Does Personal Philanthropy Make Executives' Companies Look Better?
from the charity-or-PR? dept
The Wall Street Journal earlier this week released its latest survey about corporate reputations, which put Microsoft at the top. This seemed a bit surprising, given all the venom that's generally spewed towards the company and its products, but the WSJ says that Microsoft's corporate reputation was enhanced by Bill Gates' personal philanthropy. We've wondered before just what these sort of surveys mean, and what their use is to businesses -- not to mention how well they really reflect public perception of and feelings about a company. But it's interesting to see that social responsibility, and executives' personal philanthropy in particular, is apparently bolstering how people view certain companies. This fits in to the discussion on the blog of a couple of University of Chicago professors last month, with one wondering if individuals like Gates or Warren Buffett deserve personal tax breaks for their charitable donations, since they polish their companies' images. The tax breaks for philanthropy are intended to serve as motivation for people, and there's little doubt that they help drive some rich people to give some money away. From that perspective, it seems short-sighted to argue that people like Bill Gates shouldn't get the same benefits as other people, since they have a company whose reputation could benefit by being associated with good works. Also, any standard for determining when a personal charitable gift benefits a company's image would be purely subjective, while you'd also be hard pressed to argue that it's possible for somebody like Gates to do philanthropic projects on a large scale without attracting much attention.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
I would say yes.
But even I have admiration for some of the initiatives that the Gates foundation is doing.
I would obviously be even more impressed if a large amount of the money were above and beyond what is deductible. One could regulate deductions more, but I suppose people would argue that huge donations would be greatly reduced if that happened. I don't know enough of the legal minutiae to comment on that.
I guess that right now we're just hoping that multimillionaires will make good choices when donating. And maybe we've lucked out with Bill so far.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I would say yes.
What the Gates Foundation does in the world and what Bill Gates does personally are separate from what Microsoft does. Combining them is flat out retarded. We're talking about two completely separate institutions and an individual. Just because they have something in common (Bill G.) means exactly squat.
Microsoft should be viewed and judged in the community by what Microsoft does and says.
The Gates Foundation should be viewed and judged in the community by what the Gates Foundation does and says.
Bill Gates should be viewed and judged in the community by what he personally does and says.
Trying to say that because an individual does good in one area automatically makes the dealings of a separate entity (MS in this case) somehow, better, is utter crap and such viewpoints should be shat upon immediately.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The problem with high-tech philanthropy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Credit Melinda
As long as Melinda selects the causes, that is not a totally bad thing.
And I agree with the prior post, determining when a contribution has larger business purpose is far too subjective to leave with the IRS.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Misguided jelousy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Couple of points...
Second point is that Gates' assets belongs to him, and he has the right to do with it whatever he wants. It's called property rights. When other people try to seize your property and/or tell you how you can utilize it, it's called tyranny.
This article and the comments seem to indicate that most people prefer tyranny. At least as long as it is some rich guy, and not yourselves, that is on the receving end of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Couple of points...
Sheesh, I think you missed the point. The point is should a company, like Microsoft, be able to claim retail price for donating a product that wholesale wise would cost much less? Also, should they get recognition for charitable deeds that, in the concept of profits as a whole, is a fraction of what they could give? Also, there's nothing tyrannical about stating your opinion. If you disagree, then move to a communist country where someone decides your opinion for you.
As far as tax deductions go, I think they should be able to claim full market price for their product. I mean, Microsoft is trying to pay their legions of programmers, software executives, and hundreds of other employees which all comes out of the hopeful sale of their product. Giving it away take away from those gains (even though I bet they make ten-fold in profits for the company). The product is still WORTH the retail price.
If you start excluding Microsoft from the tax dedication list, what does that mean for small businesses or people just trying to give back to the community? Let's not give the IRS an inch, or else they will take a mile.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Couple of points...
So Microsoft would not be able to deduct retail price for a donated copy of Vista - not legally, anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gates doesnt need tax deductions
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Gates doesnt need tax deductions
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bill Gates for President of Monaco
In regards to comboman - your comment was irrational. If MSFT gave money for schools to buy linux, then MSFT would grow weak and ultimately have no money to give to schools. Which do you want? A strong, charitable MSFT - or - nothing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wall Street is like Hollywood - follows all these little trends and 'feel good' things like a cat following a ball.
And it put them at the top - on a Survey.. nothing 'official' there, just people's opinion.
You know, it beats what MOST politicians do with their money... like stuffing cash in freezers, using it to whine and dine interns, pay obscene amounts to get elected again, or power and time to IM young boys.
And in the end - you know it's hard to say what Gate's true intentions were - was he just playing a game to bump up opinion or did he really want to be more charitable?
My guess... Guilt - from being so obscenely rich while others beg for a bowl of soup. I think many have a 'guilt complex' about doing well in life.
Doesn't hurt to spread the wealth around, ESPECIALLY when it's not the government doing it!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gates will change philanthropy
Also, since I'm interested in this stuff, I may be able to put a few things straight, at least according to what I read.
I have no doubt that Bill is still a US citizen. The IRS systems can't handle Bill's tax return. (Source: forbes.com)
Bill has never intended to give huge sums of money to his children. It was actually listening to Warren Buffett's views on this that convinced him it was the right thing to do. Perhaps not so much to give your money for the good of mankind (though I'm sure that was a large factor), but because it absolutely destroys your kid’s lives (I believe I read this in either Fortune or Forbes).
Gates seeks to address large issues and actually fix the plagues that are affecting people, particularly in Africa. Since he's got tremendous wealth (as measured for individuals) he seeks to solve the biggest problems. (There’s an EXCELLENT interview with Bill, Melinda, and Warren Buffett on Google video. It's Charlie Rose and hands down the best interview I've seen anywhere about any topic. I highly recommend it if you're interested in the way Gates and Buffett think).
Gates likely will never pay taxes again... but you know what? I'm perfectly ok with that. If he employs his money in good faith, for the betterment of humanity, I've no doubt that a guy who could rise to become the richest person in the world would beat the piss off of some gov't money manager when it comes to using money efficiently. If the government put 1 million dollars to work, they might help 2 people, but Gates can help 1000 times that amount.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
M$, on the other hand, is a business, and so has to maximise revenue for shareholders. However, the value of donations should be held to be the *lowest* price for which the company sells the product, in hte financial year during which the product was donated, wether at a special discount or not. THis stops M$ from setting a reccomded price for Vista to $10000000 or whatever for five minutes, donating a half-dozen copies, and laughing all the way to the bank. They will still cheat this system, by creating a new version which has some minor difference, and calling it the charity version, and selling it to the public for more then Ultimate even though it is only a tweaked version of Premium (or whatever), and caliming that this was the price, but it can only help.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Google has Google ORG
Google has a Google.org just for the company sponsored philantropy - this helps the companies image, so the funds that Sergey and Larry independantly give to charities are of their own individual choosing and should afford them all the benefits as anyone else who donates.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
moron
The IRS doesn't care what country you owe your allegiance to. If you live in the US and work here (and you'd better have a work visa if you're not a US citizen!) they're gonna expect you to pay taxes according to the US tax code. Not only on your US earnings, but on what you earn overseas, too!
Get your facts straight before you blow off and make yourself look stupid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
u can never understand
Does anyone on this blog think it was easy building Microsoft????? Dropping outta Havard willingly???
Waking up.... and giving out cash almost tripple the budgets of a lot of countries???????? ( so you get tax rebate!!!!..... i am sure there are better ways )
You little minds!!!!!!,
As I said you will never understand
until $$$$$$$ ( if only more were like Bill, if only......)
hmmmmmm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
charities
Thank you for the information given to us
[ link to this | view in chronology ]