Don’t trust corporate charity

Guest Post: Know what would make the world a better place than corporate alms? If they paid their share in taxes

Topics:

Don't trust corporate charity (Credit: AP/Gene J. Puskar)

[Glenn Greenwald is on vacation this week and three writers will be filling in for him]

By Murtaza Hussain

Given their existence as legal entities designed solely to generate profits for their contractual owners, it seems surprising of late that many corporations seem to have developed something akin to a soul. Seldom a week passes where there is not some heartwarming story of Exxon Mobil donating to the Wounded Warrior Project, General Electric providing Easter baskets to the needy, or Dow Chemical offering grants to students to pay for their higher education; all acts which perhaps signal the dawn of a new era of caring corporate stewardship towards the general population. These gestures of altruism are hardly small, and in fact represent major outlays of cash for charity as part of corporate strategy. The amount of capital spent is often significant enough to represent a type of private social safety net for those who are the beneficiaries. Indeed, Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is a core concept in the strategy of most major organizations whereby they are ostensibly required by their own internal mandates to care and provide for the communities in which they operate. Goldman Sachs’ company website has an entire section dedicated to its “Goldman Sachs Gives” program; documenting the work the organization is doing providing services and educational opportunities to vulnerable youth. In addition it notes the work Goldman is doing to “build and stabilize communities” in the United States – a task traditionally attributed to government. To these ends Goldman and others have collectively given billions to charitable causes over the years, addressing a wide range of varying social needs.



On the surface the increased attention big business seems to be paying to general social welfare would appear to be a positive development. Major corporations go out of the way to ease the burdens of normal citizens, in the process dulling some of the harsher aspects of modern capitalism and earning for themselves PR boost. However it bears asking the question, as many good and well intentioned individuals there are sitting in the C-Suites of major companies, what would cause them to expend huge amounts of resources on pursuits which seem to have nothing to do with what their organizations are legally created to do? Public relations is a function which has always been handled by the marketing and communication departments of organizations; so given the enormous pressure to generate profits why are corporations now acting as social caretakers ?

The answer lies in the reality that whatever these organizations put back into the communities in which they operate, communities which are often struggling under the weight of collapsing infrastructure, they expend far greater effort to ensure that they avoid paying their share of tax into public coffers. By avoiding taxes these companies ultimately help eliminate social services, a simulacrum of which they then provide in the form of charitable donations and other public outreach. The company keeps the funds it would’ve otherwise lost to tax and earns PR credibility for its supposed altruism, while the public loses out on the tax revenue which rightfully belongs to it. These taxes after all represent the funds which should have been available to make sure that Americans do not have to deal with substandard schools, crumbling roads, and deep cuts to social services; and to a large extent they are being withheld by the same corporations now offering charitable handouts. As an example, in the fiscal year 2010 the largest financial institutions in America paid an effective tax rate of only 11 percent, a rate which is below the legally mandated minimum of 35 percent and which itself is likely overstated through financial manipulation. A report published in 2011 by Citizens for Tax Justice revealed that 30 of the largest companies in America paid zero or even negative income tax (in the form of transfer payments from the government) between the years 2008 and 2010. The companies on this odious list include some of the most enthusiastic “corporate citizens” in the country such as General Electric, Dupont, and Honeywell. Through shrewd manipulation of tax loopholes, the utilization of offshore havens for profits, and often through direct lobbying of lawmakers, many of the same organizations making a show of their charitable generosity to the public are simultaneously taking much larger sums away from the very same people. It is estimated that closing tax loopholes and imposing fees on speculative transactions would generate $150 billion dollars in additional tax revenue per year from the financial sector alone. Wells Fargo, a company whose annual CSR report in 2010 proudly cited its contributions over the past two years of approximately $419 million to charitable organizations such as the Portland Housing Center (which provides assistance to new and low-income homeowners), paid only 7.5 percent tax on its income, and was also a recipient of $2.5 billion in federal income tax benefits during the same period; a massive figure which happens to be equal to the Obama administration’s proposed cuts of 50 percent to the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program. Perhaps if Wells Fargo had not neglected its responsibility to pay tax these types of cuts to services for homeowners would be unnecessary, as would be the need for any type of charity to make up a fraction of what was lost.

A list of the most charitable companies in America shows some of the biggest tax evaders in the country. These include heavyweights such as Goldman, Wells Fargo, BoA and Exxon Mobil; a company which made $41.1 billion in profits last year and paid only 17 percent in effective taxes, a far lower rate than the average U.S. citizen. The savings here vastly outweigh any donation which is subsequently offered in the spirit of “social responsibility”. The result of this neglect of public duty has been spending cuts across all areas of government, resulting in layoffs to teachers, the closing of hospitals and the slashing of benefits to the most vulnerable sections of society including children and the elderly. That these same corporate citizens turn around and give back a fraction of what they owe in the form of charitable donations (for which they of course can claim further tax benefits) is a cynical attempt to manage their public image in the face of the increasingly angry public backlash against their policies.

The private social safety net, provided by corporate donors as compensation for the public one which their tax avoidance helps shred, is a poor substitute for democratically accountable public spending. Besides being poorer, free of public oversight, and geared primarily towards public relations efforts, the private safety net is a rug that can and will be pulled out from under its beneficiaries at the slightest notice. Goldman Sachs, which generously gave $320M in charitable contributions in 2010 and $500M in 2009, drastically cut its charitable budget to $78M a year in 2011 in response to reduced profits while making minimal cuts to employee bonuses and other compensation. “Doing God’s work”, as Goldman CEO Lloyd Blankfein famously described the companies activities is apparently an elective commitment based on market conditions. Whereas as a strong public safety net is managed democratically by its beneficiaries, corporate charity can and will disappear the moment it is deemed necessary which exemplifies clearly why it is no substitute for government spending.

As Rob Johnson, Director of Financial Reform at the Roosevelt Institute said of this corporate largesse, “Charitable giving is nice, but we can’t take our eye off the ball when it comes to the need to repair our structure of government and address the undue influence of Goldman and the other powerful financial sector firms. Such firms have had unbridled access to the public treasury and sucked up our resources to save themselves from a disaster of their own making.” Corporate CSR efforts should be looked at with wary skepticism as long as its proponents continue to effectively rob public coffers through massive tax avoidance. The results of their efforts can be seen in the massive corrosion of America’s vital social infrastructure. Prominent economists have already called on government to close these loopholes as a means of regaining budget equilibrium in order to fund critical public spending. The farce that is the private safety net is made both possible and necessary as a result of the deliberate starvation of the real thing. If corporations are serious about their stated commitment to improving the social welfare of the country a genuine “CSR” strategy would be to pay their legally mandated taxes and to keep the charity which their own policies are helping create the need for.

Glenn Greenwald

Follow Glenn Greenwald on Twitter: @ggreenwald.

More Related Stories

Featured Slide Shows

  • Share on Twitter
  • Share on Facebook
  • 1 of 14
  • Close
  • Fullscreen
  • Thumbnails

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Hannah and Adam, "Pilot"

    One of our first exposures to uncomfortable “Girls” sex comes early, in the pilot episode, when Hannah and Adam “get feisty” (a phrase Hannah hates) on the couch. The pair is about to go at it doggy-style when Adam nearly inserts his penis in “the wrong hole,” and after Hannah corrects him, she awkwardly explains her lack of desire to have anal sex in too many words. “Hey, let’s play the quiet game,” Adam says, thrusting. And so the romance begins.

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Marnie and Elijah, "It's About Time"

    In an act of “betrayal” that messes up each of their relationships with Hannah, Marnie and Elijah open Season 2 with some more couch sex, which is almost unbearable to watch. Elijah, who is trying to explore the “hetero side” of his bisexuality, can’t maintain his erection, and the entire affair ends in very uncomfortable silence.

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Marnie and Charlie, "Vagina Panic"

    Poor Charlie. While he and Marnie have their fair share of uncomfortable sex over the course of their relationship, one of the saddest moments (aside from Marnie breaking up with him during intercourse) is when Marnie encourages him to penetrate her from behind so she doesn’t have to look at him. “This feels so good,” Charlie says. “We have to go slow.” Poor sucker.

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Shoshanna and camp friend Matt, "Hannah's Diary"

    We’d be remiss not to mention Shoshanna’s effort to lose her virginity to an old camp friend, who tells her how “weird” it is that he “loves to eat pussy” moments before she admits she’s never “done it” before. At least it paves the way for the uncomfortable sex we later get to watch her have with Ray?

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Hannah and Adam, "Hard Being Easy"

    On the heels of trying (unsuccessfully) to determine the status of her early relationship with Adam, Hannah walks by her future boyfriend’s bedroom to find him masturbating alone, in one of the strangest scenes of the first season. As Adam jerks off and refuses to let Hannah participate beyond telling him how much she likes watching, we see some serious (and odd) character development ... which ends with Hannah taking a hundred-dollar bill from Adam’s wallet, for cab fare and pizza (as well as her services).

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Marnie and Booth Jonathan, "Bad Friend"

    Oh, Booth Jonathan -- the little man who “knows how to do things.” After he turns Marnie on enough to make her masturbate in the bathroom at the gallery where she works, Booth finally seals the deal in a mortifying and nearly painful to watch sex scene that tells us pretty much everything we need to know about how much Marnie is willing to fake it.

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Tad and Loreen, "The Return"

    The only sex scene in the series not to feature one of the main characters, Hannah’s parents’ showertime anniversary celebration is easily one of the most cringe-worthy moments of the show’s first season. Even Hannah’s mother, Loreen, observes how embarrassing the situation is, which ends with her husband, Tad, slipping out of the shower and falling naked and unconscious on the bathroom floor.

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Hannah and the pharmacist, "The Return"

    Tad and Loreen aren’t the only ones to get some during Hannah’s first season trip home to Michigan. The show’s protagonist finds herself in bed with a former high school classmate, who doesn’t exactly enjoy it when Hannah puts one of her fingers near his anus. “I’m tight like a baby, right?” Hannah asks at one point. Time to press pause.

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Hannah and Adam, "Role-Play"

    While it’s not quite a full-on, all-out sex scene, Hannah and Adam’s attempt at role play in Season 3 is certainly an intimate encounter to behold (or not). Hannah dons a blond wig and gets a little too into her role, giving a melodramatic performance that ends with a passerby punching Adam in the face. So there’s that.

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Shoshanna and Ray, "Together"

    As Shoshanna and Ray near the end of their relationship, we can see their sexual chemistry getting worse and worse. It’s no more evident than when Ray is penetrating a clothed and visibly horrified Shoshanna from behind, who ends the encounter by asking if her partner will just “get out of me.”

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Hannah and Frank, "Video Games"

    Hannah, Jessa’s 19-year-old stepbrother, a graveyard and too much chatting. Need we say more about how uncomfortable this sex is to watch?

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Marnie and Desi, "Iowa"

    Who gets her butt motorboated? Is this a real thing? Aside from the questionable logistics and reality of Marnie and Desi’s analingus scene, there’s also the awkward moment when Marnie confuses her partner’s declaration of love for licking her butthole with love for her. Oh, Marnie.

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Hannah and Adam, "Vagina Panic"

    There is too much in this scene to dissect: fantasies of an 11-year-old girl with a Cabbage Patch lunchbox, excessive references to that little girl as a “slut” and Adam ripping off a condom to ejaculate on Hannah’s chest. No wonder it ends with Hannah saying she almost came.

  • Recent Slide Shows

Comments

0 Comments

Comment Preview

Your name will appear as username ( settings | log out )

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href=""> <b> <em> <strong> <i> <blockquote>