Cheap or Generous?

[chspeed]

I'm always torn when I see these announced.

Let's say Morikawa plays great over the 12 rounds of the playoffs and has 9 birdies a round. That would put his donation at about $100k. It's obviously a very significant amount of money. But then again, if he has that many birdies a round, he's going to make many, many millions of dollars (unless he has some freakish rounds and makes a ton of bogeys).

Of course, he could play poorly, but still make, let's say, 5 birdies a round. That would mean he donates $60k, but only makes maybe a million or two.

Either way, it's a minute portion of his earnings and he gets a tax write-off.

I'm not saying it's not a good thing, but putting out a press release? Eh.

 

Pro-golfer Collin Morikawa pledges donation per birdie made to Hawaii relief efforts

---

US golfer Collin Morikawa, a two-time majors winner, has pledged $1,000 for every birdie he makes during the PGA Tour's FedEx Cup playoffs to...

[iacas]

He doesn't have to donate anything, and… he gets a tax write-off because you could get the same one. He pays more in taxes already than you, too.

$60-$100k is a lot of money.

[billchao]

How cynical are we becoming as a society when we question people’s decision to make charitable donations? Yea he gets a tax write-off, but he’s straight up giving money away. This isn’t like one of those charity auctions where you donate an item and then buy it back, getting a write-off on both ends.

4 hours ago, chspeed said:

I'm not saying it's not a good thing, but putting out a press release? Eh.

It helps raise awareness because he’s a public figure, albeit a rather obscure one outside of the golf community.

[boogielicious]

Generous and the fires affected an area he his personally connected to.

[chspeed]

12 hours ago, iacas said:

… he gets a tax write-off because you could get the same one. He pays more in taxes already than you, too.

$60-$100k is a lot of money.

It is a lot of money, of course.

But it’s an also a very small percentage of his income.

Let’s say he makes $50m this year. $100k is 0.1% of his income. I give 1% of my income. Yes, I give less money, but should we compare absolute amounts or percentages when determining someone’s level of generosity?
 

I’m not saying it’s clear cut, just starting a discussion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

12 hours ago, billchao said:

How cynical are we becoming as a society when we question people’s decision to make charitable donations?

I did not mean to sound cynical, sorry if it came off that way. I don’t think he did this for a tax write-off, I think he was giving because he cares.

I only brought up the tax write-off to highlight the lower percentage of his income.

I also don’t know anything about Muriklowa’s financial situation nor how much he gives to different causes.

[mcanadiens]

Part of the reason Morikawa approaches it this way is an attempt to inspire other people to contribute to the same cause. By having an amount per birdie, it gives people something to track and root for.

$1,000 is a nice, easily-digestible number. Maybe some of his golfing colleagues will match him. Probably more easily done at a figure like that. 

 

 

[SEMI_Duffer]

1 hour ago, chspeed said:

I also don’t know anything about Muriklowa’s financial situation nor how much he gives to different causes.

His financial situation is inconsequential.  He's not obliged to give anything he's earned to anybody. The fact he's done this is a credit to his name.

14 hours ago, billchao said:

How cynical are we becoming as a society when we question people’s decision to make charitable donations?

This ^^^^^

 

[billchao]

1 hour ago, chspeed said:

I did not mean to sound cynical, sorry if it came off that way.

I get what you’re saying, but if you’re trying to judge the level of a person’s generosity by weighing what percentage of their income their donation is versus how much personal gain they stand to get from it, financially or reputation or otherwise, it’s hard to see it as anything but cynical.

And on the flip side, if it’s a small percentage of his income it’s also a small percentage off his income for tax purposes.

[Big C]

3 minutes ago, billchao said:

I get what you’re saying, but if you’re trying to judge the level of a person’s generosity by weighing what percentage of their income their donation is versus how much personal gain they stand to get from it, financially or reputation or otherwise, it’s hard to see it as anything but cynical.

And on the flip side, if it’s a small percentage of his income it’s also a small percentage off his income for tax purposes.

Agree with this. I think the OP missed the mark on this one. To call a voluntary donation "cheap" because it doesn't represent a large enough portion of his income (who gets to decide that, by the way?) is bad form. 

 

[saevel25]

2 hours ago, chspeed said:

I did not mean to sound cynical, sorry if it came off that way. I don’t think he did this for a tax write-off, I think he was giving because he cares.

Yea, but you said this.... Which sounds very cynical. 

18 hours ago, chspeed said:

I'm not saying it's not a good thing, but putting out a press release? Eh.

Who cares if it is a low percentage of his income.

Person A gives $10,000 a year, this is 10% of their income. Person B gives $50,000 a year, this is 1% of their income. 

Does Hawaii care that it is only 1%, no. They get 5x more than the person who gave 10%! 

Also, this is a form of judgement. A judgement of someone giving to charity does nothing but make people not want to give to charity. 

Finally, the reason he put out a press release is to bring awareness to the cause. We are in unprecedented times when it comes to the war over our attention. So, any attention that can be brought to this cause should be made. If not, it will be drowned out by the inconsequential BS that is spread across the internet. 

 

[ChetlovesMer]

I always think it's funny when people say "But he gets a tax write off...." 
As if the government gives you back what ever you donate. 

Just so you all know. It doesn't work that way. The government does not repay what you donate! 

The amount you can write off is capped and you only get a small portion of that back in a tax break. 

28 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

Finally, the reason he put out a press release is to bring awareness to the cause. We are in unprecedented times when it comes to the war over our attention. So, any attention that can be brought to this cause should be made. If not, it will be drowned out by the inconsequential BS that is spread across the internet. 

This 

[mcanadiens]

14 minutes ago, ChetlovesMer said:

I always think it's funny when people say "But he gets a tax write off...." 
As if the government gives you back what ever you donate. 

Just so you all know. It doesn't work that way. The government does not repay what you donate! 

The amount you can write off is capped and you only get a small portion of that back in a tax break. 

Right. Nobody is getting rich giving money to legit charity.

Charitable deductions are a component of itemized deductions. To the degree someone itemizes (and Morikawa probably does), it reduces taxable income. That in turn, reduces the tax. So you are correct that it isn't a dollar-for-dollar reduction.  Generally, itemized deductions are capped at 60% of adjusted gross income. Morikawa is presumably well inside that number.

Getting a little break on your taxes isn't a bad way for the government to encourage legitimate charitable efforts.  If there is a problem with it that problem is the cottage industry of fake charities that take advantage of people's generosity. 

[ChetlovesMer]

30 minutes ago, mcanadiens said:

Getting a little break on your taxes isn't a bad way for the government to encourage legitimate charitable efforts.  If there is a problem with it that problem is the cottage industry of fake charities that take advantage of people's generosity. 

No doubt. 100% agree.

There's a special place in Hell for folks who pretend to be a charity, taking money away from real charities that legit need the money to do the good work they do. 

[iacas]

21 hours ago, chspeed said:

It is a lot of money, of course.

That's where you would stop. Both here and in your own thoughts in your head.

21 hours ago, chspeed said:

But it’s an also a very small percentage of his income.

And Jeff Bezos donating $1M to a school is still someone donating $1M to a school. That still means more to the school than someone who makes $100k/year donating 100% of his earnings to a school.

21 hours ago, chspeed said:

Let’s say he makes $50m this year. $100k is 0.1% of his income. I give 1% of my income. Yes, I give less money, but should we compare absolute amounts or percentages when determining someone’s level of generosity.

We can do basic math. This is more basic math for you: $100k > $0.

He also pays a lot more other people out of that $50M (i.e. his net taxable income is not $50M), while your net taxable income is probably higher as a percentage, so it's not a straight 1% versus 0.1% or whatever.

21 hours ago, chspeed said:

I don’t think he did this for a tax write-off, I think he was giving because he cares.

I only brought up the tax write-off to highlight the lower percentage of his income.

Both of those are cynical.

[chspeed]

1 hour ago, iacas said:

That's where you would stop. Both here and in your own thoughts in your head.

Seriously? Thanks for the advice, but don’t tell me what I should think.

I was just trying to start a topic I thought was interesting.

i won’t do it again.

[billchao]

22 minutes ago, chspeed said:

I was just trying to start a topic I thought was interesting.

i won’t do it again.

It’s fine. I just don’t think you came across like you thought you would. It happens. That’s how we learn about ourselves.

[chspeed]

2 minutes ago, billchao said:

It’s fine. I just don’t think you came across like you thought you would. It happens. That’s how we learn about ourselves.

Yes, definitely did not come across as I thought.

This post was not about me. I was even trying to leave myself out of it.  As I wrote in the original post "I'm not saying it's not a good thing, but putting out a press release? Eh."  I wasn't married to the position. As a matter of fact, someone made a good point that the press release raises awareness which made me rethink it.

I don't get the personalization of the comments and the assumptions about what I think or don't think, or know and don't know. Why not just stick to the topic?

What I did learn is that for me, it's just not worth posting on here. Thanks.

[SEMI_Duffer]

If I stopped posting in every forum in which I got nicked for a bad take (incl. here), there'd be precious few forums in which I could post--about zero, probably