Alphabet Donated Its Employees' Holiday Gifts To Charity (fortune.com) 399
The employee perks at Google are legendary, and they've always included an over-the-top holiday gift for every employee. In the past, the company has surprised its 70,000 employees with Nexus phones, Android smartwatches, and Chromebooks. Fortune adds:This year employees speculated they might get Google's new Pixel phones or a Google Home unit, the company's competitor to Amazon's Echo. But they forgot: They don't work for Google anymore. They work for Alphabet. Instead of a shiny new gadget, Alphabet employees got an email. On Thursday Bloomberg published a bruising story about the new, cost-conscious regime of Alphabet, driven by its corporate re-organization and its ex-Wall Street CFO, Ruth Porat. Shortly after the story hit, employees were informed that their holiday gift this year was a donation to charity, Fortune has learned. Alphabet donated $30 million worth of Chromebooks, phones, and associated tech support to schools on its employees' behalf.
The human fund (Score:5, Funny)
Re:The human fund (Score:5, Insightful)
Their bonuses were gifted to "charity" aka, the shareholders...
Re:The human fund (Score:5, Insightful)
They start out often quite employee centric....sure you work hard, but they give you lots of perks at work, free food drinks, kitchens, parties on and off campus...even keggers....
And then..they get a bit too big, the owners cede management to more managerial types, who count pennies but don't know the worth of a HAPPY EMPLOYEE....and then well, the fun and perks start to disappear, and soon....it is like any other boring job, and those little extras that build team work, or make you feel 'ok' about working a few extra hours to get something out the door, *vanish*.
At that point, unless the pay is insanely good...no real reason to stay or show any type of loyalty whatsoever.
The soul of the company is gone.
Re: The human fund (Score:5, Funny)
For next Christmas they will get to train their H1B replacements.
Re: The human fund (Score:5, Funny)
That is at least two or three years down the road.
Next year is the "Jelly of the Month Club."
Re: The human fund (Score:4, Insightful)
That is at least two or three years down the road.
Next year is the "Jelly of the Month Club."
It's the gift that keeps on giving all year long!
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I did some consulting at a company who's CEO felt it important to be on that "Best Places to Work" list. So the place was filled with silly perks. But I couldn't help noticing the employee parking lot was full of shitty cars.
Free drinks and parties are nice, but ultimately I want money.
Re: (Score:2)
Learned early on, perks are fleeting. Salary is for suckers. You want to know how much you are worth? Bill by the hour.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Cold refrigerator box?
You were lucky!
I lived in a paper bag in septic tank...blah blah...
Re: (Score:2)
That was the first thought that popped into my head, and you beat me to it. Cantstanja!
Re: (Score:3)
Carbon copy here. I was like "THE HUMAN FUND!" *click* Looks like I'm not the only one!
Now, if they also put up aluminum poles instead of trees....
Re: (Score:2)
Source (Score:2)
Source of the parent post, in case some of you are too young and never saw it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
The Honeymoon is over I guess? (Score:5, Funny)
So, get to work. waddah think we are running here? A charity?!
Re:The Honeymoon is over I guess? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:The Honeymoon is over I guess? (Score:5, Insightful)
To be fair, I would have expected the bean counters to be in control of an accounting firm to start with.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This is what happens when you work for a company that values it's social awareness and community factor as much as Google does.
They probably thought that their employees felt the same and would be pleased helping people less fortunate than themselves. (Especially since demographically, their employees vote for a party that is all for taking people's stuff and redistributing it to the less fortunate.)
Re:The Honeymoon is over I guess? (Score:5, Insightful)
They wanted the tax deduction and the good press. Dicks.
So do the employees get to write that off? (Score:5, Insightful)
If I can't write a donation off on my taxes, then I didn't donate it. Fuck you Google.
Re: (Score:2)
I so had moderator points just YESTERDAY. +1
Re: (Score:2)
This is part of the reason I never give at the checkout. That, and the cumulative inconvenience, annoyance, and contribution to the prevailing atmosphere of "everything's a shakedown".
Re:So do the employees get to write that off? (Score:4, Interesting)
I thought this was interesting: https://www.ted.com/talks/dan_... [ted.com]
If it makes you feel better (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So Google gave themselves a gift, not their employees.
Re: (Score:3)
If you want to count it as income, and then write it off....wouldn't your tax liability be exactly the same?
Re:So do the employees get to write that off? (Score:5, Insightful)
In my understanding, the below are 4 general scenarios listed in decreasing order of benefit to the employee:
Scenario 1: You're given a Pixel phone, no tax burden on employee. ... $700 US.
In some scenarios, the employer may pay any tax on the value of the gift.
You benefit the full value of the gift
Scenario 2: You're given a Pixel phone, employee pays tax on the value of the gift.
You benefit $400 US (let's assume you paid $300 tax on the value of the gift).
Scenario 3: Pixel phone donated to registered charity, donation is in the name of the employee
Employee gets to deduct the tax component from their salary. In reality it may not be this "clean" as tax may vary across employees
You benefit $300.
Scenario 4: Pixel phone donated to registered charity, donation made in the name of the employer
Employer claims the tax deduction.
You benefit $0.
Google / Alphabet appears to have chosen Scenario 4.
Caveats:
I am not a tax lawyer!
My understanding of tax law is based on the Australian environment. Other tax jurisdictions may throw these numbers off, wildly.
Excludes non-financial factors e.g. warm fuzzy feelings.
Anyone who knows better is welcome to chime-in! I'd be curious to know of significantly different tax rules in other countries.
Re:So do the employees get to write that off? (Score:5, Insightful)
Scenario #3 is not possible. You can put the employee's name on it, but unless the employee owned the phone, they didn't give it (legally speaking). You could technically gift the employee the phone and then ship it to the charity instead. In that case, the employee would owe tax on the phone, which would then be cancelled out by giving it to charity. Effectively, Scenario #3 and 4 is the same, except #3 would have some crazy paperwork involved. Because in scenario #3, the employer would claim a tax deduction on giving you the phone to give to the charity.
Re:So do the employees get to write that off? (Score:4, Interesting)
That doesn't make a difference, and in fact, counterintuitively, the benefit works the opposite way of what you are thinking.
If you already surpass the standard deductions, then if you received the gift and passed it to charity, you'd pay taxes on $X of income (at your marginal rate), and then get a deduction of $X of income (at your marginal rate). Nothing has changed
On the other hand, if you previously were going to take the standard deduction, then getting the gift and writing it off actually COSTS you money. You have to realize the people taking the standard deduction are essentially already getting a tax deduction of more money than they deserve. Any additional deduction amount that it takes to get them up to the full amount of the standard deduction is essentially wasted. So lets say your itemized deductions are $1000 short of the standard deduction. You get to take the standard deduction and get full credit as if you had the full amount as your itemized deductions. So now lets add a $3000 gift to your income, which you subsequently pass along to charity. You receive the $3000 gift and are taxed on the full $3000. But when you go to add it to your itemized deductions, the first $1000 of the deduction is just to bring you up to what you were already getting anyway via the standard deduction. So the only additional deduction you get is on the extra $2000 that exceeded the standard deduction. Thus you are taxed on $3k but essentially only get a deduction for $2k. Thus you are worse off than if the gift were passed directly to charity.
And finally, worst off would be the people who receive the gift, pass it along to charity, and STILL don't surpass the standard deduction. They get taxed on the whole thing, but don't get to take advantage of ANY of the tax deduction.
Re: (Score:2)
If you do write it off your taxes, you didn't really donate it anyway. Uncle Sam (or the equivalent) did.
Nothing wrong with that really. Just don't confuse it with a real donation where you don't get anything back in return.
Re: (Score:2)
If I can't write a donation off on my taxes, then I didn't donate it. Fuck you Google.
It would a pass-through tax wise (if they really did it in the employee's names). It wouldn't be deductible but wouldn't count as income either.
Re: (Score:2)
In a sense, yes. If Alphabet had gifted the employees $500, the employees would have received such a declaration on the W2 and therefore would have to pay taxes on that $500 gift. Instead, Alphabet gifts the charity, so the employees do not receive such a declaration so they don't have to pay taxes on the gift.
I'm no accountant, but as I understand the tax world, these two are equivalent to all parties:
1. Alphabet gives employees $500... Employee gives charity $500.
2. Alphabet gives charity $500.
What isn't
Re: (Score:3)
I'm sure Alphabet wrote it off on their taxes. So your present was a donation to charity and a tax break for your parent company.
Well, it's a writeoff either way. Spending money on employees or donating cash to charity, either way it reduces a company's net profit and reduces tax liability.
Re: So do the employees get to write that off? (Score:4, Insightful)
But it wasn't the employees present, because they can't write it off.
This is essentially the same as "There will be no Christmas bonus for low level employees, because the CEO was allowed to keep his 12 MILLION bonus. Also, in unrelated news, we gave some schools Google products, as we always do."
Re:So do the employees get to write that off? (Score:4, Informative)
$14,000 annual gift exclusion. I can gift someone $N, and let them choose the charity for the donation. They won't pay income tax on it, but they will receive the benefit of applying the donation to their next tax filing.
It isn't likely to mess up too many people's taxes. Most full time employees aren't getting near their $14k/year gift limit. (per person, so if jointly filing it's effectively $28k)
Re:So do the employees get to write that off? (Score:4, Interesting)
Depends on the company and the value of the gift. When I was at Apple, I think they just treated it as taxable income as long as it wasn't a high-value item, but when they gave us the original iPhone and the glass Apple blocks, IIRC, they paid the tax. YMMV.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not construing anything. It depends on what Alphabet does and whose name they put shit in.
Re: (Score:2)
If Alphabet is saying they're doing this on behalf of the employees (as the summary claims), it's exactly as I've stated.
The same rules still apply with regards to who pays tax on gifts, small business or not. That link was simply the first search result. Look up more if you want.
Re: (Score:2)
You're kidding, but it's not far from the truth. I've have essentially this proposition before. That if I worked on their little start-up project they'd make a donation in my name, but when I dig into the details they get to pick the charity and would still be adding it to their own tax filing, not mine. And yes, I received insults when I refused to accept their offer.
Re: (Score:3)
If your company removes money from you and gives it to someone else, that is called Robbery.
But if the company just doesn't give you a Christmas/End-of-Year gift that they had been voluntarily giving previously, it may be a disappointment but it isn't Robbery.
= = = =
It may also be really stupid move on the company's part, though. It's going to cost them a bunch in employee satisfaction, and thus performance, over the next year or more.
Of course, if they were thinking of replacing a bunch of the employees w
Write off (Score:2, Insightful)
So does this mean the employees get the write off or just Alphabet?
Re:Write off (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course Alphabet gets the tax write-off. That's why the "banker" at the top changed the rules. To that mindset, employees are just a drag on revenues and not worth what they're paid...no matter how low. And, now, with a new appointment to leadership for the Department of Labor, we can expect any "floor" on earnings in general (e.g., "minimum wage") to evaporate to zero.
We are merely serfs working in the world created by, and enjoyed solely by, the 1% who own more net worth than the 99% of the rest of us (http://www.bbc.com/news/business-35339475).
Know your place, serf. You exist only to benefit the wealthy...unless you ARE wealthy.
Re:Write off (Score:5, Insightful)
https://www.irs.gov/businesses... [irs.gov]
If Alphabet is actually donating shit in the employee's names, then the employee can deduct it.
Alphabet pays the tax on the gift to the employee (see the link). The employee donates the gift and deducts it.
The fact that the employee never received the gift directly doesn't matter. All that matters is whether or not Alphabet is donating on its employee's behalf, as stated in the summary, or if it's donating in its own name.
The giver (Alphabet) pays the gift tax, not the recipient (the employee). The donor (the employee) gets to deduct it.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, if they gave the employees a bonus, it would also be tax deductible.
They decided the positive PR for $30M of donations was better than the positive employee relations of giving $30M to them.
A phone is over the top? (Score:2)
It actually seems like a pretty reasonable employee gift to me.
It's weird of them to not give their employees some of their own products though, make employees happy, and get people talking about the stuff.
Re:A phone is over the top? (Score:5, Funny)
It actually seems like a pretty reasonable employee gift to me.
It's weird of them to not give their employees some of their own products though, make employees happy, and get people talking about the stuff.
Remember... Working for Google is the greatest gift of all.
Re: (Score:2)
Said like a true plutocrat.
Re: (Score:3)
cut the crap. it's not a gift at all, they gave their employees nothing. and note well the executives did get their multi-million dollar bonuses. think about what message that gives.
CEO Gift (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Let's see. The CEO bonus of $12 million divided by 70K employees equals $171.42, so everyone working at Alphabet should ask for a $171.42 Christmas bonus. You know your CEO can afford it. Hey, he'll even have a bonus of $600 left for himself which is 3.5 times higher than the employee bonus, which seems more reasonable if you ask me.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, he needs to recoup some of the wasted money spent on Hillary's campain.
https://www.opensecrets.org/or... [opensecrets.org]
We can afford to give away $30 Million (Score:5, Funny)
We just didn't want to give it to you.
Re:We can afford to give away $30 Million (Score:4, Insightful)
As a way of thanking you for working hard for our company all year to help us be a success in our marketplace, we are giving other people a buttload of stuff on your behalf.
Hope you saved enough money so you could donate to a charity that you want to donate to, because, well, screw them.
Signed,
The ABC Grinch
Headline correct; summary wrong (Score:3, Insightful)
Any employer can donate the gifts (or funds) they would have spent on employees, or any amount for that matter, to charity. That part of the story is clear and good on Alphabet for helping out needy schools to the tune of more money than I'll ever make in my lifetime.
What is not accurate is the phrase "on its employees behalf" and other posters have already indicated that if the employees don't get the tax advantage, then the donation is not "on their behalf." Indeed the incentive is for Alphabet to get the deduction, effectively providing a $30M gift which costs them probably half that.
However, unlike other posters who say "If I'm not getting the benefit then F*** them" I think on it this way: If I were an employee and was told "This year instead of giving YOU a gift we're giving one to a poor child in need" then I would think about whether I was ENTITLED to a gift (no), or whether I just got spoilt and greedy and want want wanted a gift, and now I'm crying my big head to sleep on my big pillow.
Good on Alphabet. Good on everybody who supports helping out those in need.
E
P.S. I'm not a tax expert, lawyer, nor doctor. But I do write my opinions on the Internet.
Re:Headline correct; summary wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
The intent of this twisting of words is clear: to make it socially unacceptable to complain about it. It's utter bullshit.
Re: (Score:2)
It would have been nice if the company gave them an option but let's not pretend any of the employees will not be able to pay the bill this Christmas season because they weren't given a new cell phone. (well, unless their old cell phone broke and that's what they used to pay bill online...)
Re:Headline correct; summary wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm glad Alphabet decided to help out by donating .... but if I worked for them, I'd still be a little upset by this.
#1? These donations of millions of dollars worth of technology to help schools/education don't exactly have a great track record. When your teachers and staff are underpaid and over-stressed, they're just not going to take the time and effort required to implement the new tech very well. A lot of this stuff will wind up sitting in schools, unused -- or under-utilized. $30 million given to help hire more quality teachers and keep up with maintenance issues in the school buildings would probably have done a lot more.
#2? It's not necessarily being "spoiled and greedy" to assume that your employer will give you a "bonus" or gift at the end of the year, if they're traditionally known for doing it. That's part of how your overall compensation is factored. (EG. When I was hired on where I work now, I tried to negotiate for a higher salary than they offered but they wouldn't budge. Instead, they countered that they almost always gave out end of year bonuses, plus typically did at least one big company meeting/trip to a nice location for several days, where we'd enjoy a lot of perks and entertainment too. Those were bargaining chips to make me take the offer ... not truly gifts that I would be "greedy" to expect to receive, if I did good work through the whole year.)
Re: (Score:3)
This.
30 Million to the school budgets is nothing. If a company like Alphabet want's to really help, they should be lobbying to help find a bigger and steadier way to fund our schools (i.e. tax increases on property, income, or corporations).
Telling people this close to Christmas that you've changed bonus policy is a jerk move. My compensation is mine, not yours. After all, employment is a business relationship. For anyone who disagrees, wait to see how you feel after your first layoff from a profitable
Re: (Score:2)
employees don't get the tax advantage
What tax advantage? So if Google gave each employee $500, and then took that $500 and sent it to charity instead of putting on a paycheck, the employee would have $500 more in income, which could then be written off on taxes. A net change of taxable income of zero.
The tax liability is EXACTLY the same.
Re: (Score:2)
What is not accurate is the phrase "on its employees behalf"
Alphabet absolutely could be doing this on the employee's behalf, thus giving the ability to deduct it.
As I don't work for them, I don't know. If I did, I'd be asking for a receipt if there was any mention of "on your behalf" or "in your name" in the email.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
He is correct, assuming you itemize deductions. A $1000 donation reduces your AGI by $1000, with the net result that you do not pay taxes on the $1000. And you certainly DO pay taxes on corporate gifts, because the value of the gift is reported on your W-2 as ordinary income.
Re: (Score:2)
If they would have gotten a $1000 device, they would have had to pay taxes on the $1000. They didn't get a $1000 device and so they didn't have to pay taxes on it. Same as if they received $1000, then gave it away, they wouldn't have had to pay taxes on the $1000...
Corporations get to write of that $1000 dollars whether they donate it to charity or pay an employee.
Stick to TurboTax, please.
https://www.irs.gov/businesses... [irs.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
'Gifts' (what you linked to) are NOT the same as 'charitable donations'.
I agree and what does this mean for next year? (Score:4, Insightful)
An unlike what gavron thinks, this is not a god damn "gift". This is a "reward".
To me that is exactly right. Going forward will Google donate different amounts of money to charity at the end of each year depending on employee performance? That would seem to be the case if they really are taking bonuses and giving them away.
No matter what I can't see how this is good for morale, or retention in a pretty hot hiring environment.
Re: Headline correct; summary wrong (Score:2)
I realise this is about the US, but in most (all?) of Europe and maybe elsewhere, when you pay an employee money, you have to pay some/all of their tax liability for it, and then pay some tax of your own too, and then pay more tax at the end of the year.
That is, if you want to pay 100 groats, then physically pay 70 groats to the employee's account, pay the remaining 30 to the government on their behalf. Then pay another 30 direct to the government for the pleasure of paying the employee. Oh, and at the end
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I won't say there aren't districts where there is waste, there are plenty, but one does have to build and maintain buildings, which can be quite expensive. There are also pensions to consider, which are not always managed sensibly. So a lot depends on what is in that $18k figure. If it includes facilities and the district made a really bad facilities decision 15-20 years ago, that can be a huge chunk right there that the teachers don't see one penny of. And in that situation, blind cuts will just hurt t
The best way to take over a computer market (Score:3)
Not that I oppose computers in education, but we should be buying what's needed directly instead of these round about scams where we pay for it anyway with tax write offs. That way kids get what they actually can use instead of what the mega corps want them to have.
Re:The best way to take over a computer market (Score:5, Interesting)
Its even worse. Out here in Cupertino the Schools have a program where every kid has to have an iPad as homework will be assigned through an iPad. No choice or option for using another platform. The first year Apple donated the iPads .Once the teachers got used to using it now its the parents can buy their own, buy one from the school at a discounted price or if you are really really cant afford an ipad the School will lend out last years iPads. Guess how many parents told their kids no you cant have the shiny new one like all your classmates and should use the older school issued one.
Apple donated for one year and now has a yearly revenue stream. You dont even have to wait till they grow up
VMWare actually gave us money to donate (Score:5, Interesting)
VMware sent out an email to employees and said "There is $$$ in your http://brightfunds.org/ [brightfunds.org] account. Give it to whatever charity you care about". And the employees do get the tax write-off.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I agree. That indeed is the right way to do it.
But still I agree with everyone else. The end of year bonus is part of your compensation for your job. It's not a gift to you.
Re:VMWare actually gave us money to donate (Score:4)
The end of year bonus is part of your compensation for your job. It's not a gift to you.
But unless the amount of the bonus was disclosed to you at the beginning of the year, it's hard to factor it into your compensation. Every job I've ever had, a bonus was completely optional -- hence, bonus.
So many people don't understand tax deductions (Score:3)
e.g. Say I'm at the 25% tax bracket. Company gives me $4000 t
Re:So many people don't understand tax deductions (Score:5, Insightful)
So it doesn't matter whether the company or the employee gets the deduction - it works out the same either way
It isn't the same. It can matter alot.
First, the company is picking the charity, not you. For example, someone impacted by breast cancer may want to donate to a charity related to that instead of handing more money to schools. I know at least two dozen charities that are more appropriate than throwing more money to my local school district which has already gotten a tax levy to spend $1.2 MILLION on giving students iPads. (I would be VERY unhappy if my employer said they valued my work so much they were going to give more of my money to a "charity" that was already taxing me to do the same thing.)
Second, if you get the money it may put you in a status where it makes sense to itemize, and you may then deduct a lot of things that would otherwise not be deductible. It may increase your giving because you know that you can deduct it.
Third, it will appear on your annual income statements, which are used by the SSA to determine retirement payments, or if a year counts towards retirement at all. It can also have an effect on how much you can borrow as it will be shown as income.
But overall, giving the money to the employee means that the employee chooses where his money goes, not the company. It may help the tax liability of the employee by allowing itemization to increase deductions after donating the money. Or it may simply be a really useful $3000 if it isn't donated.
In either case, it isn't the same thing even if in some cases the ends are the same. The ends don't justify the means.
Re: (Score:3)
This only works if you are already itemizing deductions.
If the company gives you the money, then you can only deduct the donation if you itemize deductions.
However, if the company donates the money, then it's not part your taxable income - in other words, it's "pre-deducted".
Another example would be Flexible (Health) Spending Accounts - FSAs:
Normally, you can only deduct health care expenses when you itemize deductions AND only the amount over a certain percentage of your adjusted gross income (AGI).
But, with a FSA, the money is put into an escrow account that y
Re: (Score:2)
There goes the Job market. (Score:2)
Oh joy,
The job market is about to be flooded with pissed off ex-Google employees.
Re: (Score:2)
The job market is about to be flooded with pissed off ex-Google employees.
Boy, won't it be a splash of cold water when they find out what the real world is like?
Better up your office supply budget Alphabet (Score:2)
The first stage of anger from employees is the traditional "stealing of the pens and post-it notes". Be prepared for massive re-stocking come the current year!
Also on a side note what would be really funny is for an employee of Alphabet to go work for a non-profit for six months, demanding his original salary because he was donating his time on behalf of Alphabet...
Re: (Score:2)
There aren't any; everyone's supposed to be dogfooding Google Keep.
Recipients should throw Chromebooks at Google Bus (Score:2)
Working for Google/Alphabet now... (Score:2)
There's always next year (Score:2)
Christmas bonus for talent poachers (Score:5, Insightful)
You just don't do something like this.
EVERYONE knows this is a tax write-off even if you honestly didn't intend it to be that way it is how it will universally be interpreted.
If you didn't want to give Christmas bonus simply not giving them to people may be a disappointment but pulling this shit is far worse. It is essentially telling your employees to go fuck themselves while announcing they will not be receiving a bonus.
Given current labor environment whoever made this decision to announce donations like this should probably be asked to resign.
this is not a gift for employees (Score:5, Insightful)
The person doing the "giving" (Alphabet) gets the tax write-off, so the employees got absolutely nothing. Alphabet is in no way required to give their employees gifts, and I think it would have been better if they didn't. This is just an failed attempt at good PR. I'm happy Alphabet is donating to charity - they just shouldn't be pretending they're doing it for their employees.
Re:this is not a gift for employees (Score:4, Informative)
This is just an failed attempt at good PR.
This wasn't publicly announced.
It is not on employees' behalf (Score:2)
I wonder if the CEO ever got a letter like this (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
wrong, bad for Alphabet. They gave their employees nothing for Christmas. Employees appreciate a company that appreciates them.
Re: (Score:2)
wrong, bad for Alphabet. They gave their employees nothing for Christmas. Employees appreciate a company that appreciates them.
Yeah, Google's employees are really abused [inc.com].
Re:Good for Alphabet! (Score:5, Insightful)
something socially responsible
Screw the workers by not giving them something that they usually get. Check
Make a massive donation to gain a huge tax write off when you already pay next to no taxes. Check.
CEO takes a bonus likely equal to the after tax donation that was made for saving money and screwing employees at the same time. Check.
Get either shills or complete idiot's support on Slashdot for actions. Social responsibility at its best.
Re:Taxes? (Score:4, Insightful)
HO HO HO NOW I HAVE A MACHINE GUN! (Score:2)
yeah, just as I thought. Stay classy silly valley.
Re:To be fair, if I got a ChromeBook as a "gift".. (Score:4, Interesting)
OMG LOL FTG
GODDAMIT (Score:2)
As always, FUCK 2016
Re: (Score:3)
What makes me laugh is nobody's actually stated the obvious, looking after the poor and the needy is the Government's job.
Except it isn't obvious, and it isn't the government's 'job'. Looking after the poor and needy is why charities exist.
The reason the charities aren't able to do their job is because of people like you who think their tax dollars are all they need to "give" because "it's the government's job" and donating to charity is just "a tax dodge." I.e., the reason why donations to charity are tax deductible is specifically because the it is their job to help the needy and the government wants to promote that activi
Re: (Score:3)
They didn't donate money. They donated last year's hardware at full retail writeoff. So it's more of a business move to get rid of old inventory for more than they could get from a firesale than charity.