opinion please

simply simple

Getting motivation from Bill gates who does many things to serve the community ( after he earned a lot of money ) wouldnt it be possible for every employer to do their share reagrdless of their success level? I mean - for example if an Organization is getting returns of, say, 50- 60% on thier total investment, they are obliged to divert their additional profit towards businesses that focus on world issues. With the growing importance and preferance of sharing concept in todays world wouldnt it be a good idea if idea of social responsibility is shifted from very large firms to all firms thus reducing personal benifitting from these activities to those firms to benifitting humanity all togather

GOD! its all messed up in my head, hope my idea makes sense to all of you :rolleyes:

RossFixxxed

Lend me fifty euro?

simply simple

I would if thats a social responsibility but let me earn 50 % first:D

Shane-KornSpace

I read the title as "Onion please"....

simply simple

Okay so you mean to say, its a bad idea?
I never said that my idea is right and one should think its right and can work, NO. I just wanted opinions or ONIONS on it so that helps to make clear if this is a valued idea or just junk one.

Ilik Urgee

So if I bust my balls for 10,15, 20 years, turn a company into one with a handsome profit, you expect me to hand back up to 15% to a world sharing preference?


Charity is a choice OP,not a duty.

murphym7

Is that you Karl? Did you not try this years ago?

Nino Brown

Kinda like communism? Didn't they try that already?

simply simple

Ilik Urgee wrote: »

Charity is a choice OP,not a duty.

Really? I think its ones duty. Why did some people favour giving charities to other countries when it was passing through its tough time? and Still after dwindling condition Ireland did it, reduced it but did it, Do how much you can afford but it is our duty definitely.

Dravokivich

Would it be a corporate tax you are suggesting?

simply simple

Nino Brown wrote: »

Kinda like communism? Didn't they try that already?

Acting according to that one ruling party,ya that definitely failed.

Duggy747

Why would you ever want to start a business then what with all the taxes and then have a massive chunk of your profits taken away from you?

It's essentially another corporate tax you're suggesting.

simply simple

Dravokivich wrote: »

Would it be a corporate tax you are suggesting?

Yes, kind of not sure how it would work though! I know people can manipulate their taxes

simply simple

Duggy747 wrote: »

Why would you ever want to start a business then what with all the taxes and then have a massive chunk of your profits taken away from you.

It's essentially another corporate tax you're suggesting.

Then why on earth are there institutions those who are just helping others?
Its like asking everyone to take the initiative. Is not just taking away amount, it would be like for any additional profit they would invest it for research for global issues and can, may be, earn profit from it later on.. thus also solving world issues. (one of the example of spending the share of profit)

Tiddlypeeps

It's a dumb idea, multinational companies would pull out over night increasing unemployment and reducing peoples disposable incomes meaning people have less money to give to charities. Most of those companies are only here to enjoy our low tax rates, once that is gone they will be too.

Also just as a question of logistics, who would decide where the money goes? If it's not the company themselves then I strongly disagree with it because it means if I ever have a large profitable company then I will have to give money to a cause I probably won't agree with.

Just for the record I also disagree with goverments sending aid to countries in need. If the people want to give those countries money then that is their business, it is not what tax is for.

Nino Brown

simply simple wrote: »

Really? I think its ones duty. Why did some people favour giving charities to other countries when it was passing through its tough time? and Still after dwindling condition Ireland did it, reduced it but did it, Do how much you can afford but it is our duty definitely.

I don't think it's our duty at all. Especially for money pits like some of those African countries. After natural disasters like Quakes, and Tsuanamis I would be inclined to donate then to get Countries back on their feet. But standardized donations to lazy uncivilized countries just promotes the problems in that country.

simply simple

Tiddlypeeps wrote: »

It's a dumb idea, multinational companies would pull out over night increasing unemployment and reducing peoples disposable incomes meaning people have less money to give to charities. Most of those companies are only here to enjoy our low tax rates, once that is gone they will be too.

Also just as a question of logistics, who would decide where the money goes? If it's not the company themselves then I strongly disagree with it because it means if I ever have a large profitable company then I will have to give money to a cause I probably won't agree with.

Just for the record I also disagree with goverments sending aid to countries in need. If the people want to give those countries money then that is their business, it is not what tax is for.

First of all where does money come from for large scale reasearches government is doing? from the tax we pay to them and some companies who see potential in that idea. No no one will be dictating where this money should be invested but there might be some strategic planning and guidelines and areas provided regarding where these can be invested

simply simple

Nino Brown wrote: »

I don't think it's our duty at all. Especially for money pits like some of those African countries. After natural disasters like Quakes, and Tsuanamis I would be inclined to donate then to get Countries back on their feet. But standardized donations to lazy uncivilized countries just promotes the problems in that country.

Wont you donate where you feel like donating from your income, its just a matter of that issue touching your heart.

simply simple

If profit was the only intention, where and how did corporate social responsibility come into picture?

Nino Brown

simply simple wrote: »

First of all where does money come from for large scale reasearches government is doing? from the tax we pay to them and some companies who see potential in that idea. No no one will be dictating where this money should be invested but there might be some strategic planning and guidelines and areas provided regarding where these can be invested

So there's nothing wrong with system. If the market see's a need for the research, then companies and government fund the research, companies will only donate what the deem to be a suitable risk for that particular research. And if the research isn't going well, funding is pulled.
If we pumped money into research we would have research for the sake of research. If the research wasn't going well it would continue anyway because the funding was there.

simply simple

Nino Brown wrote: »

So there's nothing wrong with system. If the market see's a need for the research, then companies and government fund the research, companies will only donate what the deem to be a suitable risk for that particular research. And if the research isn't going well, funding is pulled.
If we pumped money into research we would have research for the sake of research. If the research wasn't going well it would continue anyway because the funding was there.

Spending money on research was just an example:rolleyes:

Ilik Urgee

Why the rolleyes?
You ask for an opinion and then you discard it with that!

Nino Brown

simply simple wrote: »

Spending money on research was just an example:rolleyes:

I'm not really sure what you think should be done with the money then, benefiting humanity is a pretty vague term. You'd have a hard time getting anybody to hand over money for "the benefit of humanity", in fact when you want money from tax payers it's probably better to not mention the word "benefit" at all.

Tiddlypeeps

simply simple wrote: »

First of all where does money come from for large scale reasearches government is doing? from the tax we pay to them and some companies who see potential in that idea. No no one will be dictating where this money should be invested but there might be some strategic planning and guidelines and areas provided regarding where these can be invested

I have no idea what you are trying to say here. I'm not even sure it's english

micosoft

Tiddlypeeps wrote: »

Just for the record I also disagree with goverments sending aid to countries in need. If the people want to give those countries money then that is their business, it is not what tax is for.

Bravo! With immediate effect the IMF, US, Germany and other solvent EU countries should stop any payments to Ireland and collapse our economy. Shure it's not what there tax was for! And also insist on all structural funding to be paid back.

OP there is nothing stopping you handing over your cash to charity, or starting a business with charitable intentions.

Mandating the rest of us to do the same is unjust.

As far as I know Bill Gates gave his own money to charity - not that of Microsoft.

Do loss making companies get given charity?

Ilik Urgee

micosoft wrote: »

Bravo! With immediate effect the IMF, US, Germany and other solvent EU countries should stop any payments to Ireland and collapse our economy. Shure it's not what there tax was for! And also insist on all structural funding to be paid back.

That's debt, not charity.

IMF giving us money:D

micosoft

Deleted User wrote: »

Do loss making companies get given charity?

They sure do! Bus Eireann, Irish Rail and Dublin Bus to start with....

simply simple

Nino Brown wrote: »

I'm not really sure what you think should be done with the money then, benefiting humanity is a pretty vague term. You'd have a hard time getting anybody to hand over money for "the benefit of humanity", in fact when you want money from tax payers it's probably better to not mention the word "benefit" at all.

I agree to what you are saying, but do you think that by taking a better approach this can be done, or fist of all should it be done?

Nino Brown

micosoft wrote: »

Bravo! With immediate effect the IMF, US, Germany and other solvent EU countries should stop any payments to Ireland and collapse our economy. Shure it's not what there tax was for! And also insist on all structural funding to be paid back.

You do know the difference between aid, and a loan with interest right? And you also realize that if the EU did that, the euro would collapse taking economies of all those countries down with us.

micosoft

Ilik Urgee wrote: »

That's debt, not charity.

IMF giving us money:D

They are lending money to us when no other fool would.
We are paying substantially below market value for that debt.
We are insisting that we get some form of debt write-off.

Pretty damn close to being a charity case if you ask me!

We are still getting significant grant aid which is direct charity from the EU.
http://trueeconomics.blogspot.ie/2012/11/24112012-eu-transfers-to-ireland-boom.html

Nino Brown

simply simple wrote: »

I agree to what you are saying, but do you think that by taking a better approach this can be done, or fist of all should it be done?

What is a better approach?, a better approach would be great for everything in life, but you need to know what a better approach is before you can implement it, you can't just take the money without having a plan.

simply simple

Nino Brown wrote: »

What is a better approach?, a better approach would be great for everything in life, but you need to know what a better approach is before you can implement it, you can't just take the money without having a plan.

I mean is the idea of keeping aside a share by companies to serve their social responsibility be a good idea on the first place, if so only then can we think how should it be done.

Nino Brown

simply simple wrote: »

I mean is the idea of keeping aside a share by companies to serve their social responsibility be a good idea on the first place, if so only then can we think how should it be done.

I don't think so, I think the last thing business needs is more regulation.
A lot of companies already give back considerably to the communities in which they operate, taking a social responsibility tax from them will stop all that, and the money will go to inefficient government programs, and will probably end up being a revenue source for government. How much of your motor tax do you think gets spent on roads?

simply simple

Nino Brown wrote: »

I don't think so, I think the last thing business needs is more regulation.
A lot of companies already give back considerably to the communities in which they operate, taking a social responsibility tax from them will stop all that, and the money will go to inefficient government programs, and will probably end up being a revenue source for government. How much of your motor tax do you think gets spent on roads?

ya, giving that amount to government wont work. But may be they would have to show that investment in their accounts or some other way of doing it

micosoft

Nino Brown wrote: »

You do know the difference between aid, and a loan with interest right? And you also realize that if the EU did that, the euro would collapse taking economies of all those countries down with us.

You do know the difference between a loan gotten on the open market and soft loans with below market rate interest rates even with high risk profile don't you?

Whether or not it would have taken down the Euro is irrelevant and debatable. You seem to have the view Ireland is some form of solvent economy standing on it's own feet without massive transfers from other economies. You also seem to think we should screw any other country that is developing and has never had the hand outs we have received (42 billion, not inflation adjusted). It's hypocrisy and supported by the arrogant falsehood that we somehow are better then "that blackhole called Africa..." when in matter of fact we have been one of the worlds greatest recipients of aid, and none too grateful either.

That said I disagree with the OP. You need to go and learn a little about economics. Companies are in the business of making money. If we want to extract some then taxation is the method. Don't forget most of the large companies people rail against because of their "profits" are largely owned by pension funds...

Nino Brown

micosoft wrote: »

You do know the difference between a loan gotten on the open market and soft loans with below market rate interest rates even with high risk profile don't you?

Whether or not it would have taken down the Euro is irrelevant and debatable. You seem to have the view Ireland is some form of solvent economy standing on it's own feet without massive transfers from other economies. You also seem to think we should screw any other country that is developing and has never had the hand outs we have received (42 billion, not inflation adjusted). It's hypocrisy and supported by the arrogant falsehood that we somehow are better then "that blackhole called Africa..." when in matter of fact we have been one of the worlds greatest recipients of aid, and none too grateful either.

We used those handouts to become one of the fastest growing economies in the world at the time, we still have one of the highest GDP per capita rates in the world. We used the money to upgrade our infrastructure and we're a far more advanced country than we were. Africa is the worlds most resource rich continent, if they would stop fighting and work together they wouldn't need handouts.
I understand we got reduced loans rates in the bailout, but the countries that loaned us the money wanted to, they weren't doing us any huge favours, and they're making a tidy profit from it too, when you compare German bond yeilds to our interest rates. If we can figure out a way to make money from "donations" I'm all for it.

simply simple

Nino Brown wrote: »

If we can figure out a way to make money from "donations" I'm all for it.

Thats the reason i explained research idea (doesnt mean that 'its reaserch then' )where they can earn profit later on just selecting those businesses that favours social responsibility and ethics.

mathie

Shane-KornSpace wrote: »

I read the title as "Onion please"....

And you still came in?

BrensBenz

Whatever about Bill Gates, wasn't there a Jewish chap, thousands of years ago, of uncertain parentage, the only blue-eyed blond in the Middle East, wore sandals and had a rather sticky end who said something like "if a rich man has two coats and sees a poor man with no coat, let him give a coat to the poor man..." Not sure when the "give" became "sell" or "rent" or "lease" but the original idea sounds good to me.

Death and Taxes

simply simple wrote: »

Getting motivation from Bill gates who does many things to serve the community ( after he earned a lot of money ) wouldnt it be possible for every employer to do their share reagrdless of their success level? I mean - for example if an Organization is getting returns of, say, 50- 60% on thier total investment, they are obliged to divert their additional profit towards businesses that focus on world issues. With the growing importance and preferance of sharing concept in todays world wouldnt it be a good idea if idea of social responsibility is shifted from very large firms to all firms thus reducing personal benifitting from these activities to those firms to benifitting humanity all togather

GOD! its all messed up in my head, hope my idea makes sense to all of you :rolleyes:

Yeah I risked everthing I had to start a business, I work 6 days week, I pay a shed full of taxes, rates etc, and if it goes bellyup I will get nothing at all from anyone, and you think that if I finally amke a go of it I should have to give whats left away to to the tree huggers etc.
Not a chance!:mad:

Death and Taxes

simply simple wrote: »

Really? I think its ones duty. Why did some people favour giving charities to other countries when it was passing through its tough time? and Still after dwindling condition Ireland did it, reduced it but did it, Do how much you can afford but it is our duty definitely.

Fine, then you stake your home and spend all your savings trying to build up a business just to see the fruit of all your toil taken off you, see how you would like it!

Tiddlypeeps

micosoft wrote: »

Bravo! With immediate effect the IMF, US, Germany and other solvent EU countries should stop any payments to Ireland and collapse our economy. Shure it's not what there tax was for! And also insist on all structural funding to be paid back.

A loan does not = charity, even if it is at a low interest rate. They are still making money off the loan and we wouldn't have been able to afford it if the interest rate was higher.

I'll explain this in super simple terms. I have an apple that I bought for €1. I want to sell the apple for the market average of €2. Nobody is buying apples at the moment so I can't sell it. Somebody comes into my shop and offers me €1.50 for it. I sell the apple and make a profit. Was that a charitable thing to do?

micosoft wrote: »

They are lending money to us when no other fool would.
We are paying substantially below market value for that debt.
We are insisting that we get some form of debt write-off.

Pretty damn close to being a charity case if you ask me!

We are still getting significant grant aid which is direct charity from the EU.
http://trueeconomics.blogspot.ie/2012/11/24112012-eu-transfers-to-ireland-boom.html

A fairly important point about the whole EU comparison is that we are part of the EU. We pay into it when we can and we take from it when we need. That is how the system was designed to work.

What you are saying equates to accusing Galway of being a charity case because the government allocated some of it's budget for it's development. It's a silly argument.

micosoft wrote: »

You do know the difference between a loan gotten on the open market and soft loans with below market rate interest rates even with high risk profile don't you?

Whether or not it would have taken down the Euro is irrelevant and debatable. You seem to have the view Ireland is some form of solvent economy standing on it's own feet without massive transfers from other economies. You also seem to think we should screw any other country that is developing and has never had the hand outs we have received (42 billion, not inflation adjusted). It's hypocrisy and supported by the arrogant falsehood that we somehow are better then "that blackhole called Africa..." when in matter of fact we have been one of the worlds greatest recipients of aid, and none too grateful either.

That said I disagree with the OP. You need to go and learn a little about economics. Companies are in the business of making money. If we want to extract some then taxation is the method. Don't forget most of the large companies people rail against because of their "profits" are largely owned by pension funds...

Weather or not it would have taken down the Euro is debatable. Weather it actually would have or not is the irrelevant. The fear that it may have taken down the Euro is all that was needed for it not to be considered an act of charity. They were not willing to take the chance.

Do you think the IMF keep giving money to Greece even tho they keep missing the terms of their agreement because they feel sorry for them? Of course not, that would be irresponsible. The only reason they continue to give money to Greece and Ireland is because they fear that if we fall the whole system will fall like a deck of cards. That is not charity, that is self preservation.

Also on top of all that I would have preferred if we never got that loan. I would have much preferred to let the Euro fail. If the Euro had failed in 2008 I think our economy would be doing a hell of a lot better now than it currently is. The short term pain would have been more severe but the recovery would have been much faster. That is a debate for a different thread tho.