This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

The Consumer Thread

Jump to new
SirRumpole said:
They can give anonymously and deduct it from their tax like individuals and that's fine.
Click to expand...

I don't think publicly help corporations should be allowed to donate anonymously. Shareholders should have a right to know where their money is going, particularly if it is to a cause that may be controversial and against the wishes of many shareholders.
 
I have no problem with organisations making charitable donations, and I applaud them for it , it's a matter of how they go about it. They can give anonymously and deduct it from their tax like individuals and that's fine.
Click to expand...
Why would donations have to be anonymous? I think if you made a law making donations anonymous, corporations and indivduals would give less, and less good would be done.

So, I cited the example of Ronald MacDonald House. It's a very visible "donation" and it could be reasonably said that it is advertising in disguise to attract kids to a product which isn't particularly good for them.
Click to expand...

Well it wouldn't be the most effective advertising, I mean there is better use for advertising dollars that get you more exposure, spending large amounts of dollars to target what is a small group of people (small compared to say a footy statium of people watching a team you sponsor)

And remember a lot of those kids you are targeting die.

I mean Luutz accused Disney of only doing charity work to brain wash kids into their brand, How does that work when you are giving holidays to kids with terminal cancer etc, I guess you good say they are trying to build a future customer base from their family, but I think you are really clutching at straws there, a radio competition would get you more exposure.


You and I don't derive any benefit apart from a reduction in tax for charitable donations, so why should companies ?
Click to expand...

I don't know you personally, But I am pretty sure neither you or I has ever given $333 Million away, and I don't think I will ever be able too, So I am not going to do anything to try and stop companies doing good work of that scale, just because there is a chance they may get a slight reward for it



Maybe they can deduct such things twice, once for charitable donation and again for advertising
Click to expand...

Nope, you are operating in fantasyland if you think that.
 

Donations should certainly appear in P/L accounts, I'm just saying they should not use them to push products.
 
Why would donations have to be anonymous? I think if you made a law making donations anonymous, less corporations and indivduals would give less, and less good would be done.
Click to expand...

Would you accept the same from Tooheys or British Tobacco ?

The Rothmans Cancer Care Centre say ?
 
SirRumpole said:
Would you accept the same from Tooheys or British Tobacco ?

The Rothmans Cancer Care Centre say ?
Click to expand...

Why not, I think it would be great if the tobacco companies supported cancer patients, after all they are causing the cancer.

It's not like a Ronald McDonald house is covered in Mc Donalds advertising, and feeding kids happy meals, google some images.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Value Collector said:
Why not, I think it would be great if the tobacco companies supported cancer patients, after all they are causing the cancer.
Click to expand...

Next you'll be saying that the cigarette companies are great national benefactors because they kill people off so they spend less time on the Old Age Pension !

 
Value Collector said:
Yeah, it makes you out to be a bit of a douche bag

Click to expand...

Oi, that hurt my feelings. There is a heart in this empty space

But as McDonald's Ray Kroc said (in a trailer for The Founder), hearts are made to be broke.


Since we're getting musical, a nice little song from Barrett Strong: Money (That's what I want).



In some other clip, heard he was saying how he was a struggling musician and two of his gf left him because he's dead broke. Then came this song.

With that context, The Flying Lizzard's 1979 version with the lead singer's smugness fits better. The Beatle's version is just too happy.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

There's a reason why McDonald's House "... mission is to create, find, and support programs that directly improve the health and well being of children."

They're not donating to the elderly. Why? Same reason why there's those jungle gym and happy meals with toys.

McDonalds, and I read this in a psychological textbook, have done studies and found that when family goes out, the kids are most influential in deciding where to eat. Parents don't really mind.

So... let's help the children then shall we? Bugger the old folks with their diet restriction and home cooked meals.

Nothing's free I guess.
 
SirRumpole said:
Next you'll be saying that the cigarette companies are great national benefactors because they kill people off so they spend less time on the Old Age Pension !

Click to expand...

That's why in poor third world countries with no national healthcare scheme, smoking is good for you. The gov't collect the taxes on it but pays nothing to take care of the sick.

Australia only got serious about anti-smoking when the tax revenue collected does not cover the health costs they have to fork out.

Got to admire how some people think in Canberra.
 
So far as corporate donations are concerned, they fit into 3 categories from what I've seen.

1. The very obvious ones eg Ronald McDonald House.

2. Situations where there's some brief mention of where the money's coming from but that's it. Mining company puts a small sign at the entrance to the playground they funded but that's it. Retailer and fuel company puts a sticker on the door of the van they donated and fuel they're supplying which is used to distribute donated food to the homeless. Etc. Tells you who's funding it but it's not much in terms of actual advertising.

3. Anonymous at least without reading the company's reports etc. Those simply using whatever has been funded would have no idea where the money came from.

Personally I don't have a problem with any of those approaches provided that anyone claiming to be sponsoring something is actually doing so. If a car dealer claims to have donated a van to a charity then I expect them to have genuinely donated it. It shouldn't be that they just gave them a 5% discount on the price etc and then mislead people into thinking they gave it away. Etc. Same concept with anything.

There's one company that comes to mind which if you read the fine print "donates a % of profits to charity" or words to that effect. Hmm.... There are others providing the same products which are genuine charity fundraisers as such, all the profit goes to the charity, but this one's just giving an unstated % of profits and hoping that most don't realise it's actually a commercial enterprise retaining whatever % of the profit itself. I'd rather support the others since I never like it when someone aims to mislead.
 
Just wondering why people use bitcoin ?

Is it a tax issue, convenience, a way of hiding expenses, what's it for ?
 

Absolutely. However it is in business' best interests to seed both the majors to keep stable govt. I remember in the eighties we gave out vast sums to the LNP and Labs in equal amounts and did handshakes for our company newsletters. The shareholder knew exactly what was going on because it was overt and public. They were the days when there was still some esprit de corps in the warring factions ...... then hate visited Canberra in the late 90's and hasn't left town since.
 
SirRumpole said:
Just wondering why people use bitcoin ?

Is it a tax issue, convenience, a way of hiding expenses, what's it for ?
Click to expand...

It's basically a trade/barter medium, but it also provides a reputation rating of the parties. So if you deliberately do the dirty on someone you are cactus.
 
SirRumpole said:
Plain packaging laws survive international court as Philip Morris warned over 'abuse of rights'

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-...l-battle-against-plain-packaging-laws/7420356
Click to expand...

Great news!
But why does the ruling have to be kept secret? Is the Law such an Ass that the verdict must not become known? Or is it to protect Philip Morris' reputation and avoid embarrassing them even more? Just along the lines of common criminals being mollycoddled and their "rights" protected far above those of their victims?
 

You are right.

This shows the danger of International Treaties where things are done behind the scenes. It's one reason I have serious doubts about the TPP where such secrecy will be entrenched.

If the Phillip Morris case was decided in Australian courts, the whole process would have been public (one hopes).
 

yeah - about as public as the goings-on in Nauru and other places of "National Security" :1zhelp:
Lawyers! Who needs them!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
Global economist David Hale on the economy, recession, and political assassination
Replies
1
Views
5K
lakemac
The Truth about CPI
Replies
4
Views
5K
BREND
B
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...