536
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago)

Also they get to chose which Charity gets it, so it can be a trade of favors between their upper management and the upper management or board members of the chosen Charity, favors which in due time will be repaid.

Further, in some Legal Jurisdictions the criteria to be a charity are incredibly low - for example rich Brits often use "charitable foundations" registered in the Channel Islands that pay all their expenses as a way to evade all tax in Britain, whilst at least some years ago the method used by the owner of IKEA to evade taxes in Sweden involved a convoluted ownership structure that ended up paying IKEA's dividends to a Charity "for the progress of interior decoration" registered in Luxembourg which paid all his expenses.

Or to put it in simpler terms: if company upper management are mainly crooks in the way they choose to treat customers nowadays (a.k.a. enshittification), it makes sense they would also be crooks when it comes to charitable donations paid by customers which go via their companies.

this post was submitted on 29 Oct 2026
536 points (100.0% liked)

Not The Onion

22814 readers
1206 users here now

Welcome

We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!

The Rules

Posts must be:

  1. Links to news stories from...
  2. ...credible sources, with...
  3. ...their original headlines, that...
  4. ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”

Please also avoid duplicates.

Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, ableist, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.

And that’s basically it!

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS