many controversial organizations and Apple would either be tarred by associating with them or lamasted for cherry picking who was allowed in. Nice idea, but let the United Way deal with it.
This I believe is why they don't allow 'charity apps' is the iOS store
Corporations are governed by their shareholders, and their agendas are not necessarily limited to maximizing profit, even assuming there was some objective way to measure whether profit was "maximized" in every decision. Corporations typically pursue some variation on the agenda of maximizing return on shareholder investment, but they are also chartered to serve the public trust, however nebulous that sounds, and contribute to the common good (obey laws). You don't hear much about that part of corporate governance these days, but that's just the cultural fashion of our times.
Good program.
I wonder, however, if Apple will refuse to donate to controversial charities, like The Christian Broadcasting Network or Feed the Children.
We will see as soon as some Apple employees start donating to the Westboro Baptist Church.
-kpluck
if Apple created a Charity Store that worked just like the App Store
And another lawsuit from Lodsys?