Alphabet Donated Its Employees' Holiday Gifts To Charity (fortune.com)

The employee perks at Google are legendary, and they've always included an over-the-top holiday gift for every employee. In the past, the company has surprised its 70,000 employees with Nexus phones, Android smartwatches, and Chromebooks. Fortune adds:This year employees speculated they might get Google's new Pixel phones or a Google Home unit, the company's competitor to Amazon's Echo. But they forgot: They don't work for Google anymore. They work for Alphabet. Instead of a shiny new gadget, Alphabet employees got an email. On Thursday Bloomberg published a bruising story about the new, cost-conscious regime of Alphabet, driven by its corporate re-organization and its ex-Wall Street CFO, Ruth Porat. Shortly after the story hit, employees were informed that their holiday gift this year was a donation to charity, Fortune has learned. Alphabet donated $30 million worth of Chromebooks, phones, and associated tech support to schools on its employees' behalf.

Comments

The human fund

[Ryanrule]

Money for people.

Re:The human fund

[Anonymous Coward]

Their bonuses were gifted to "charity" aka, the shareholders...

Re:The human fund

[istartedi]

That was the first thought that popped into my head, and you beat me to it. Cantstanja!

Re:The human fund

[al0ha]

Oh you beat me to it! Wish I had mod points!

Re:The human fund

[The-Ixian]

Carbon copy here. I was like "THE HUMAN FUND!" *click* Looks like I'm not the only one!

Now, if they also put up aluminum poles instead of trees....

Re:The human fund

[cayenne8]

Man...this seems to happen to ALL "cool" companies.

They start out often quite employee centric....sure you work hard, but they give you lots of perks at work, free food drinks, kitchens, parties on and off campus...even keggers....

And then..they get a bit too big, the owners cede management to more managerial types, who count pennies but don't know the worth of a HAPPY EMPLOYEE....and then well, the fun and perks start to disappear, and soon....it is like any other boring job, and those little extras that build team work, or make you feel 'ok' about working a few extra hours to get something out the door, *vanish*.

At that point, unless the pay is insanely good...no real reason to stay or show any type of loyalty whatsoever.

The soul of the company is gone.

Re: The human fund

[Anonymous Coward]

For next Christmas they will get to train their H1B replacements.

Re:The human fund

[Anonymous Coward]

I did some consulting at a company who's CEO felt it important to be on that "Best Places to Work" list. So the place was filled with silly perks. But I couldn't help noticing the employee parking lot was full of shitty cars.

Free drinks and parties are nice, but ultimately I want money.

Re:The human fund

[rikkards]

Learned early on, perks are fleeting. Salary is for suckers. You want to know how much you are worth? Bill by the hour.

Re:The human fund

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you get bathroom stall blowjobs?

Re:The human fund

[skegg]

Alphabet likely would have spent around the same amount of money on its holiday gifts, so it’s not exactly a cost-saving move

Just wanted to flag that when donating to a charity the value of the donation MAY be tax deductible. So it's possible that Google / Alphabet recouped [their marginal tax rate] x [$30 million]. Of course this would vary across tax jurisdictions.

Having said that, even the full $30 million would be peanuts for those entities.

Re:The human fund

[TechyImmigrant]

who count pennies but don't know the worth of a HAPPY EMPLOYEE

Why wouldn't they be happy? Didn't their material goods go to help someone less fortunate who may never work for Alphabet? The Alphabet employees are paid well above the average. Let them share the wealth. Isn't that what the Sillycon Valley libs are always telling everyone else?

They can buy an iPhone now they aren't getting a free Pixel.

Re: The human fund

[harrkev]

For next Christmas they will get to train their H1B replacements.

That is at least two or three years down the road.

Next year is the "Jelly of the Month Club."

Re:The human fund

[harrkev]

Yeah, that sucks. Sorry, but that is called being a contractor. No job security at all. The pay is great until bad the economy shifts, and then contractors are the first out the door. You can bask in the glory of your former fat paycheck while you hunt for more work.

I guess if you are really good and you live in an area with a lot of opportunity (or you don't mind relocating), you can make this work. However, I prefer a bit more job security.

Re:The human fund

[Anonymous Coward]

Who will deduct that donation from taxes, Google or employees on whose behalf that donation was made?

Re:The human fund

[St.Creed]

You're missing the point.

Same thing happened to me once. It was one of the reasons to leave.

Why?

First, because the company shows that it cares more about PR to shareholders ("look what a nice company we are, please invest in us. We take corporate responsibility serious and so do our employees") than it cares about the feelings of its employees. They could have given everyone a smaller/cheaper present AND given the same present to just as many kids. That would not have been tax deductible though. Once that becomes a major factor in how you treat your employees, things go downhill *fast*. From that point to restructuring I'd give it two years, tops.

Second, because at the end of the year a company gift, even if it is a bit sucky, says "yes, we appreciate you. You worked hard when we needed you,, even after hours. And we appreciate that. So we give you a present as a token of our appreciation." A handwritten card and a bottle of wine is MUCH better than giving a more expensive present to somebody I don't know. If you want to donate *my* present to charity, at least discuss it with me. Otherwise it's *your* donation on *my* expense.

This move tells everyone at Google that they are now officially turned into replaceable "fte". Once that fallacy gets hold, it's like fungus: it will grow until it kills the host.

Re:The human fund

[danbuter]

I still expect a brain drain after stunts like this. A lot of the better Google programmers could probably retire tomorrow if they wanted to. A good number more could easily get a job anywhere else. Pulling shit like this will get at least a chunk of them to start looking elsewhere.

Re:The human fund

[St.Creed]

Job security? You've got to be joking.

Job security is what a lot of people think they have, until the company decides otherwise. As a contractor I have real job security: my skills are continually kept current because, in contrast to people with "job security" I *know* I will get unemployed after some time. I keep up a good network for the same reason. I blog. I attend and speak at conferences.

Now tell me, who do you think has more job security: somebody with outdated skills but a "permanent" position, or me? I've been offered a permanent position at every place I've ever worked. I can tell you that several managers have told me that they'd happily replace their "permanent" worker with me, if I'd accept their offer. All those people they wanted to replace were under the impression they had a permanent job. But they don't. And that is in The Netherlands where we have rather strict employment laws.

I used to think like you. And then I got fed up with my work and struck out on my own and wow! what a great change! It's like stepping behind the curtains and suddenly looking at the stage from behind. I can recommend it to everyone. Even if you only do it for a year, or two, it will be a great learning experience.

Re:The human fund

[harrkev]

You must be one of the lucky ones -- I certainly do not have that option. Geography is a factor. Chip design is rather specialized field, and just the license cost to get into this businesses can run into seven figures. There are not a lot of companies doing what I do in my city, so my choices are limited. If those four or five companies don't need anybody, I am out of luck unless I am willing to relocate.

Re: The human fund

[n7ytd]

For next Christmas they will get to train their H1B replacements.

That is at least two or three years down the road.

Next year is the "Jelly of the Month Club."

It's the gift that keeps on giving all year long!

Re:The human fund

[n7ytd]

Alphabet likely would have spent around the same amount of money on its holiday gifts, so it’s not exactly a cost-saving move

Just wanted to flag that when donating to a charity the value of the donation MAY be tax deductible. So it's possible that Google / Alphabet recouped [their marginal tax rate] x [$30 million]. Of course this would vary across tax jurisdictions.

Having said that, even the full $30 million would be peanuts for those entities.

Plus, they got rid of 70,000 Chromebooks that were sitting too long on the books. Win-win!

Re:The human fund

[GNious]

If it was gifted to charity on behalf of the employees, why would the company get the tax write-off?

Re: The human fund

[Anonymous Coward]

That depends. Are you still giving them?

Re:The human fund

[AuMatar]

ANd its 30 million retail. THey wholesale it for about half that. And they build it for half that. Most likely their actual cost was near 0, with a small possibility of negative.

Re:The human fund

[AuMatar]

BEcause they actually paid. I donated money in honor of my deceased father, but I got the tax writeoff.

Re:The human fund

[AuMatar]

Actually I don't want a gift. I want cash. You give me a non-negligible gift, then I have to pay tax on it. I'd rather get nothing and not have to pay tax on it then get something I may or may not want.

Re:The human fund

[mattack2]

Some of us would rather spend money on things other than what you think are good cars (which are likely very very very expensive). Or save the money.

I do envy the various perks like free food & fitness center some of these well known companies give out, though.

Re:The human fund

[FryingLizard]

You're both right. I do servers and embedded systems (yes, I know, opposite ends of the spectrum; makes life interesting) as a contractor (in SF bay area) and it's great, however I'm aware that's because (a) live here where there's a ton of tech jobs, also salaries are high which means you can charge even more as a contractor, and (b) I have a diverse set of billable skills which a lot of companies round here find some use for. Works well for me, and yes, I think job security is a bit of an illusion anyway.

However - much respec' to Chip Design dude; that's a real career-long skill to build up; clearly very interesting and - to a limited number of employers - a highly valued skill. You clearly need to specialize to excel at that job, and I bet experience counts for a whole hell of a lot when each mask set costs millions. I have friends in biotech who are equally highly specialized and they have had similar issues with limited range of job options.

Yay geekin'

Re:The human fund

[cheekyboy]

I cant imagine 2 million people speaking at a conference.

Dude, some people have family, some companies have long term futures, where it is secure.

Some companies hire contractors to do the shity boring work, while the best do the design/inventing in house. Why would you give your secrets away to bloody contractors.

Oh and btw, yes contractors are a rip off, 20-30% fees to hire firms. Fuck that.

But some people are rich, and only want to work 2 days a week, or 3 months a year, then contracting is fine.

Never ever think its one way for all people, thats communism. Variety is important.

Re: The human fund

[Anonymous Coward]

Next year is the "Jelly of the Month Club."

It's the gift that keeps on giving all year long!

beware of KY month.

Re:The human fund

[tazan]

Exactly. The donation is nice, and employees are paid enough that said gifts probably aren't detrimental to them -- although it'll mean more for others like admins, etc. > Alphabet likely would have spent around the same amount of money on its holiday gifts, so it’s not exactly a cost-saving move. In the end, it has nothing to do with keeping the tradition or good will for the business etc. It's a marketing gimmick wrapped in a tax write off given to specific districts chosen by a few elites. Welcome to the Corp.

Unless this donation is something they were planning on doing anyway for PR. Then, it costs them nothing.

Re: The human fund

[arglebargle_xiv]

Naah, the Donald will fix that. They'll be replaced by Mexicans... no, they'll be walled out. Chinese? No, sent back to China when the trade war starts. Russians perhaps?

Re:The human fund

[sjames]

It sounds like they want to end the practice of gifts/bonuses for employees. If they cut off cold turkey they'd have endless complaints. So on year one they give the gifts to charity so people will feel like assholes if they complain. Next year they'll do nothing at all.

Re:The human fund

[quenda]

Do the employees at least get to claim the tax deduction for the "donation"?
Or has Alphabet taken that too?

Re:The human fund

[davester666]

Google will graciously accept the tax deduction, for having come up with the idea.

Re:The human fund

[DMFNR]

Chip design isn't that hard, it's mostly a balancing act between getting the best crunch and ability to retain various dips and salsas.

Re:The human fund

[Shirley Marquez]

The value of the donation is probably about equal to the value of their typical employee gifts. But they get a tax writeoff on it. So it is a cost saving measure.

The bigger question is what the effect on employee morale is. When you have a tradition of giving people something every year and then stop, people feel hurt. (Taking away a perk has about twice as large a negative effect as the positive effect you got by giving the perk in the first place; there have been studies on the subject. People really don't like having things taken from them.) Giving employees Google products also turns them into users of your products, which means they are more knowledgeable about them and more likely to promote them to friends, so they're giving up that.

Re:The human fund

[HungWeiLo]

The place I work at has really, really shitty perks in comparison to the companies around here.

But we get lots of performance-based cash bonuses that are very equitable up and down the chain, so no one complains.

But now the new HR hires are trying their best to boost morale by doing more and more gimmicky activities and gifts. The old-timers grumble and would rather get the cash.

Re:The human fund

[camg188]

Some people don't care about the perks at work.
They do nothing for my wife and kids. I go to work to earn money, not free food, parties and keggers.
Just give me the money instead.

The Honeymoon is over I guess?

[r2rknot]

So, get to work. waddah think we are running here? A charity?!

Re:The Honeymoon is over I guess?

[davide marney]

The exact same thing happened to me when I worked for one of the Big Six accounting firms. We HATED it, and as it turned out, it was a harbinger of things to come. Prior to that date, we had nice corporate social events held in nice places where we all dressed up. Afterwards, it was beer and pretzels, or no social event at all. It means that the bean counters are in control, and it's no longer going to be a fun place to work.

Re:The Honeymoon is over I guess?

[JackieBrown]

This is what happens when you work for a company that values it's social awareness and community factor as much as Google does.

They probably thought that their employees felt the same and would be pleased helping people less fortunate than themselves. (Especially since demographically, their employees vote for a party that is all for taking people's stuff and redistributing it to the less fortunate.)

Re:The Honeymoon is over I guess?

[Dread_ed]

They wanted the tax deduction and the good press. Dicks.

Re:The Honeymoon is over I guess?

[r2rknot]

I would have thought, if this were the case, that it would be the CEO donating their bonus pay. Not the employees creating the value in the company. But it appears that Google is now becoming more of an income generator for its management/Shareholders, and and less an innovator.

Re:The Honeymoon is over I guess?

[SpiritualRemains]

To be fair, I would have expected the bean counters to be in control of an accounting firm to start with.

Re:The Honeymoon is over I guess?

[r2rknot]

At some point, the business will operate well enough that people doing the actual 'work' can leave without everything crashing. So that new people are simply cogs in the machine that is already running. Then the only important people are those 'leading' or 'managing' the additional generation of revenue. And the 'workers' matter less, as the machine will continue to 'work' with minimal effort. So those in upper positions are the only ones who can 'make' more wealth with the machine by strearing it this way or what. And it shows in those sorts of things.

Re:The Honeymoon is over I guess?

[GNious]

I'll try to do you one better ..

We used to have pretty OK xmas presents, a social event every year, fridge full of drinkables ... life was good.

One year I was invited to a customer event (2-day sales-conference held by the company for its customer and potentials), and during the gala dinner the company announced it was giving to charity and so were everyone there : They held a charity collection event right at every table, where we were seated employees and customers together. Yup, their idea of social awareness was to use their employees' money to show customers how socially awesome they were.
I said fuck it, and when colleagues and customers where shocked I wouldn't donate my own money in this manner, I made it clear I choose my own charities to support, and how ....

Later on, started noticing how employee events went away, secretary had to beg management to have at least a tiny xmas present for everyone, the fridge shrunk, and quarter-by-quarter things just got worse, and the customer events larger and larger...

note: This company was, and AFAIK still is, the largest in its field, and doing quite well...

Re:The Honeymoon is over I guess?

[AuMatar]

Meh, I'd rather have beer and pretzels. If I have to dress up, you couldn't pay me enough to go. And quite a lot of people feel like me. The beer and pretzels are probably enjoyed more than the formal parties were.

Re:The Honeymoon is over I guess?

[Actually, I do RTFA]

I said fuck it, and when colleagues and customers where shocked I wouldn't donate my own money in this manner

Well, that sounds like a pretty shitty way to decline to give. I'm sure you could have done so without calling attention to it

Re:The Honeymoon is over I guess?

[GNious]

It was in response to colleagues calling me out for not putting money into the collection-bin, shaming me for not subjecting to my employer's publicity stunt, and basically trying to apply peer-pressure ...
Yeah, no, if that's "a pretty shitty way" to react to other people pointing out that I didn't donate my own hard-earned money at the company's request, you and I have a very different view on what constitutes "shitty".

Re:The Honeymoon is over I guess?

[Gamer_2k4]

(Especially since demographically, their employees vote for a party that is all for taking people's stuff and redistributing it to the less fortunate.)

That's an outstanding point. You're only in favor of wealth redistribution until it's your wealth being redistributed. And, besides the fact that the employees weren't even guaranteed the money to begin with, what's the difference between this and higher taxes/premiums, other than that your "donation" is less likely to be burned away by bureaucracy on its way to the people it's supposed to help?

Re:The Honeymoon is over I guess?

[Actually, I do RTFA]

It was also shitty of the company, even moreso. But there are ways to decline without drawing attention to it (normally). There are cases when both people are wrong.

Re:The Honeymoon is over I guess?

[Actually, I do RTFA]

I'm confused about the logistics. There was a bin you just went up to and dropped an amount of money in, in cash? And everyone at the table noticed you didn't go up? Or they were calling people up table by table and a guy with a mike called you out?

Personally, I would mentally account for it as "price of 2 days dinner and hotel", but who knows in the heat of the moment.

Re:The Honeymoon is over I guess?

[HornWumpus]

You've never worked for a 'United way partner'?

Seriously; _never_ work for a 'united way partner', it's a symptom of a much deeper disfunction. Just don't do it.

Re:The Honeymoon is over I guess?

[Ryanrule]

naw, sales tends to be in charge, until they all get executive positions, then they bring in the accountants to make sure they get their yearly yacht bonus.

Re:The Honeymoon is over I guess?

[syntotic]

For a moment I thought the cynics tried to reach me..... But it is now ALPHABET, not GOOGLE! They cannot stop referring to me though... It was the Larousse dictionary, in fact.

So do the employees get to write that off?

[Anonymous Coward]

If I can't write a donation off on my taxes, then I didn't donate it. Fuck you Google.

Re:So do the employees get to write that off?

[iamcadaver]

I so had moderator points just YESTERDAY. +1

Re:So do the employees get to write that off?

[istartedi]

This is part of the reason I never give at the checkout. That, and the cumulative inconvenience, annoyance, and contribution to the prevailing atmosphere of "everything's a shakedown".

Re:So do the employees get to write that off?

[swillden]

I'm sure Alphabet wrote it off on their taxes. So your present was a donation to charity and a tax break for your parent company.

Well, it's a writeoff either way. Spending money on employees or donating cash to charity, either way it reduces a company's net profit and reduces tax liability.

Re: So do the employees get to write that off?

[Anonymous Coward]

But it wasn't the employees present, because they can't write it off.

This is essentially the same as "There will be no Christmas bonus for low level employees, because the CEO was allowed to keep his 12 MILLION bonus. Also, in unrelated news, we gave some schools Google products, as we always do."

Re:So do the employees get to write that off?

[omnichad]

If you want to count it as income, and then write it off....wouldn't your tax liability be exactly the same?

Re:So do the employees get to write that off?

[Anonymous Coward]

Mighty generous with other people's money and time, aren't you?

Re:So do the employees get to write that off?

[Anonymous Coward]

Like most people, it sounds like you don't understand how tax deductions work. Of course you can't write it off on your taxes, because they never gave you the money/gift, but that means you also didn't get taxed on it either. Lets break it down

No gift: You earn $X, you pay taxes on $X

You get a gift and give it to charity: You earn $X plus a $Y gift and give the $Y gift to charity, you pay taxes on $X + $Y - $Y

Gift given directly to charity in your name: You earn $X, you pay taxes on $X.

Notice that all 3 situations end up with you paying taxes only on your base earnings of $X. So it's the same damn thing. You are essentially upset that you don't get a refund of taxes that you never paid in the first place.

Re:So do the employees get to write that off?

[Br00se]

If you do write it off your taxes, you didn't really donate it anyway. Uncle Sam (or the equivalent) did.

Nothing wrong with that really. Just don't confuse it with a real donation where you don't get anything back in return.

Re:So do the employees get to write that off?

[The-Ixian]

I thought this was interesting: https://www.ted.com/talks/dan_...

Re:So do the employees get to write that off?

[Anonymous Coward]

That doesn't make a difference, and in fact, counterintuitively, the benefit works the opposite way of what you are thinking.

If you already surpass the standard deductions, then if you received the gift and passed it to charity, you'd pay taxes on $X of income (at your marginal rate), and then get a deduction of $X of income (at your marginal rate). Nothing has changed

On the other hand, if you previously were going to take the standard deduction, then getting the gift and writing it off actually COSTS you money. You have to realize the people taking the standard deduction are essentially already getting a tax deduction of more money than they deserve. Any additional deduction amount that it takes to get them up to the full amount of the standard deduction is essentially wasted. So lets say your itemized deductions are $1000 short of the standard deduction. You get to take the standard deduction and get full credit as if you had the full amount as your itemized deductions. So now lets add a $3000 gift to your income, which you subsequently pass along to charity. You receive the $3000 gift and are taxed on the full $3000. But when you go to add it to your itemized deductions, the first $1000 of the deduction is just to bring you up to what you were already getting anyway via the standard deduction. So the only additional deduction you get is on the extra $2000 that exceeded the standard deduction. Thus you are taxed on $3k but essentially only get a deduction for $2k. Thus you are worse off than if the gift were passed directly to charity.

And finally, worst off would be the people who receive the gift, pass it along to charity, and STILL don't surpass the standard deduction. They get taxed on the whole thing, but don't get to take advantage of ANY of the tax deduction.

Re:So do the employees get to write that off?

[EvilSS]

If I can't write a donation off on my taxes, then I didn't donate it. Fuck you Google.

It would a pass-through tax wise (if they really did it in the employee's names). It wouldn't be deductible but wouldn't count as income either.

Re:So do the employees get to write that off?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure Alphabet wrote it off on their taxes. So your present was a donation to charity and a tax break for your parent company.

Well, it's a writeoff either way. Spending money on employees or donating cash to charity, either way it reduces a company's net profit and reduces tax liability.

And since that means that Alphabet thereby increases profits, they'll surely trickle them down in employee benefits. {snicker}

Re:So do the employees get to write that off?

[kjell79]

I thought of this too until I realized that you could also have to count the original gift of equipment through you as income. Thus the net gain is zero with a bit more hassle filing your taxes. Now, that being said, I'm sure Alphabet was happy to take the tax deduction on your behalf, because why not? The thing is, at least let the employees choose the charity. Because basically this is a big self-congratulatory stunt that doubles as a middle finger to the employees. Let the brain drain begin I suppose.

Re:So do the employees get to write that off?

[dgatwood]

Depends on the company and the value of the gift. When I was at Apple, I think they just treated it as taxable income as long as it wasn't a high-value item, but when they gave us the original iPhone and the glass Apple blocks, IIRC, they paid the tax. YMMV.

Re:So do the employees get to write that off?

[tempo36]

They didn't have to pay tax on the "gift" like I'm SURE every one of them did the last several years. Cough. My heart bleeds for the Google employees scraping by on their meager salaries without a free computer for X-Mas. Speaking as someone who make a good salary here in Seattle where Google employees seem to be doing quite well... The level of entitlement that these people deserve, every year without question, a holiday bonus is disgusting. I've gotten bonuses some years, other years I haven't. Roll the dice and deal with it.

Re: So do the employees get to write that off?

[OrangeTide]

You're kidding, but it's not far from the truth. I've have essentially this proposition before. That if I worked on their little start-up project they'd make a donation in my name, but when I dig into the details they get to pick the charity and would still be adding it to their own tax filing, not mine. And yes, I received insults when I refused to accept their offer.

Re:So do the employees get to write that off?

[OrangeTide]

$14,000 annual gift exclusion. I can gift someone $N, and let them choose the charity for the donation. They won't pay income tax on it, but they will receive the benefit of applying the donation to their next tax filing.

It isn't likely to mess up too many people's taxes. Most full time employees aren't getting near their $14k/year gift limit. (per person, so if jointly filing it's effectively $28k)

Re:So do the employees get to write that off?

[Jake73]

In a sense, yes. If Alphabet had gifted the employees $500, the employees would have received such a declaration on the W2 and therefore would have to pay taxes on that $500 gift. Instead, Alphabet gifts the charity, so the employees do not receive such a declaration so they don't have to pay taxes on the gift.

I'm no accountant, but as I understand the tax world, these two are equivalent to all parties:

1. Alphabet gives employees $500... Employee gives charity $500.
2. Alphabet gives charity $500.

What isn't clear to me is how a Chromebook is valued for these transactions. They could be valued at retail... or at COGS... but there's also services that may come along with them, right?

Re:So do the employees get to write that off?

[tempo36]

Way to completely construe bonuses with gifts. Companies that give bonuses are supposed to report them as taxable income to the employee, just like wages. "Gifts" are an entirely separate entity and are what, technically, you received when your Grandma sent you $20 for Christmas. If the gift exceeds $14,000 ($28,000 for couples) then it exceeds the annual limit and, as your link indicates, this typically results in a tax burden for the donor although you can book it against your future estate limits and avoid that if you choose. TL;DR Google/Alphabet is almost certainly not giving "Gifts" as you describe to their employees. They're giving bonuses. Totally different tax situation. If businesses were able to gift employees, then any business worth a damn would "Gift" each employee $14,000 worth of their wages every year tax free. But they don't because the IRS would slap them down in a heartbeat.

Re:So do the employees get to write that off?

[sexconker]

I'm not construing anything. It depends on what Alphabet does and whose name they put shit in.

Re:So do the employees get to write that off?

[sexconker]

If Alphabet is saying they're doing this on behalf of the employees (as the summary claims), it's exactly as I've stated.

The same rules still apply with regards to who pays tax on gifts, small business or not. That link was simply the first search result. Look up more if you want.

Re:So do the employees get to write that off?

[sexconker]

If Alphabet gifts to the employees Alphabet pays the tax. If that gift is then donated, the employee, as the recipient and owner of the gift, gets to deduct it.
It doesn't matter if the employee never sees the gift - if Alphabet donates it in their name that's how it works.

Re:So do the employees get to write that off?

[Verdatum]

You are mistaken. The $14,000 gift exclusion is for gifts from friends and family. When an employer gives you a gift, unless it is something so tiny that it isn't practical to account for it (known as de minimis), its value is supposed to be reported as income. Now what constitutes that tiny amount is open ended, but if it's anything worth more than $50, the IRS would probably not be cool with it going unreported if it were to find out.

Re:So do the employees get to write that off?

[OrangeTide]

It's reported is my point. But it doesn't have to go on your W-2.

Re:So do the employees get to write that off?

[Ungrounded Lightning]

If I can't write a donation off on my taxes, then I didn't donate it.

If you weren't given the money you weren't taxed on it. So it was just as much "written off on your taxes" as if you'd gotten it, donated it, and deducted it.

Re:So do the employees get to write that off?

[skegg]

In my understanding, the below are 4 general scenarios listed in decreasing order of benefit to the employee:

Scenario 1: You're given a Pixel phone, no tax burden on employee.
In some scenarios, the employer may pay any tax on the value of the gift.
You benefit the full value of the gift ... $700 US.

Scenario 2: You're given a Pixel phone, employee pays tax on the value of the gift.
You benefit $400 US (let's assume you paid $300 tax on the value of the gift).

Scenario 3: Pixel phone donated to registered charity, donation is in the name of the employee
Employee gets to deduct the tax component from their salary. In reality it may not be this "clean" as tax may vary across employees
You benefit $300.

Scenario 4: Pixel phone donated to registered charity, donation made in the name of the employer
Employer claims the tax deduction.
You benefit $0.

Google / Alphabet appears to have chosen Scenario 4.
Caveats:
    I am not a tax lawyer!
    My understanding of tax law is based on the Australian environment. Other tax jurisdictions may throw these numbers off, wildly.
    Excludes non-financial factors e.g. warm fuzzy feelings.

Anyone who knows better is welcome to chime-in! I'd be curious to know of significantly different tax rules in other countries.

Re:So do the employees get to write that off?

[The-Ixian]

For all intensive purposes, it is a troll.

Re:So do the employees get to write that off?

[Verdatum]

The $14,000 gift limit explicitly does not apply to employers giving gifts to employees. When an employer gives a gift to an employee, it is considered a fringe-benefit, and the value of it must be reported as taxable income. If Alphabet were to use trickery like putting stuff in other people's names, when giving significant gifts to 70,000 employees, they would get caught pretty easily.

Re:So do the employees get to write that off?

[Verdatum]

If alphabet gifts to the employees, that gift is taxable income, meaning the employee pays the tax. If they give you as an employee a gift and you donate it to charity, it stops being taxable income, meaning you are able to deduct that reported value from you taxable income and potentially be refunded as a result. If they donate in your name, that means that the additional taxable income isn't reported for you, so there's nothing to deduct.

Re:So do the employees get to write that off?

[omnichad]

Scenario #3 is not possible. You can put the employee's name on it, but unless the employee owned the phone, they didn't give it (legally speaking). You could technically gift the employee the phone and then ship it to the charity instead. In that case, the employee would owe tax on the phone, which would then be cancelled out by giving it to charity. Effectively, Scenario #3 and 4 is the same, except #3 would have some crazy paperwork involved. Because in scenario #3, the employer would claim a tax deduction on giving you the phone to give to the charity.

Re:So do the employees get to write that off?

[mrbester]

For all *intents and purposes*, it shows a distinct and probably deliberate inability to English rightly.

Re: So do the employees get to write that off?

[Anonymous Coward]

When someone hires on at a company, you dont look at just base salary. 401k, vacation, and yes, holiday bonuses factor in. Google employees have always gotten a nice little bonus. So to have it taken away while the company is still making record profits, have upper executives still get their cash bonuses, and then have the gall to say their bonus was donated to charity...when everyone knows it's because Google wants a tax write off and to unload their unwanted merchandise into schools for tech support and future sales...yeah, employees have a write to be pissed off. They are being told they are not as values as shareholders and top executives.

Most that work at Google can find another job that pays just as good, if not better. It may not have Google stability, but it's about finding a job you love. If a company doesn't appreciate you, why would you want to spend 40+ hours a week there?

Re:So do the employees get to write that off?

[Scarletdown]

According to the intensive porpoises, that was probably also a trolling.

Re: So do the employees get to write that off?

[swillden]

Giving bonuses to employees is not tax deductible like donating to charities is.

For a business, it's exactly the same.

Re:So do the employees get to write that off?

[retchdog]

scenario 2 assumes that i want a fucking pixel phone enough to value it at retail price.

also aren't gift taxes usually paid by the donor?

Re:So do the employees get to write that off?

[tempo36]

Um, no. If you donate money of yours in someone else's name, they don't get a tax write off. In order for that to happen, you have to give them a gift, which the IRS defines as money given essentially with no strings attached (you can't technically gift someone money with the instructions that they must donate it to an entity of your choosing). If Alphabet gives an employee money, that's a wage or a bonus. It is not, nor does the IRS view it as, a gift.

Write off

[Anonymous Coward]

So does this mean the employees get the write off or just Alphabet?

Re:Write off

[CAOgdin]

Of course Alphabet gets the tax write-off. That's why the "banker" at the top changed the rules. To that mindset, employees are just a drag on revenues and not worth what they're paid...no matter how low. And, now, with a new appointment to leadership for the Department of Labor, we can expect any "floor" on earnings in general (e.g., "minimum wage") to evaporate to zero.

We are merely serfs working in the world created by, and enjoyed solely by, the 1% who own more net worth than the 99% of the rest of us (http://www.bbc.com/news/business-35339475).

Know your place, serf. You exist only to benefit the wealthy...unless you ARE wealthy.

Re:Write off

[sexconker]

https://www.irs.gov/businesses...

If Alphabet is actually donating shit in the employee's names, then the employee can deduct it.
Alphabet pays the tax on the gift to the employee (see the link). The employee donates the gift and deducts it.

The fact that the employee never received the gift directly doesn't matter. All that matters is whether or not Alphabet is donating on its employee's behalf, as stated in the summary, or if it's donating in its own name.

The giver (Alphabet) pays the gift tax, not the recipient (the employee). The donor (the employee) gets to deduct it.

Re:Write off

[Actually, I do RTFA]

Of course, if they gave the employees a bonus, it would also be tax deductible.

They decided the positive PR for $30M of donations was better than the positive employee relations of giving $30M to them.

Re:Write off

[Verdatum]

Nah. Employer gifts are income according to the IRS. If they reported the donation as income on your W-2, yes, you could deduct that, but that's not what they'd do. They'd just not report it on your W-2, so that you don't have to deduct anything. Otherwise, people who don't itemize would get completely screwed over. https://www.shrm.org/resources...

Re:Write off

[Gussington]

, the 1% who own more net worth than the 99% of the rest of us (http://www.bbc.com/news/business-35339475).

1% sounds like the high flyers, but if you're talking global population, you only have to earn $33k/year and you're one of them. Suddenly being a 1%er doesn't sound so evil...

A phone is over the top?

[AvitarX]

It actually seems like a pretty reasonable employee gift to me.

It's weird of them to not give their employees some of their own products though, make employees happy, and get people talking about the stuff.

Re:A phone is over the top?

[fahrbot-bot]

It actually seems like a pretty reasonable employee gift to me.

It's weird of them to not give their employees some of their own products though, make employees happy, and get people talking about the stuff.

Remember... Working for Google is the greatest gift of all.

Re:A phone is over the top?

[iggymanz]

cut the crap. it's not a gift at all, they gave their employees nothing. and note well the executives did get their multi-million dollar bonuses. think about what message that gives.

Re:A phone is over the top?

[AvitarX]

From the article

The employee perks at Google are legendary, and they've always included an over-the-top holiday gift for every employee. In the past, the company has surprised its 70,000 employees with Nexus phones, Android smartwatches, and Chromebooks.

I am saying those seem like relatively normal employee gifts for companies that give them.

I'm not calling a donation to charity a real gift.

Re:A phone is over the top?

[CAOgdin]

Said like a true plutocrat.

Re:A phone is over the top?

[Wulf2k]

Nobody reads the subject line.

Re:A phone is over the top?

[tsqr]

Unlike a gift a bonus is usually a contractually agreed part of the salary. Which means the employer can't choose not to pay the bonus.

My employer is in California, which is an "at will" state. I don't have an employment contract that mentions compensation in any way. At the end of each calendar year the company publishes the rules by which profit-sharing bonuses (distributed to all employees, not just executives) are calculated. At the end of the fiscal year (4 months later), the calculations are run and the bonuses are paid. In the 9 years I've worked here, my bonuses have averaged around 7% of annual pay. The company is under no contractual obligation to do any of this, and could terminate the practice at any time. It's an employee retention device, and it works. Another retention device they use, though sparingly, is the stock option award that vests over 5 years.

CEO Gift

[110010001000]

P.S. The CEO got a $12 million Christmas bonus and kept it all.

Re:CEO Gift

[Anonymous Coward]

He ain't lyin

There's no evidence of that bonus in your link.

Re:CEO Gift

[Yvan256]

Let's see. The CEO bonus of $12 million divided by 70K employees equals $171.42, so everyone working at Alphabet should ask for a $171.42 Christmas bonus. You know your CEO can afford it. Hey, he'll even have a bonus of $600 left for himself which is 3.5 times higher than the employee bonus, which seems more reasonable if you ask me.

Re:CEO Gift

[JackieBrown]

Well, he needs to recoup some of the wasted money spent on Hillary's campain.

https://www.opensecrets.org/or...

Re:CEO Gift

[Talderas]

The email didn't include any of the following letters: Q, X, Z

We can afford to give away $30 Million

[PMuse]

We just didn't want to give it to you.

Re:We can afford to give away $30 Million

[Obfuscant]

Dear employee:

As a way of thanking you for working hard for our company all year to help us be a success in our marketplace, we are giving other people a buttload of stuff on your behalf.

Hope you saved enough money so you could donate to a charity that you want to donate to, because, well, screw them.

Signed,

The ABC Grinch

Re:We can afford to give away $30 Million

[Verdatum]

Giving $30M of Google products to schools is basically tax-deductable advertising.

Taxes?

[Anonymous Coward]

This comes with the added benefit of being a tax writeoff - whereas the holiday bonuses would not have been.

Re: Taxes?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, both bonuses and charity donations are generally deducted as valid business expenses.

Re:Taxes?

[cob666]

If they had paid the employees then the payroll costs would be an expense so the net effect for the company is the same. Donating the money to charity makes them look nicer but has the downside of pissing off the employees.

Re:Taxes?

[Verdatum]

That said, if they gave the employees $30M in cash bonuses, they'd be down $30M, but since they donated $30M in google electronics, that's the retail value. So in reality, that only costs them about $15M. It's still all pretty tiny amounts compared to Alphabet's revenue, so whatever.

Headline correct; summary wrong

[gavron]

Any employer can donate the gifts (or funds) they would have spent on employees, or any amount for that matter, to charity. That part of the story is clear and good on Alphabet for helping out needy schools to the tune of more money than I'll ever make in my lifetime.

What is not accurate is the phrase "on its employees behalf" and other posters have already indicated that if the employees don't get the tax advantage, then the donation is not "on their behalf." Indeed the incentive is for Alphabet to get the deduction, effectively providing a $30M gift which costs them probably half that.

However, unlike other posters who say "If I'm not getting the benefit then F*** them" I think on it this way: If I were an employee and was told "This year instead of giving YOU a gift we're giving one to a poor child in need" then I would think about whether I was ENTITLED to a gift (no), or whether I just got spoilt and greedy and want want wanted a gift, and now I'm crying my big head to sleep on my big pillow.

Good on Alphabet. Good on everybody who supports helping out those in need.

E
P.S. I'm not a tax expert, lawyer, nor doctor. But I do write my opinions on the Internet.

Re:Headline correct; summary wrong

[Nemyst]

Alphabet is not so poor that their charitable deeds must go through taking a chunk off their employees' salary. If it mattered that much to the execs, why don't they cut their own salaries for the year to cover it up? They wouldn't even have to slash it by that much to cover the 30M.

The intent of this twisting of words is clear: to make it socially unacceptable to complain about it. It's utter bullshit.

Re:Headline correct; summary wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Because they don't need to. Alphabet already pays well, and they can always top talent; they are not at the mercy of their employees.

Re:Headline correct; summary wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

You are assuming nobody who works at google needs charity themselves.

You could be right, google does pay well. But it is an assumption. If the assumption is wrong, you're robbing Bob Cratchit of his bonus to give it to Tiny Tim, all the while Ebenezer Scrooge gets a bonus gift from the US government.

Re:Headline correct; summary wrong

[King_TJ]

I'm glad Alphabet decided to help out by donating .... but if I worked for them, I'd still be a little upset by this.

#1? These donations of millions of dollars worth of technology to help schools/education don't exactly have a great track record. When your teachers and staff are underpaid and over-stressed, they're just not going to take the time and effort required to implement the new tech very well. A lot of this stuff will wind up sitting in schools, unused -- or under-utilized. $30 million given to help hire more quality teachers and keep up with maintenance issues in the school buildings would probably have done a lot more.

#2? It's not necessarily being "spoiled and greedy" to assume that your employer will give you a "bonus" or gift at the end of the year, if they're traditionally known for doing it. That's part of how your overall compensation is factored. (EG. When I was hired on where I work now, I tried to negotiate for a higher salary than they offered but they wouldn't budge. Instead, they countered that they almost always gave out end of year bonuses, plus typically did at least one big company meeting/trip to a nice location for several days, where we'd enjoy a lot of perks and entertainment too. Those were bargaining chips to make me take the offer ... not truly gifts that I would be "greedy" to expect to receive, if I did good work through the whole year.)

Re:Headline correct; summary wrong

[omnichad]

employees don't get the tax advantage

What tax advantage? So if Google gave each employee $500, and then took that $500 and sent it to charity instead of putting on a paycheck, the employee would have $500 more in income, which could then be written off on taxes. A net change of taxable income of zero.

The tax liability is EXACTLY the same.

Re: Headline correct; summary wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Except all the executives got million dollar bonuses and were NOT forced to donate it in Alphabet's name. Slashdot forgot to include that important detail.

If the entire company did this, executives included, then whatever, but they're shitting on their lower class workers...which are still all smart enough to realize they're being shitted on.

Re:Headline correct; summary wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Bonuses, while often not guaranteed can be a major factor when choosing an employer. While I won't argue that a charitable donation is a negative; effectively taking something from your employees and giving it away isn't exactly the moral high ground. In essence ALPHABET found a way to turn an employee perk (liability) into a tax deduction (asset) in way that makes it difficult to object without being called "spoilt and greedy."

Make no mistake, this is an anti-employee pro-corporation practice that screws the little guy and benefits the top. If ALPHABET wants to make charitable donations, which I strongly encourage and support, they should do it from the kindness of their own coffers and not from their employees.

Re:Headline correct; summary wrong

[110010001000]

Damn, I hope you aren't a tax accountant. If you get $1000 but then give it away you don't have to pay taxes on the $1000? And no one pays taxes on corporate gifts in reality.

Re: Headline correct; summary wrong

[coofercat]

I realise this is about the US, but in most (all?) of Europe and maybe elsewhere, when you pay an employee money, you have to pay some/all of their tax liability for it, and then pay some tax of your own too, and then pay more tax at the end of the year.

That is, if you want to pay 100 groats, then physically pay 70 groats to the employee's account, pay the remaining 30 to the government on their behalf. Then pay another 30 direct to the government for the pleasure of paying the employee. Oh, and at the end of the year pay an annual tax based on your resulting profit (the percentage varies, maybe 20%).

So in short - paying employees bonuses has a higher tax burden than making charitable donations 'on their behalf', and most definitely looks very different on your annual accounts report.

Re:Headline correct; summary wrong

[kuzb]

You generally have more than one class, in a day. That same teacher is probably managing 100+ students in the average highschool.

Re:Headline correct; summary wrong

[sexconker]

What is not accurate is the phrase "on its employees behalf"

Alphabet absolutely could be doing this on the employee's behalf, thus giving the ability to deduct it.
As I don't work for them, I don't know. If I did, I'd be asking for a receipt if there was any mention of "on your behalf" or "in your name" in the email.

Re:Headline correct; summary wrong

[bws111]

He is correct, assuming you itemize deductions. A $1000 donation reduces your AGI by $1000, with the net result that you do not pay taxes on the $1000. And you certainly DO pay taxes on corporate gifts, because the value of the gift is reported on your W-2 as ordinary income.

Re:Headline correct; summary wrong

[sexconker]

If they would have gotten a $1000 device, they would have had to pay taxes on the $1000. They didn't get a $1000 device and so they didn't have to pay taxes on it. Same as if they received $1000, then gave it away, they wouldn't have had to pay taxes on the $1000...

Corporations get to write of that $1000 dollars whether they donate it to charity or pay an employee.

Stick to TurboTax, please.

https://www.irs.gov/businesses...

Re:Headline correct; summary wrong

[Ogive17]

A chunk of their salary? If the gift went to the employee they would have to pay 40% of the value in taxes. It's considered income and 40% is the gift tax...

It would have been nice if the company gave them an option but let's not pretend any of the employees will not be able to pay the bill this Christmas season because they weren't given a new cell phone. (well, unless their old cell phone broke and that's what they used to pay bill online...)

Re:Headline correct; summary wrong

[Moof123]

This.

30 Million to the school budgets is nothing. If a company like Alphabet want's to really help, they should be lobbying to help find a bigger and steadier way to fund our schools (i.e. tax increases on property, income, or corporations).

Telling people this close to Christmas that you've changed bonus policy is a jerk move. My compensation is mine, not yours. After all, employment is a business relationship. For anyone who disagrees, wait to see how you feel after your first layoff from a profitable company with large cash reserves. Loyalty is a farce.

Re:Headline correct; summary wrong

[bws111]

'Gifts' (what you linked to) are NOT the same as 'charitable donations'.

Re:Headline correct; summary wrong

[Xylantiel]

But the problem is that, as you say, the $30M gift probably cost Alphabet half that but they probably wrote off the full amount. i.e. it's just a scam to get a $15M tax write-off. And it's probably less than half so they get an even bigger fraction as write-off. If they gave that hardware to employees, they could still write it off as a business expense, but only at cost. So this is the employee being told "instead of giving you a gift, we are giving a poor child's school your gift (which they will probably never use), and ourselves an even bigger gift as a result." Because Alphabet itself is clearly the neediest party in this situation.

Re:Headline correct; summary wrong

[Xylantiel]

I won't say there aren't districts where there is waste, there are plenty, but one does have to build and maintain buildings, which can be quite expensive. There are also pensions to consider, which are not always managed sensibly. So a lot depends on what is in that $18k figure. If it includes facilities and the district made a really bad facilities decision 15-20 years ago, that can be a huge chunk right there that the teachers don't see one penny of. And in that situation, blind cuts will just hurt the people who are just doing their job because the overhead of that bad decision is probably impossible to change. (e.g. a bond issue or similar)

And this idea that parents pay taxes for the education of their own children is madness. Taxes that go to schools principally pay for the education of *other people's* children. That is and always has been what public schools are for. It seems like this should be obvious, since people don't just pay those taxes while their children are in school. So the thing you should argue for is better schools at the same cost. The community has already decided it is worth $18k per year per student, but that value for that money can be improved.

Re:Headline correct; summary wrong

[omnichad]

If the employees get the tax advantage then Alphabet doesn't.

There is no tax advantage for either party.

Either Alphabet pays the employees and writes it off as payroll or they donate it and write it off as a gift. Either way, it's money that no longer counts as profits because they don't have it anymore.

And for the employees, either their income is bumped up and then the addition is deducted away or their income remains the same. Either way, their adjusted gross income is the same.

Re:Headline correct; summary wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

So in other words, the headline should be:

"Alphabet employees received no Christmas bonus this year."

Along with a second headline:

"Alphabet donates $30m to charity this Christmas".

There is absolutely nothing linking the two, aside from some bullshit marketing effort from the company's PR department.

Re:Headline correct; summary wrong

[Verdatum]

Straight from the tax-code, 102(c)(1): "shall not exclude from gross income any amount transferred by or for an employer to, or for the benefit of, an employee." in other words, the employee pays taxes on "gifts" from employers. https://www.law.cornell.edu/us...

Re:Headline correct; summary wrong

[drinkypoo]

Because they don't need to. Alphabet already pays well, and they can always top talent; they are not at the mercy of their employees.

I think you're skirting the truth here, accidentally or not. This was an attempt to piss people off because they have excess staff.

Re:Good for Alphabet!

[iggymanz]

wrong, bad for Alphabet. They gave their employees nothing for Christmas. Employees appreciate a company that appreciates them.

If it makes you feel better

[rsilvergun]

Google wrote it off their taxes.

Re:If it makes you feel better

[OrangeTide]

So Google gave themselves a gift, not their employees.

The best way to take over a computer market

[rsilvergun]

is give your stuff away to the schools. The tax write offs basically pay for the whole thing and in 10-15 years the kids hit the job market trained on your software (on the public's dime, no less).

Not that I oppose computers in education, but we should be buying what's needed directly instead of these round about scams where we pay for it anyway with tax write offs. That way kids get what they actually can use instead of what the mega corps want them to have.

Re:The best way to take over a computer market

[ghoul]

Its even worse. Out here in Cupertino the Schools have a program where every kid has to have an iPad as homework will be assigned through an iPad. No choice or option for using another platform. The first year Apple donated the iPads .Once the teachers got used to using it now its the parents can buy their own, buy one from the school at a discounted price or if you are really really cant afford an ipad the School will lend out last years iPads. Guess how many parents told their kids no you cant have the shiny new one like all your classmates and should use the older school issued one.
Apple donated for one year and now has a yearly revenue stream. You dont even have to wait till they grow up

Call it what it is

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not a donation if the 'giver' didn't choose to do it. In other words, this was a donation from Alphabet, not from the employees. This is not to say that some of these employees wouldn't have donated their gifts or money, just if there was no choice in the matter it shouldn't be attributed that way.

HO HO HO NOW I HAVE A MACHINE GUN!

[Thud457]

So the employees get to deduct this on their taxes right?
yeah, just as I thought. Stay classy silly valley.

Re:HO HO HO NOW I HAVE A MACHINE GUN!

[Verdatum]

No, they don't. When an employee gives a real gift, they add it's value to the employee's W-2 as unexpected income. If the employee donates the gift, they employee can now deduct it. If you donate in an employee's name, you don't add it to the employee's W-2, so there's nothing for the employee to deduct. If they were to report it as income, then everyone who doesn't itemize would get shafted, being taxed for income that they never saw or had the freedom to use as they pleased.

VMWare actually gave us money to donate

[Arkham]

VMware sent out an email to employees and said "There is $$$ in your http://brightfunds.org/ account. Give it to whatever charity you care about". And the employees do get the tax write-off.

Re: VMWare actually gave us money to donate

[Anonymous Coward]

Now THAT is the right way to do it.

Re:VMWare actually gave us money to donate

[Rob Riggs]

Isn't that subject to Social Security and Medicare taxes? Seems like a raw deal for employees.

Re:VMWare actually gave us money to donate

[BlueCoder]

I agree. That indeed is the right way to do it.

But still I agree with everyone else. The end of year bonus is part of your compensation for your job. It's not a gift to you.

Re:VMWare actually gave us money to donate

[PCM2]

The end of year bonus is part of your compensation for your job. It's not a gift to you.

But unless the amount of the bonus was disclosed to you at the beginning of the year, it's hard to factor it into your compensation. Every job I've ever had, a bonus was completely optional -- hence, bonus.

Re:VMWare actually gave us money to donate

[sunking2]

What it does is makes it tax neutral. You neither gain nor suffer the tax liability incurred as the money they put into the account is considered earnings.

There goes the Job market.

[Hylandr]

Oh joy,

The job market is about to be flooded with pissed off ex-Google employees.

Re:There goes the Job market.

[PCM2]

The job market is about to be flooded with pissed off ex-Google employees.

Boy, won't it be a splash of cold water when they find out what the real world is like?

Re:To be fair, if I got a ChromeBook as a "gift"..

[Anonymous Coward]

You might keep a free Google phone so long as it wasn't a Samsung Galaxy Note 7? So brave.

Better up your office supply budget Alphabet

[SuperKendall]

The first stage of anger from employees is the traditional "stealing of the pens and post-it notes". Be prepared for massive re-stocking come the current year!

Also on a side note what would be really funny is for an employee of Alphabet to go work for a non-profit for six months, demanding his original salary because he was donating his time on behalf of Alphabet...

Re:Better up your office supply budget Alphabet

[ewhac]

The first stage of anger from employees is the traditional "stealing of the pens and post-it notes".

There aren't any; everyone's supposed to be dogfooding Google Keep.

:-)

Recipients should throw Chromebooks at Google Bus

[JoeyRox]

Now they have more physical ammo for their SF protests.

Working for Google/Alphabet now...

[wbr1]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

I agree and what does this mean for next year?

[SuperKendall]

An unlike what gavron thinks, this is not a god damn "gift". This is a "reward".

To me that is exactly right. Going forward will Google donate different amounts of money to charity at the end of each year depending on employee performance? That would seem to be the case if they really are taking bonuses and giving them away.

No matter what I can't see how this is good for morale, or retention in a pretty hot hiring environment.

Source

[Yvan256]

Source of the parent post, in case some of you are too young and never saw it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Festivus for the rest of us!

[Desler]

Isn't that what the Airing of Grievances is for? Maybe if they win the Feats of Strength they can have their gifts back.

Re:To be fair, if I got a ChromeBook as a "gift"..

[Thud457]

to add insult to injury, this is probably a thinly disguised move to unload slow moving inventory and deduct it at full price + "tech support"
OMG LOL FTG

There's always next year

[theendlessnow]

The way things are going, when they do this next year, you might be the recipient of that new Chromebook and maybe a blanket and a warm meal.

Re:Good for Alphabet!

[PvtVoid]

wrong, bad for Alphabet. They gave their employees nothing for Christmas. Employees appreciate a company that appreciates them.

Yeah, Google's employees are really abused.

GODDAMIT

[Thud457]

Thanks a lot asshole. I had monetarily forgotten.
As always, FUCK 2016

Christmas bonus for talent poachers

[WaffleMonster]

You just don't do something like this.

EVERYONE knows this is a tax write-off even if you honestly didn't intend it to be that way it is how it will universally be interpreted.

If you didn't want to give Christmas bonus simply not giving them to people may be a disappointment but pulling this shit is far worse. It is essentially telling your employees to go fuck themselves while announcing they will not be receiving a bonus.

Given current labor environment whoever made this decision to announce donations like this should probably be asked to resign.

Re:Christmas bonus for talent poachers

[Dynedain]

From a tax perspective paying employees a bonus is an operating cost tax write off exactly equivalent to donating to charity.

The difference is internal accounting of where those funds come from (on-hand overstock inventory vs. cash outlay)

this is not a gift for employees

[j2.718ff]

The person doing the "giving" (Alphabet) gets the tax write-off, so the employees got absolutely nothing. Alphabet is in no way required to give their employees gifts, and I think it would have been better if they didn't. This is just an failed attempt at good PR. I'm happy Alphabet is donating to charity - they just shouldn't be pretending they're doing it for their employees.

Re:this is not a gift for employees

[gatfirls]

If they were doing it for PR they sure f'ed this one up because I don't think anyone will hear this story an applaud their actions. At least if they just said "we're donating 30mil to schools" then later said "no gifts this year" they would get some decent PR on the altruism side of things.

Since it's a gift they get I am assuming they still get bonuses or whatever, no?

Re:this is not a gift for employees

[swillden]

This is just an failed attempt at good PR.

This wasn't publicly announced.

Re:this is not a gift for employees

[drinkypoo]

This wasn't publicly announced.

It's even cheaper if you don't make a formal announcement.

Re:this is not a gift for employees

[swillden]

This wasn't publicly announced.

It's even cheaper if you don't make a formal announcement.

How so? A press release doesn't cost anything.

Re:this is not a gift for employees

[swillden]

yeah, but here we are talking about it.

Because employees got mad and leaked it. But the claim was that this was a PR move... if it were that, it would have been announced and not set up to be leaked by angry employees who put a negative spin on it.

So many people don't understand tax deductions

[Solandri]

The tax deduction isn't money you get back from the government. It's the government saying they wont' tax the income you ended up donating to charity. As such, there is no difference between the company "giving" you the money to donate (counts as income on your taxes) and you getting the tax write-off (government doesn't tax that income), vs the company donating the money in your name (doesn't count as income, you don't get a tax deduction).

e.g. Say I'm at the 25% tax bracket. Company gives me $4000 to donate to a charity, which I do. Come tax time, the government says you received $4000 in income from your company so you owe $1000 in taxes. But you say I donated that $4000 to charity. The extra $4000 gets erased (deducted) from your income, and you're no longer liable for the $1000 in taxes. It's as if you never received the money at all, and the company gave it directly to the charity instead of to you. (Except if the company had given it, they would get the $4000 deduction to reflect that the money was donated. But that just equalizes the direct donation scenario to if they had paid it to you $4000 as wages - a deductible expense. Rather than kept it as taxable profit. Either way, the government is not taxing the money that changed hands because the final recipient is a charity.)

So it doesn't matter whether the company or the employee gets the deduction - it works out the same either way. (There are rare instances where the tax law is specifically or accidentally crafted to give you a tax deduction even though you never received the income. I ran across one of these a couple years back when i donated some stock to a charity. I received a deduction as if I'd sold the stock thus receiving the proceeds as taxable income, then donated the money to the charity. Except since I never sold the stock, I didn't have any taxable income to report for this stock. True, I had paid taxes on the money I used to first buy the stock, but the stock had appreciated a considerable amount and my deduction was actually several times larger than my initial cash outlay to buy the stock. So these situations are not impossible. But they are the exception to how deductions work, not the norm.)

Re:So many people don't understand tax deductions

[Obfuscant]

So it doesn't matter whether the company or the employee gets the deduction - it works out the same either way

It isn't the same. It can matter alot.

First, the company is picking the charity, not you. For example, someone impacted by breast cancer may want to donate to a charity related to that instead of handing more money to schools. I know at least two dozen charities that are more appropriate than throwing more money to my local school district which has already gotten a tax levy to spend $1.2 MILLION on giving students iPads. (I would be VERY unhappy if my employer said they valued my work so much they were going to give more of my money to a "charity" that was already taxing me to do the same thing.)

Second, if you get the money it may put you in a status where it makes sense to itemize, and you may then deduct a lot of things that would otherwise not be deductible. It may increase your giving because you know that you can deduct it.

Third, it will appear on your annual income statements, which are used by the SSA to determine retirement payments, or if a year counts towards retirement at all. It can also have an effect on how much you can borrow as it will be shown as income.

But overall, giving the money to the employee means that the employee chooses where his money goes, not the company. It may help the tax liability of the employee by allowing itemization to increase deductions after donating the money. Or it may simply be a really useful $3000 if it isn't donated.

In either case, it isn't the same thing even if in some cases the ends are the same. The ends don't justify the means.

Re:So many people don't understand tax deductions

[UnderCoverPenguin]

This only works if you are already itemizing deductions.

If the company gives you the money, then you can only deduct the donation if you itemize deductions.

However, if the company donates the money, then it's not part your taxable income - in other words, it's "pre-deducted".

Another example would be Flexible (Health) Spending Accounts - FSAs:

Normally, you can only deduct health care expenses when you itemize deductions AND only the amount over a certain percentage of your adjusted gross income (AGI).

But, with a FSA, the money is put into an escrow account that you (mostly*) control. AND is deducted from your pay BEFORE taxes, thus reducing your taxable income. Therefore, you are effectively deducting the whole amount, not just the amount over the AGI percentage AND even if you don't itemize deductions.

--

* Once money is put in the FSA, you can only use it to pay qualified medical expenses AND you loose any remaining amount still in the FSA at the end of the year (though there are certain "grace rules" that might apply).

Beats paying taxes

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd rather have them properly pay U.S. taxes than donate calculated amounts to reduce the amount the company pays in tax.

Tax write-off

[phorm]

How does that work, though? If my employer gives me $10k for the purpose of a charitable donation, doesn't that essentially mean that I made (for tax purposes)

$my_pay

+$10000 (taxable)

-$10000 (tax deduction for charitable donation)

=

$my_pay

It is not on employees' behalf

[techdolphin]

If a company wants to donate to charity, fine. However, when management makes the decision without any employee input, do not say it is on the employees' behalf. At least have the decency to be honest.

Re:Good for Alphabet!

[AC5398]

Fraking over your employees is not being socially responsible. Bonuses are part of your compensation. You stop paying bonuses, it's the same as inflicting a pay cut.

And the language of the memo indicates management has no respect for their workers. Management didn't refuse to pay bonuses because times were hard, management didn't pay their people because they don't like their people.

Any company that does this, while still paying their executives their bonuses, is to be avoided at all costs. It won't be long before they start justifying pay cuts, working unpaid overtime, etc etc. Anyone working at Alphabet now knows they have to get the hell out. And Alphabet will have one hell of time trying to hire anyone, except for any desperate-for-the-experience newbies.

Social responsibility is giving your employees the option of donating their bonus, and letting the employee have the tax write off. Instead, management turned a $30 million expense into a $15 milliion expense via tax write offs - and that's only if they actually donated the items. Sharks as nasty as Alphabet's management will have no moral qualms about saying they made the donation and then not donating a damn thing.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Ignorance is Bliss, I guess

[s.petry]

Google pay is average to less than average for the SF Bay area. Disclaimer: I don't work for Google.

Re:Ignorance is Bliss, I guess

[bfpierce]

Note: Google employs people outside of the SF Bay area. Most of their staff in fact.

The fact that SF has insane real estate prices is not Googles problem.

Heh. How Christmas Vacation of them

[JWW]

"its the gift that keeps on giving...."

At least its not literally the jelly of the month club, but its not much better.

Being pedantic

[s.petry]

If your company removes money from you and gives it to someone else, that is called Robbery. I'd be interested in seeing a class action law suit be brought on this one.

The sad thing is, if Alphabet had asked the employees to donate some or all of their bonuses to a charity people probably would have given what they felt right. There is no such thing as "Charity by Force".

Re:Being pedantic

[Ungrounded Lightning]

If your company removes money from you and gives it to someone else, that is called Robbery.

But if the company just doesn't give you a Christmas/End-of-Year gift that they had been voluntarily giving previously, it may be a disappointment but it isn't Robbery.

= = = =

It may also be really stupid move on the company's part, though. It's going to cost them a bunch in employee satisfaction, and thus performance, over the next year or more.

Of course, if they were thinking of replacing a bunch of the employees with H1Bs or the like, tweaking them off so they perform poorly could then be used in claims that they were not good performers and thus needed replacing.

Re:Being pedantic

[s.petry]

2.
Law. the felonious taking of the property of another from his or her person or in his or her immediate presence, against his or her will, by violence or intimidation.

What Alphabet did is by definition Robbery.

Re:Being pedantic

[Ungrounded Lightning]

... the felonious taking of the property of another from his or her person or in his or her immediate presence, against his or her will, by violence or intimidation.

What Alphabet did is by definition Robbery.

If they'd given, or promised, a Christmas Bonus, then yes it would be robbery.

If the (or their predecessors) had led the workers to expect bonuses only by voluntarily giving them in the past, but had never written contract terms or otherwise promised the bonuses for this year, then the hypothetical missing bonus was never the property of the workers in the first place.

Re:Being pedantic

[omnichad]

Only if they actually donated in the employee's name. That's probably not the case, legally speaking. Legally speaking, they likely simply donated their own property and the employee is not involved whatsoever (except maybe on the attached card).

Re:Being pedantic

[Megol]

So you think the employees was given the devices in question before they were (forcibly) sent to a third party (the charity)? Why do you think such an unlikely scenario would be even possible?

Re:Good for Alphabet!

[thegarbz]

something socially responsible

Screw the workers by not giving them something that they usually get. Check
Make a massive donation to gain a huge tax write off when you already pay next to no taxes. Check.
CEO takes a bonus likely equal to the after tax donation that was made for saving money and screwing employees at the same time. Check.

Get either shills or complete idiot's support on Slashdot for actions. Social responsibility at its best.

A van?? Lucky dog!

[Anonymous Coward]

When I worked there, I had to live out of a refrigerator box.

Re:A van?? Lucky dog!

[snakeplissken]

Cold refrigerator box?
You were lucky!
I lived in a paper bag in septic tank...blah blah...

Re:A van?? Lucky dog!

[omnichad]

You had a paper bag?
Luxury...

Re:Heh. How Christmas Vacation of them

[daveywest]

So does anyone have an Uncle Eddie that could deliver Sergey and Larry tied up with a bow?

Re:Good for Alphabet!

[iggymanz]

irrelevant to point. No gifts were given to employees, yet executives got their bonuses.

I wonder if the CEO ever got a letter like this

[DidgetMaster]

Do you think upper management ever sent themselves a letter that said in effect "Instead of your regular big bonuses, the company has instead donated X $Millions to a charity in your name. Have a Merry Christmas."? I think not. If they would never do this to themselves, why do it to all the other employees?

Oh how nice...

[erp_consultant]

Google decides to donate some money to the less fortunate. On the face of it, it seems like a noble thing to do. Except that the decision was made without any input from said employee, who may or may not have been onboard with that decision. I used to work for a place that every Christmas they would send you a link to a website where you could get various items, paid for by the company, as a gift. You also had the option of having the company donate money instead of the gift. Seems to me that would have been a better way for Google to play it. Let the employee decide.

Happy to donate your money

[Stonefish]

What makes me laugh is nobody's actually stated the obvious, looking after the poor and the needy is the Government's job. Companies really shouldn't be donating money to charities at all, their job is to look after their shareholders, ie you don't have a by the people for the people section in a companies constitution. If a manager want to feel good about themselves, get them donate their own money, and not somebody else's money. As a Google shareholder I'd be pissed off and I'd be asking whoever approved this to reimbursing me.
If you care about people vote for a government that cares for people and provides basic healthcare, dole and pay your taxes to support this agenda.
Personally I don't think that donations to charities and religious organizations should be tax deductions at all, effectively they're just tax dodges.

Re:Happy to donate your money

[Obfuscant]

What makes me laugh is nobody's actually stated the obvious, looking after the poor and the needy is the Government's job.

Except it isn't obvious, and it isn't the government's 'job'. Looking after the poor and needy is why charities exist.

The reason the charities aren't able to do their job is because of people like you who think their tax dollars are all they need to "give" because "it's the government's job" and donating to charity is just "a tax dodge." I.e., the reason why donations to charity are tax deductible is specifically because the it is their job to help the needy and the government wants to promote that activity.

Re:Happy to donate your money

[Actually, I do RTFA]

They didn't donate money. They donated last year's hardware at full retail writeoff. So it's more of a business move to get rid of old inventory for more than they could get from a firesale than charity.

Re:Happy to donate your money

[Actually, I do RTFA]

Some people certainly think it is the government's job. Based on what laws exist, I;d say over 50%.

Re:Happy to donate your money

[Obfuscant]

It's cute that you think that the existence of a law means that more than 50% of the people actively support it.

Consider all the laws that cover tax deductions for contributions to charity and you might realize that it isn't really the government's job to provide for everyone. The clause "promote the general welfare" does not actually mean "provide welfare for everyone". The word "welfare" has two different meanings in the two phrases.

Re:Low comparitively

[St.Creed]

.... keeping an eye on your every move

If he's a civil servant, I don't think that will be a huge problem.

Re:Low comparitively

[bfpierce]

Government is even more insanely good. I wasn't debating that.

You need to actually pass and maintain a security clearance, on top of the uncertainty that comes with contracts at the whim of congress, so it comes with that baggage.

Bullshit virtue signalling

[tsotha]

So the employees get nothing and the CEO gets to go to charity balls and what not. I would not be happy if I were a shareholder.

Re:Good for Alphabet!

[Anonymous Coward]

Employees will still get their bonuses too (most of them at least) which are *far* larger than the value of this gift.

looking for the present from your employer?

[Provocateur]

Google for it.

Should be as easy as ABC.

Dammit. Don't hate me.

Am I charitable?

[gorkj]

How is this my donation if I had no influence over it?
It feel like the company says I am not capable of being charitable so they better fix it so I don't mess it up.
This removes any good feeling you might have about helping someone out of your own free will.

To be fair, I am not living in the US so I don't factor in aspects such as tax writeoffs into this.

Perverse method

[manu0601]

How to remove perks without sparking protests?

- First, turn them into donation to a charity. Nobody can oppose donation to a charity without being labelled as a bastard.

- Second, gradually reduce do,nation to charity over the years. Employees will probably not notice or complain since they do not get the gift

How Nice

[ChrisMaple]

By the way, I'll be donating my next week's work to charity - as if you could tell the difference.

Deep mind will take over

[cheekyboy]

or train their AI bots, that will grow at the rate of 1 human year per week.

bloody wall street been counters.

maybe facebook can kick googles ass

Revenge

[CanEHdian]

Employees looking for revenge can donate their great product ideas that they've been developing in company time to Microsoft, Amazon, or Apple.

Re:ASML did the exact same thing...

[CanEHdian]

Interesting. Wonder if that "Executive Committee" themselves are being treated on trips, lavish Christmas dinners, or bonusses. Just like the UK Snooping Charter, these things usually do not apply to "ourselves".

Can anyone confirm this?

[MalleusEBHC]

I can't find anyone else reporting this story. I even checked DDG on the paranoid possibility that google was mucking with their own search results.

The story smells wrong to me, and the lack of supporting evidence is very suspicious.

what does the nsa give out ???

[cheekyboy]

ribiks cube ???

or a free android phone that bugs you

uhh..

[SuperDre]

If I wasn't asked, then it's never done 'in my name'.. Just give me the gift and I'll think about donating it to charity. What's next, the company is donating my salary to charity (because that's actually what they did now as these kind of bonusses are part of your salary)?

Charity!

[kaatochacha]

So I'm guessing it came with a nice letter saying a donation had been made in their name to "The Human Fund"?