Why we’re done with charity businesses

charity businesses are not worth paying more for

Why we’re done with charity businesses {hint: unsustainable}

I can think of really only one of the “charity businesses” from back in the day. And that was Newman’s Own products. Their big selling point was donating all “after tax profits” to charity.

To put that in perspective – Newman’s Own had $600 million in sales last year and donated $30 million to charity (their own charities, naturally.)

That, of course, includes salaries of everyone involved. And whatever “cooked books” accounting. Some would say a 5% “leftover” seems to be a bit low of a profit margin. But then again, companies like Uber are losing $700 million a quarter (or something like that).

But charity businesses is the flavor of today

Fast forward to today. It appears that EVERY OTHER BUSINESS out there has some kind of “charity” link. Take a better look at all the packaging of food, for instance.

“We donate X% of our profits to kids in need!” seems to be the common mantra. You can expect cooked books accounting in all these companies, too.

And then there are companies like TOMS Shoes – who donates a pair of shoes for every pair that is purchased – to someone “in need.”

TOMS is now in jeopardy of going BANKRUPT.

charity businesses are not worth paying more for

If companies are so charitable – maybe you’re paying too much?

I understand Newman’s (to a degree).

But all these other companies are practically riding that “socially acceptable” coattail to have a positive light shined on them. I mean, who can bash a company for “helping” others?

Well – there are several problems with this whole thing.

I think for one, they build the “cost” of their charity into the price of the goods. Wouldn’t you rather have THE OPTION to pay LESS for the product instead? What if you didn’t like that charity? Or were having money problems yourself? These companies – regardless of their (artificially perceived good intentions) don’t realize that not everyone is so pliable.

Secondly – with TOMS in financial trouble – the fact that you buying ONE pair of their shoes pretty much netted TWO pairs of shoes – you’re paying literally DOUBLE the price.

Notice how the paying customers are NEVER the charity. Not once.

Look at the money troubles our country as a whole is having. What does that tell you?

WHAT IF?

What if any of these companies said:

  1. You can pay $100 for these shoes – and we’ll donate a pair to some other needy person. Or…
  2. You can pay $50 for these shoes – and we won’t donate anything…

90% or more of the customers would NOT pay extra. And maybe companies like TOMS would not be in financial trouble today.

But no one thinks about that because the pricing and the markets are all rigged.

Those non-charity days are dwindling

In the end – we’re doing our best to find companies that just try to stay in business providing quality products at a fair price.

But a majority of companies and manufacturers today are under pressure (social media, other SJW BS) to “fall into line” with this rubbish. Which is why it’s so much harder today to find any business that doesn’t at least have its toes in this liberal nonsense of charity.

Speaking of which – with all these so-called “charitable” businesses – can anyone say it’s made ONE BLIP of difference to the world as a whole? I bet you cannot.

So if you want a good starting point to save money – and avoid wasteful charities – here are three off the top of my head:

– Shop the ultra clearance racks at every store. Buy seasons ahead. You can often save 90%!

– Think about overseas places like AliExpress. I can buy QUALITY polo shirts for $9 brand new. It may be China or Korea – but at least they’re not peddling nonsensical charities.

– Buy second-hand. You can get almost everything used (older models) for more that 75% less than new items. You might even find quality clothing items as well.

– Do without.

Charities should be up to the individual. Not a corporation who chooses to donate YOUR money somewhere else.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
34 Comments
Boat Guy
Boat Guy
June 27, 2017 7:03 am

Like my federal state and local government that confiscates and pisses money away at millions per second . The Roman Catholic Chruch that supports a relief project for people invading the US illegally , supplying them with a health check up and water to make the trip . I wonder how many MS13 gang members and other criminal types the Chruch assisted to come in to our country in the name of charity . Let’s not forget UAW retirement plan bail out or Tesula and the nonprofit drug abuse clinics then the Clinton Foundation comes to mind talk to people from Hati that still have family there about that non-profit scam …

Dan
Dan
  Boat Guy
June 27, 2017 9:43 am

Indeed. The Catholic and Lutheran “Family Services” orgs are the worst offenders, but almost every denomination is hip-deep in this “Charity Inc” heresy. These churches are so dependent of govt $$$, they are practically indistinguishable from their psychotic SJW Big Govt welfare program brethren. They will lash-out at anyone who dares to suggest the refugee/invasion mess needs curtailed with the same “you dont care about the poor!” nonsense you see when welfare programs get cut back, except they also come at you with a ton of out-of-context scripture references, too (the Good Samaritan is their favorite, except they conveniently forget the finer points of that parable). American churches are going to undergo a tremendous transformation int he next 10 years or so, as the faithful reject and leave these heretical SJW-infestations in the trash.

Llpoh
Llpoh
June 27, 2017 7:33 am

I only support animal charities. Charities for humans can blow me.

The govts pry charity off me in great slabs at the barrel of a gun. I will be damned if I give one red cent to a human charity so long as that happens. Fuck that shit.

And if anyone thinks that there are poor in Oz or the US, they have their heads up their asses. If you have mobile phones, aircon, big screen TVs, and designer shoes, and cannot go swimming due to the chances of being harpooned, you ain’t poor.

And if you are homeless, by and large that is symptomatic of mental health issues, drug or alcohol addiction, etc., none of which my money is likely to help. (I admit to providing the odd sandwich to these sorts, though. I am just an old softie.)

Not to mention I hate that these charities are headed by folks raking in hundreds of thousands a year. That is fucked up and bullshit.

So, I will take care of dogs. They are capable of pure love, and deserve better than they often get.

prusmc
prusmc
  Llpoh
June 27, 2017 7:53 am

Would plain and simple honesty be an effective marketing propostion. Advertise that not one cent is spent on charity,political contributions or local “feel good” initiatives, but prices are law and all profits go to taxes first after legitimate fixed costs are amortized and varible costs are liquidated. I’d buy this kind of a product because I hate the charity scam invilved in corporate donorship. Same for Methodist, Catholic, Lutherin and Jewish Charities. Disburse only what comes inro the collection plate or sale of church property. End big government grants to further SJW enterprises.

norman franklin
norman franklin
  Llpoh
June 27, 2017 8:44 am

Lipoh your right about the dogs vs. humans angle. We buy dog food and take it to the shelters as I would no more hand a animal charity cash than I would the clinton foundation. I know some who volunteer at a dog shelter, but those higher up always seem to be making bank.

As has been said before. ‘They came to do good, and they did very well indeed.’

Llpoh
Llpoh
  norman franklin
June 27, 2017 8:49 am

We sponsor a dog charity that has a no kill policy. No dogs are put down unless deemed dangerous by three different vets. The board is all volunteer. A full accounting of all expenditure is given. I am happy to fund them.

And we get naming rights on some of the dogs!

I called a big, ugly, fat, droolly one Admin.

I am gonna name a real stupid one BB.

Maggie
Maggie
June 27, 2017 7:43 am

My pet peeve is the constant requests to donate my change or a dollar to XYZ fund at many stores. I always say no.

Llpoh
Llpoh
  Maggie
June 27, 2017 7:47 am

Boy, you are polite, Maggie.

Dutchman
Dutchman
  Maggie
June 27, 2017 8:43 am

I get you Maggie.

I hate “would you like to donate $1 to ‘the one legged whores….’ foundation.” I came here to buy something, not answer your fucking questions.

Maggie
Maggie
  Dutchman
June 27, 2017 9:39 am

Well, one legged prostitutes get very little traction and may deserve a handout.

Ginger
Ginger
  Maggie
June 27, 2017 4:08 pm

Why don’t the toothless whores never have a charity looking out for them?

Maggie
Maggie
  Ginger
June 28, 2017 9:48 am

Well, Ginger, obviously “toothless” whores have an advantage in alternate sales methodology.

credit
credit
June 27, 2017 8:19 am

I don’t like all caps, but GET RID OF THE CHARITABLE DEDUCTION! one of its biggest flaws allows very wealthy people to fund their own foundations and reduce their taxes, thereby increasing the cost of government to the rest of us b

Llpoh
Llpoh
  credit
June 27, 2017 8:41 am

Credit – the “wealthy” pay almost all the taxes – the top 1% pays what, almost 40% of all fed taxes. The rest of what the govt spends is borrowed.

Just how much should they pay, if 40% is not enough?

It is an expenditure problem, not a tax problem.

Wise up.

David
David
  Llpoh
June 27, 2017 10:37 am

For some people, as long as they still have to pay any tax and aren’t getting everything from the government, then the rich aren’t paying enough. They are like the deadbeat brother in law who comes over and drinks all your beer and then insults you on the way out.

Annie
Annie
  Llpoh
June 27, 2017 10:51 am

Thowing out one number doesn’t tell the whole story. If the top 1% are paying 40% of the income taxes but are making 60% of the income they are paying too little. If they are paying 40% of the income taxes but are only making 20% of the income then they are paying too much. There are also distinct bands in the top 1%, differences in percentage for different areas of the country, etc.

Llpoh
Llpoh
  Annie
June 27, 2017 5:16 pm

Annie – top 1% makes around 20% of income, which includes their investment income. So by your logic they are paying 2 times too much.

Zarathustra
Zarathustra
  Llpoh
June 27, 2017 10:53 am

Okay. Get rid of ALL deductions then. Then the wealthy won’t need to spent so much on CPA’s and Tax lawyers (along with the rest of us).

overthecliff
overthecliff
June 27, 2017 10:34 am

Llpoh,Re: Dogs you are so right. In general charities are bullshit tax avoidance lawyer created entities. They are in most cases created to get others to pay salaries of the charity personnel.

Anon
Anon
June 27, 2017 11:10 am

“– Think about overseas places like AliExpress. I can buy QUALITY polo shirts for $9 brand new. It may be China or Korea – but at least they’re not peddling nonsensical charities.”
Well, at least you are cutting out the middle man….

Anyway, “Charities” where do I begin. The Clinton Foundation is a charity – enough said. Most of the charities I see from a financial standpoint were simply started because someone needed a day job that paid better, or a company needed a way to off balance sheet some profit and not pay taxes. All the do gooder, liberal nonsense is just the cover story to gender brand loyalty, so the sheep can say they feel good about paying twice as much for something. “I paid a lot, but I helped some Ethiopian starving”. Like everything else touched by the corporate / government world these days, they take a humans basic instinct to be good, and pervert it in to some sort of scam to make them more money.

KaD
KaD
June 27, 2017 1:33 pm

I’m not a fan of ‘no kill’. There will always be dogs too dangerous, unstable, or unhealthy for adoption, and years in a cage with no end in sight is cruelty in itself.

We Can’t Save Them All – And We Shouldn’t

The real answer to the endless glut of dogs and cats needing homes is not bigger better shelters but spay and neuter. The cost of S/N is very small compared to the cost of caring for an animal over its lifetime. I don’t understand why S/N wasn’t made mandatory for all PET dogs and cats a long time ago. http://www.animals24-7.org/2017/03/04/we-cannot-adopt-warehouse-or-rescue-our-way-out-of-dog-cat-overpopulation/ THIS is where the money should be going, where it will do the MOST good. Many pet rescues start out with good intentions but end up overwhelmed. http://www.rufftails.com/news/2017/6/21/animal-rescuer-arrested-after-welfare-check-reveals-house-of-horrors

Llpoh
Llpoh
  KaD
June 27, 2017 6:40 pm

KaD – you know zip about the shelter I sponsor. They find homes fast, and dogs do not stay penned for years. They even have psychologists to work with the neurotic dogs. Only dangerous ones get put down.

This shelter is totally open. Anyone can visit and wander the entire place. It has several staff vets. It is overseen by a great board of governors. It is well sponsored by me, and staffed by professionals and many, many volunteers.

Yes, all should be desexed save for breeders. But that does not happen. So let’s just kill them because of stupid people. Great idea.

Bullshit.

the tumbleweed
the tumbleweed
June 27, 2017 5:56 pm

Yes lots of charity scams out there.

– The add $1 to your bill thing at supermarkets. So many upper middle class types do this because of the social pressure/white guilt of saying no. No one knows where that money really goes and the people who give it don’t really care.

– Salvation Army bell ringers. Once again the social pressure of walking past a dude standing in the cold ringing a bell. But most of those bell ringers aren’t exactly the typical bored housewife demographic that might engage in charity. Do you really think they aren’t helping themselves to 50% of the untracked cash that goes in that pot?

– Firehouse Subs. As if America needed another sandwich chain, their entire marketing focuses on glorifying “first responders” the way society has already glorified every 18 year old rear echelon Army clerk as a “hero.” They have radio commercials where they brag about giving some portion of every sub sold away to firefighters or some shit — it’s such a pathetically small laughable amount, like 0.5% or something. Yet I’m sure there are people who will stop and buy a $9 sandwich just so 4 cents can go to help the “firefighters.”

GoFundMe – Almost everything on here is crap. I know an upper middle class type who lost a family member. Guy and his brother are both making six figures. He immediately set up a GoFundMe to help ease the family’s burden. I know another one who wanted to take her cat on vacation. Another one didn’t bother to research visa restrictions and got stranded in a foreign country. People paid to fly her home cause she was hot. GoFuckYourself.

Boat Guy
Boat Guy
June 27, 2017 7:52 pm

Stop with the rich pay most of the tax and blah blah !
Capitol gains tax for those who recieve income in that way is less than any middle class percentage so. Because some wealthy person doesn’t get his dick beaters dirty earning $12 MILLON (Mitt Romney) he pays 15% while a mechanic making $60 thousand pays 28% . Remember we are talking about percentage of income not number of dollars ! Seems like the equal protection under the law in that silly old constitution is being violated . I believe it’s the fourth amendment ! I know my shit is shit but wealthy people’s shit is stuff !
Jealousy maybe some but when you know you are being ripped off and lied to about it getting pissed at those getting over is not jealousy it’s demanding equality of treatment under the law !

Llpoh
Llpoh
  Boat Guy
June 28, 2017 4:58 am

Boatguy – dumbass. Why are capital gains taxes lower? To encourage investment in capital goods. That means job creation, etc. Plus the downside risk can be extreme.

Yep, great idea taxing capital investment into the ground. That will help.

There should be an IQ test around here before posters can post.

starfcker
starfcker
  Llpoh
June 28, 2017 5:43 am

True to a point, Llpoh, but the category is too broad. You know as well as I do that running a business, goverment used to, and should, treat you like a prince. Because you employ people, because you spend tons of money, and pay tons of taxes, in not just real dollar terms, as Boat Guy suggests, but as a percentage of gross income. Boat Guy is only looking at federal income tax. He has no idea what else is involved. Money printing has changed things quite a bit. I’m sure you are familiar with the saying that open borders and a generous welfare state are incompatible. Following that reasoning, I believe money printing and publicly traded companies are incompatible. Those with access to the counterfeit money can buy up everything. And they have been. Those counterfeit dollars spend just as good as your and I’s earned dollars. So giving them preferential tax treatment as if they were a plus to the economy is madness.

Llpoh
Llpoh
  starfcker
June 28, 2017 5:52 am

Star – I understand. Not all capital gains is created equal.

Another thing folks do not understand – there is no CPI against capital gains. Buy something for $10 sell it for $20 20 years later and you still pay capital gains even if the real value has dropped. That is fucked up. Which is another reason why capital gains in general cannot be treated harshly.

Further, the capital items are purchased with after tax dollars. They have already been taxed! Tax the income they produce, but why should they be able to tax something you own and bought legitimately? Another reason capital gains taxes need to be minimized, perhaps even eliminated. Taxing personal property that has already been taxed is double dipping.

Further, capital investment is risky. Another reason it should be taxed lightly.

It is complicated I know, but in general there are very good reasons capital gains are taxed at a lower rate.

starfcker
starfcker
  Llpoh
June 28, 2017 6:06 am

Yeah, I totally agree. I think Trump is aiming at developing a two tiered system over time, certainly with banking. I don’t have enough information to really lay it out, but if you view his actions through that lens, it starts to make sense

rhs jr
rhs jr
June 27, 2017 10:58 pm

I tell the professional telephone beggars no because I don’t like that industry and because the gov’t already funds the FSA-NGO-Complex.

Sara
Sara
June 30, 2017 10:50 am

Your first statement​ “I understand Newman’s” sort of discredits the rest of your article. If a company makes a good product that there is a market for and donates profits to charity I think this wonderful. Personally I will choose those products over the competition even if they cost slightly more. However a shitty product will and should not sell simply because claim to be donating profits or a percentage of to charity. For instance Tom’s are so ugly I can’t believe anyone ever purchased a single pair of thier shoes and my guess the people in third world nations were probably pretty disappointed in them as well.