Did Google.org Steal the Christmas Spirit? (theregister.co.uk)

Google.org gives nonprofits roughly $100 million each year. But now the Register argues that festive giving "has become a 'Googlicious' sales push." Among other things, The Register criticizes the $30 million in grant funding that Google.org gave this Christmas "to nonprofits to bring phones, tablets, hardware and training to communities that can benefit from them most," some of which utilized the crowdfunding site DonorsChoose (which tacks a fee of at least $30 fee onto every donation). "The most critical learning resources that teachers need are often exercise books, pen and paper, but incentives built into the process steer educators to request and receive Google hardware, rather than humble classroom staples," claims the Register. theodp writes: [O]ne can't help but wonder if Google.org's decision to award $18,130 to teachers at Timberland Charter Academy for Chromebooks to help make students "become 'Google'licious" while leaving another humbler $399 request from a teacher at the same school for basic school supplies -- pencils, paper, erasers, etc. -- unfunded is more aligned with Google's interests than the Christmas spirit. Google, The Register reminds readers, lowered its 2015 tax bill by $3.6 billion using the old Dutch Sandwich loophole trick, according to new regulatory filings in the Netherlands.
The article even criticizes the "Santa's Village" site at Google.org, which includes games like Code Boogie, plus a game about airport security at the North Pole. Their complaint is its "Season of Giving" game, which invites children to print out and color ornaments that represent charities -- including DonorsChoose.org. The article ends by quoting Slashdot reader theodp ("who documents the influence of Big Tech in education") as saying "Nothing says Christmas fun more than making ornaments to celebrate Google's pet causes..."

Comments

Corporate charity.

[Insanity Defense]

Charity for fun and profit.

Waah!

[BradleyUffner]

Google is giving away their own money to charities I don't agree with, someone make them stop!

Re:Waah!

[Half-pint HAL]

If you read the article, it points out that a lot of the charity money buys Google. Getting tax breaks to get people to buy your stuff is good business for somebody...

Re:Waah!

[frovingslosh]

You miss the point. They are giving them expensive fancy computers and the like but not giving them paper and pencils that the school system should already be providing. By not giving paper and pencils and other essentials they directly impact the school systems ability to steal money from the general fund and spend it on perks for school board members or absurdly expensive sports programs. Lets paint Google as the wrong doer here and not look too closely at the actual problem.

Re:Waah!

[Toth]

Damn! sorry I hit Redundant instead of Insightful.
Posting to remove it.

Re:Waah!

[__aaclcg7560]

[...] or absurdly expensive sports programs.

When my parents moved from SIlicon Valley to retire in Sacramento in the mid-1990's, my father drove me around the area to see the sights. He pointed out every school that was building a brand new football field but couldn't find money to reduce classroom sizes or provide supplies. Seems like a colossal waste of resources.

Re: Waah!

[Anonymous Coward]

maybe its more about there philosophy that these devices replace those things kind of like a computer at work is a lot like a compact office and a laptop is like bringing the office with you. the tablet/s can be seen as a reusible pen n paper not to mention other uses. not to say there is not self interest but....

Re:Waah!

[Anonymous Coward]

If you read the article, it points out that a lot of the charity money buys Google. Getting tax breaks to get people to buy your stuff is good business for somebody...

This is 100% right, but you aren't actually getting the scale of it. Since I don't fully know the economics of Google's giving I'll explain in terms of Microsoft.

Microsoft gives to charity, sometimes through the Gates foundation. Very often directly to educational groups. When they do this, what they give are either their own products or money which goes to buy their own products. Let's say that Windows costs $1000. They give a copy of Windows and tax deduct $1000. Now, their tax rate for the deduction will be around 30% (yes, I know that Microsoft doesn't normally pay 30%, however they don't deduct where they do their main payments, they do it where they get the maximum deduction). So basically they get back $300. However, the cost of that Windows install isn't actually $1000. In they old days it would be around $1, for them sending out a CD. Nowadays, it's around $0.01 for the marginal cost of the license management of one additional license on their side. So basically Microsoft gets $299.99 profit from a $1000 donation.

But hold on. If Microsoft didn't donate what would happen? Well, actually the school would buy from Apple. This would mean a class of students would come out trained in Apple products and many of them would demand those whey the came into the working environment. So actually, you probably have to count another $500 of marketing cost that Microsoft avoids. So, a Microsoft "donation" of $1000 actually ends up as a $800 benefit to Microsoft's bottom line.

I suspect that the people working for Google are not stupid and their economics are similar to Microsoft's, possibly better.

Re: Waah!

[Anonymous Coward]

Coming from a teacher in a school building a $600,000 upgrade to the football field this is true.

However in our case the money was donated. By people that wouldn't have donated that money to classrooms.

Re:Waah!

[frovingslosh]

I was specifically thinking of the over 1 million buck football stadium that my former high school built when I wrote this. Did want to be that specific because I figured that (as usual) I would be modded down and called a liar if I mentioned it.

Re:Waah!

[I75BJC]

You have just codified the sentiments of all the Control Freaks, also known as SJW – Social Justice Warriors. If they can't control the gift and/or the giver, they hate it. (IMHO)

Re:Waah!

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a great explanation, except for one thing:
It is completely wrong.

The IRS long ago learned that the best way to deal with charitable donations is to allow only actual costs rather than retail price. Otherwise, you'd see people "selling" a $10 product for thousands of dollars, then donating it to a charity to get those thousands off their taxes.

So if Microsoft sells a copy of Windows for $1000, and donates it to a school, they are allowed to deduct ONLY that $5 that is actually development and maintenance costs. The rest of the profit they would have made is completely ignored by both parties.

I suggest you talk with a tax professional before you go around trying to explain how taxes work - it will save everyone time, and prevent the spread of false information like your post.

Re: Waah!

[Anonymous Coward]

But the maintenance costs still come from the schools budget.

Re:Waah!

[Anonymous Coward]

So if Microsoft sells a copy of Windows for $1000, and donates it to a school, they are allowed to deduct ONLY that $5 that is actually development and maintenance costs. The rest of the profit they would have made is completely ignored by both parties.

Sure.. Except here, you are actually completely wrong yourself.

Because the "actual cost" to Microsoft License Sales Incorporated, which will be the corporate vessel chosen to make the donation, is the cost of the license they pay for, which they will buy from Microsoft Ireland Licensing at something close to the full cost.

I suggest you talk with a tax professional before you go around trying to explain how taxes work - it will save everyone time, and prevent the spread of false information like your post.

Whilst we're making suggestions here, I suggest you talk to a different tax specialist. You want one who knows about a thing called "transfer pricing". And no, such things aren't public knowledge because this is all hidden in the detail which the companies never have to publish.

Re:Waah!

[Anonymous Coward]

s/cost/price ..which they will buy from Microsoft Ireland Licensing at something close to the full price...

the cost to Microsoft overall is still the $5 which the other AC suggested, however the price from Microsoft Ireland to Microsoft Licensing will be something like $950 of which $945 will be justified by the cost of "intellectual property".

(((Google)))

[Anonymous Coward]

Did Google.org Steal the Christmas Spirit?

It's run by jews. you expected what, again?

Re:(((Google)))

[Anonymous Coward]

Thats just stupid.

This hasn't anything to do with Christmas

[rsilvergun]

it's just how these sorts of things work. Corporations give to charity for three reasons: Tax write offs, Marketing/Publicity and to advance their long term agendas. This is why we shouldn't rely on charity to maintain the public good.

Re:This hasn't anything to do with Christmas

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't there a gas chamber somewhere you should be in?

Re:This hasn't anything to do with Christmas

[PolygamousRanchKid]

Corporations give to charity for three reasons: Tax write offs, Marketing/Publicity and to advance their long term agendas.

Wow! You, Sir, have just written the plot for a modern age parody of Charles Dickens' "A Christmas Carol"!

Ebeneezer Scrooge goes to sleep and discovers the True Meaning of Christmas in his dreams, when visited by:

- The Ghost of Tax Write-Offs
- The Ghost of Marketing/Publicity
- The Ghost of Advancing Long-term Agendas

"God damn us! God damn us, everyone!"

Re:This hasn't anything to do with Christmas

[Anonymous Coward]

Right it's better to give money to the government to dole out. Well except that some of the money ends up in the coffers of corporations who help wage undeclared wars of aggression against other countries.

Merry Christmas! And Happy New Year! Here's a drone for your troubles and massive invasions of privacy with a bow on top.

Re:This hasn't anything to do with Christmas

[ShanghaiBill]

Wow! You, Sir, have just written the plot for a modern age parody of Charles Dickens' "A Christmas Carol"!

"A Christmas Carol" is anti-capitalist agitprop that could have been written by Karl Marx himself. Sure, Ebenezer could have bought a Christmas goose for Tiny Tim's family, but that would have just helped one family one time. But if he had instead kept the money, and reinvested it in his business, he could expand and create jobs, goods, and services that would benefit far more people, and benefit them permanently. The prosperity of the modern world wasn't created by people giving away their money.

Re:This hasn't anything to do with Christmas

[NoNonAlphaCharsHere]

Well played. I honestly can't tell if you're sarcastically trolling or if you're serious. Either way, well done.

Re:This hasn't anything to do with Christmas

[__aaclcg7560]

Sure, Ebenezer could have bought a Christmas goose for Tiny Tim's family, but that would have just helped one family one time.

The contracting agency I worked for gave everyone an extra five weeks of pay (which is less than a month of pay after taxes) as a Christmas bonus. The author for an essay on Hanukkah goose wrote that it cost him $250 for kosher goose. With my unexpected holiday bonus, I could have bought kosher goose for a dozen families.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/24/opinion/goose-a-hanukkah-tradition.html

But if he had instead kept the money, and reinvested it in his business, he could expand and create jobs, goods, and services that would benefit far more people, and benefit them permanently.

Or bought a yacht. Which is what the CEO of a Fortune 500 company was rumored to have done after getting a 60% raise for having lousy fiscal year and laying off 10% of the workforce. As one of the laid off employees, I had a lousy Christmas in 2013.

The prosperity of the modern world wasn't created by people giving away their money.

That's funny. Every how-to book on becoming wealthy recommends starting a charitable foundation.

According to the most recent statistics, the number of family foundations like the Cordes Foundation has exploded since 2001. There are now over 40,000 family foundations in the United States, making grants totaling more than $21.3 billion a year, up from about 3,200 family foundations doling out $6.8 billion in 2001, according to the Foundation Center in Washington.

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/11/your-money/family-foundations-let-affluent-leave-a-legacy.html

Re: This hasn't anything to do with Christmas

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that Scrooge was hoarding all the profits, like our current billionaires. He also had only one employee, whom he paid minimum wage (which is like our current billionaires who outsource everything).

Re:This hasn't anything to do with Christmas

[PolygamousRanchKid]

I could have bought kosher goose for a dozen families.

I once gave a holiday goose to a dozen secretaries. My employer got slammed with a sexual harassment lawsuit, and I had to attend "Sensitivity Training".

Nobody understands the Winter Holiday Spirit anymore.

Re:This hasn't anything to do with Christmas

[Half-pint HAL]

Your story doesn't sound exactly kosher....

Re:This hasn't anything to do with Christmas

[Solandri]

Corporations give to charity for three reasons: Tax write offs,

There's a huge misconception about how tax deductions (tax write-offs) work. You can't make money from a tax deduction for money* donated to charity. Mathematically, a tax deduction just eliminates the tax you would've paid if you'd kept the money for yourself. Without the tax deduction, if you donated $1000 to charity, your actual expense would be $1000 + taxes on that $1000. The $1000 would still be part of your income, so you'd still have to pay taxes on it even though you gave the money away.

The tax deduction simply eliminates the "taxes on that $1000" portion. So the net effect to the donor is that it's like you never received that $1000. If Google donated $18,130 to teachers, the tax deduction makes it so that it's like Google's advertisers paid that money directly to the teachers instead of to Google. Google's coffers have been reduced by $18,130 minus whatever taxes they would've had to pay if they'd kept that money. So it is a genuine donation.

* The picture gets muddled when you donate goods. Then you get the tax deduction as if you'd sold the good for money and donated the money. Except since you never did the selling part, you didn't receive any income which is taxable. For goods which haven't appreciated in value, this isn't a problem. The tax deduction basically eliminates the taxes paid on the prior income you spent to buy the good which you're donating, and all the numbers line up. For goods which have appreciated in value however, you can make money from a tax deduction. If you bought a stock for $100, and a few years later it's appreciated to $1000 and you donate it, you get a tax deduction for a portion of that $1000. However, if you first sold the stock for $1000 and donated the $1000, you would owe $135 in taxes on the sale ($100 basis, so 15% of $900 appreciation = $135), and the tax deduction would save you $135 in taxes, for a net effect of zero. So by donating the stock directly, you can save more money on taxes than if you'd sold it and donated the money. I used stocks as an example, but another way this is commonly (mis)used is to donate goods which have depreciated in value over the year, and take a deduction for the original purchase price (non-depreciated value). That's how the deduction for donating your old car used to work - the recipient would overstate the value of your old car for tax deduction purposes.

But since this was apparently a cash donation, there's no tax weirdness going on, and it's a legitimate donation. Google has less money, the teachers have more money, and the government has just as much money as it would've had if the advertisers had paid the teachers instead of Google.

Re:This hasn't anything to do with Christmas

[__aaclcg7560]

My employer got slammed with a sexual harassment lawsuit, and I had to attend "Sensitivity Training".

The secretaries would have filed a sexual harassment lawsuit, not your employer, and more likely it would have been a complaint and not a lawsuit. If HR determined that your were guilty of the complaint, then you would have "sensitivity training" class to attend. Of course, it's not the 1990's anymore.

Re:This hasn't anything to do with Christmas

[93 Escort Wagon]

it's just how these sorts of things work. Corporations give to charity for three reasons: Tax write offs, Marketing/Publicity and to advance their long term agendas.

The thing is, there are still a few people who see Google as a different sort of company - one which seems driven by motives other than pure profit. But that version of Google - if it ever existed at all - is long gone. I think Larry may have driven that attitude for a while, but he seems to be... somewhat disconnected from reality nowadays (plus it's not as if the founders are running the company now).

Re:This hasn't anything to do with Christmas

[Anonymous Coward]

Well played. I honestly can't tell if you're sarcastically trolling or if you're serious. Either way, well done.

Unfortunately, those two things have now merged.

Re:This hasn't anything to do with Christmas

[JaredOfEuropa]

So if a company donates a bunch of software licenses to a school, they get to deduct the market value of those licenses from their taxes, while they spend exactly 0 dollars to produce those licenses. Their only "expense" is the school not buying licenses since they are now getting them for free (provided that the school was going to buy them in the first place).

Sounds like a great racket. As a software developer I need to look further into this.

Re:This hasn't anything to do with Christmas

[mrclevesque]

"The prosperity of the modern world wasn't created by people giving away their money."

The prosperity of the modern world wasn't created by capitalists.

Re:This hasn't anything to do with Christmas

[ColdWetDog]

Zorg: Why? What's wrong with me?

Priest Vito Cornelius: I try to serve life. And you seem to want to destroy it.

Zorg: Oh, Father. You're so wrong. Let me explain.

[Puts and empty water glass on his desk]

Zorg: Life, which you so nobly serve, comes from destruction, disorder and chaos. Now take this empty glass. Here it is: peaceful, serene, boring. But if it is destroyed

[Pushes the glass off the table. It shatter on the floor, and several small machines come out to clean it up]

Zorg: Look at all these little things! So busy now! Notice how each one is useful. A lovely ballet ensues, so full of form and color. Now, think about all those people that created them. Technicians, engineers, hundreds of people, who will be able to feed their children tonight, so those children can grow up big and strong and have little teeny children of their own, and so on and so forth. Thus, adding to the great chain of life. You see, father, by causing a little destruction, I am in fact encouraging life. In reality, you and I are in the same business.

Re:This hasn't anything to do with Christmas

[DerekLyons]

The prosperity of the modern world wasn't created by people giving away their money.

That's funny. Every how-to book on becoming wealthy recommends starting a charitable foundation.

Those foundations are created after becoming wealthy for tax breaks, positive publicity, and to make statements - not to become wealthy. You've got cause and effect completely reversed.

Re:This hasn't anything to do with Christmas

[__aaclcg7560]

Those foundations are created after becoming wealthy for tax breaks, positive publicity, and to make statements - not to become wealthy.

Not necessarily. Most private foundations have less than $1M in the bank. Depending on your tax situation, it might make sense to start a foundation on the way up than wait until you have it all to give away.

You've got cause and effect completely reversed.

You're obviously need to read more about becoming wealthy.

"Charity"

[Anonymous Coward]

These aren't charities... Just corporate tax breaks that helps expand the Google brand.
Just another reason to block all google domains on my home network.

Next you'll be outraged that microsoft donates win

[NotInHere]

Next you'll be outraged that Microsoft donates windows and office licenses and support to RNC and DNC conventions. How selfish of them to donate their own products!

Merry Christmas, Charlie Pwn!

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody better tell this guy about Hillary's massive donations to her charity from oil companies. Can you imagine how angry he'd get over THAT?!?!?

Reminds me of a tune

[SpankiMonki]

You're a monster, Alphabet.
Your heart's an empty hole.
Your brain is full of spiders.
You've got garlic in your soul, Alphabet.
I wouldn't touch you with a
Thirty-nine and a half foot pole!

...

Merry Christmas everybody!

Not calling Microsoft out?

[Anonymous Coward]

After all, they "give to charity" as long as the purchases are for Microsoft products or Microsoft backed companies...

Google's management quality is degrading rapidly.

[Anonymous Coward]

Google is becoming more and more abusive.

Re:Next you'll be outraged that microsoft donates

[Anonymous Coward]

That's kinda the point though - google aren't donating windows. They're donating money, getting a tax break on that money, and then requiring that that money is spent on google products.

Effectively, google are forcing the tax payer to buy a bunch of google products that schools don't need.

Today's Christmas *is* corporate bullshit

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

The Christmas we knows today - with the garish fat man dressed in red and gaudy lights that waste gigawatt hours of energy for nothing every year - is a pure invention of the Coca Cola company, designed solely to sell Coca Cola products. Also, the contemporary Christmas "spirit", based on ultra-consumerism and overeating, that start at least a month before the actual fucking Christmas Eve, is nothing but a massive effort by companies to brainwash people into buying tons of shit without realizing they're being manipulated into consuming. When was the last time Christmas was a strictly christian celebration, with Christians going to church to pray for a whole day and night, while the Jews, Muslims and all the others went about their business as usual on December 24?

So no, Google didn't steal the Christmas spirit: they *are* the Christmas spirit. They're pushing their products, like everybody else

Re:Today's Christmas *is* corporate bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

Did Rosco get a lump of coal again this year?

Re:Today's Christmas *is* corporate bullshit

[JaredOfEuropa]

Christians going to church to pray for a whole day and night

Meh, I'll take stuffing my face and exchanging useless gifts over that, thanks.

Santa Klaus was not invented by Coca Cola by the way, he's mostly based on Sinterklaas, a Dutch tradition.

Re: Today's Christmas *is* corporate bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

This.

It's all about moving product. It's the time of year where we get these fat bitches out of the pain clinic and out to Kohl's for the "sale". And by sale we mean same prices as the rest of the fucking year.

Next up bullshit season.. tax refund season. Hell you don't even have to work. Just put down $500 in the "other income" section and you get a $6000 check from uncle Sam. Of course most of that goes to drugs and the liquor store.

Re: Today's Christmas *is* corporate bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

what are you even talking about?

"Just put down $500 in the "other income" section and you get a $6000 check from uncle Sam"

Re:Today's Christmas *is* corporate bullshit

[__aaclcg7560]

The Christmas we knows today - with the garish fat man dressed in red and gaudy lights that waste gigawatt hours of energy for nothing every year - is a pure invention of the Coca Cola company, designed solely to sell Coca Cola products.

Christmas was a Roman pagan holiday back in the day.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturnalia

Re: Today's Christmas *is* corporate bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

Everyone replying about the origins of Xmas, please read his first god damn sentence. The Christmas we know today.....

He isn't saying where Xmas originally came, it's origins, etc.

Re:Today's Christmas *is* corporate bullshit

[Nikkos]

Tired old anti-corporate/anti-coke myth.

Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
"The popularity of the image spawned urban legends that Santa Claus was invented by The Coca-Cola Company or that Santa wears red and white because they are the colors used to promote the Coca-Cola brand.[35] Historically, Coca-Cola was not the first soft drink company to utilize the modern image of Santa Claus in its advertising—White Rock Beverages had already used a red and white Santa to sell mineral water in 1915 and then in advertisements for its ginger ale in 1923.[36][37][38] Earlier still, Santa Claus had appeared dressed in red and white and essentially in his current form on several covers of Puck magazine in the first few years of the 20th century.[39]"

Santa wasn't 'created' by Coca-Cola, the version used by Coca-Cola was already in use by many based off the writings of Moore and the art of Nast.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:Today's Christmas *is* corporate bullshit

[GNious]

Also, the contemporary Christmas "spirit", based on ultra-consumerism and overeating

Not to nitpick, but overeating goes back a LOOONG time, before we had words like "consumerism" :)

Re: Today's Christmas *is* corporate bullshit

[__aaclcg7560]

Everyone replying about the origins of Xmas, please read his first god damn sentence.

And you're surprised that everyone else is pointing to the true origin of Christmas, which has nothing to do with a baby being born in a manger?

Re:Today's Christmas *is* corporate bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

Please stop to spread this myth of Santa is red because of Coke, it predates the first Coke advertisement by at least 100 years. It had been debunked hundreds of times....

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/dec/21/coca-cola-didnt-invent-santa-the-10-biggest-christmas-myths-debunked

Re:Today's Christmas *is* corporate bullshit

[phantomfive]

When was the last time Christmas was a strictly christian celebration, with Christians going to church to pray for a whole day and night

I'm not sure that ever happened. In Austria (and I assume a lot of other places in Europe) people go to mass, but that's not all day and night. The Christmas markets are great, delicious food.

Re:Today's Christmas *is* corporate bullshit

[Frescard]

The Christmas we knows today - with the garish fat man dressed in red and gaudy lights that waste gigawatt hours of energy for nothing every year - is a pure invention of the Coca Cola company, designed solely to sell Coca Cola products

Since you seem to be so critical of "corporate bullshit" I'm surprised you take their statements at face value.
Coca Cola's "Santa Claus invention" is not at all as clear cut as they make it seem — see these old posters from the White Rock company, for example, for Santa Clauses that drink not just Coke...

most big companies do it. donate directly instead.

[Anonymous Coward]

Google, MS, Apple, etc: they make "donations" that benefit them. "Here are some MS products. Oh, how nice that your students grew up using MS products and will now be accustomed to those when they start spending their own money."

Solution: Do not give Google any of your money. Deny them all data about you that they profit from, and do not use their datamining services. Instead, donate your money directly to the cause of your own choice.

We need more of this

[ranton]

We need more corporate charity where corporations find ways to both help others and improve their business at the same time. This type of giving only makes it more likely the charity will continue and feed off itself. Good things happen when you can align corporate profits with societal benefit.

Re:We need more of this

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone moderate that funny!

Black humor at its best.

Re: We need more of this

[Anonymous Coward]

If you are profiting off of something it isn't charity. Charity is giving and expecting no monetary gain in return. If you can align profits with something that also provides some kind of public benefit that's great but that isn't charity.

Re: We need more of this

[Anonymous Coward]

Then no publicly traded companies would ever give to charity. Companies only do things if they can profit off of it, they are legally required to because of stockholders.

Re: We need more of this

[Anonymous Coward]

Then no publicly traded companies would ever give to charity. Companies only do things if they can profit off of it, they are legally required to because of stockholders.

This is a straight up lie. Firstly, it's completely clear that, if you set up a company with something which is opposed to profit in it's articles of association, you can do that thing with no question. Secondly, there's nothing said about actual profit in most jurisdictions. Instead you have to work "in the interests of the shareholders" and there are plenty of laws and legal precedents which basically say that management has full leeway in interpreting that. Basically, companies can do almost anything they wish as long as the CEO can keep a straight face and say "I believed it was in the shareholder's interest". This is the reason why CEOs are allowed to pay themselves millions even as their companies sink into desperate failure.

Given this, the simple argument "we give to charity to build up our communities and our position within them" is enough to allow any company to give to almost anything just because they feel it's a good idea.

Re: We need more of this

[Anonymous Coward]

As if a CEO would do that. If there's money to give away that's not going to be profitable for the company, it's going to go in the CEOs pocket.

Re:We need more of this

[deathguppie]

Why?

Look if I happen to have a whole bunch of cream of wheat and I drop it off at the food bank and then people start complaining that I'm a selfish bastard for not bringing crackers does that make what I did wrong?

You can complain about what they could have done but they aren't required to do anything. This whole thing just reminds me too much of a teenage girl throwing a tantrum because her parents wanted to go to a movie together when she had a phone date with her friends. "Look someone is doing something nice", response... "they aren't doing the nice thing we want them to do :p"

Re: We need more of this

[I75BJC]

No, that is wrong. Charity is just charity. If a drug company contributes free vaccines, the patients receive the vaccines at no cost and a healthier populace benefits everyone. Who cares if the company creates "good will" that benefits it? I know specific people who have benefited because of their gifts given with "no strings attached" so "good will" doesn't disqualify a charitable contribution. Plus (and a really big PLUS), the giver can give their charitable gift in whatever form they want. It's their "money" and they have complete freedom in how, in when, in what, in what manner, etc. that they give. Every gift given frees up money to be spent on the gift-item that can be applied elsewhere.

Re:We need more of this

[Anonymous Coward]

I can give you an example from Mali.

My ex-girlfriend at the time went to Mali. She was a doctor and wanted to train people in Mali to become doctors or nurses. The most brilliant people of Mali were granted a scholarship and sent to an European university to study medicine or become a doctor.

The idea was to make Mali less dependent on foreign charity and let them make their own medicine. This went well for like 15 years, until a NGO decided they could do better with their charity. That NGO, funded by billionaires, just donated free medicine. Free medicine on the condition that Mali would remove the 'pirating' charity workers from the country. And this happened. My ex-girlfriend had to leave the country with police guidance. Soon local warlords were sponsored by the same charity to hunt Mali doctors who still made their own medicine.

The situation became worse over time. The warlords didn't only hunt doctors, they raided village after village until they became a formidable force controlling vast regions. They even installed an Islamic caliphate and an international coalition was and still is needed to keep peace in Mali. This was charity by billionaires who invested in the pharma industry.
 
Why let those people make their own medicine when you can give your own medicine for free (and of course with tax deduction, government money, charity donations)?

NO they didn't steal anything, it's already gone

[TheRealHocusLocus]

Google just replaced everything familiar with a bunch of foofy gnarly dinky shit that's difficult or impossible to comprehend. I'm even starting to lose track of which of their NONDESCRIPT CAREFULLY ANDROGYNOUS RACELESS FLATFACE TOON-THING critters are supposed to represent real people. When cartoon people become indistinguishable from cartoon mammals and cartoon bugs I think to myself, geez we should keep this shit away from infants.

I think Google/Alpha&Omegabet has been contacted by space aliens in advance of their arrival, who have instructed them to remove all specific cues of human kind from their sites. The aliens would have Google populate its doodles with critters that resemble the aliens but NO, the aliens themselves have forgotten what they look like because their version of Google had been contacted by another race whose Google had done the same thing, to them.

The other day I unpacked a chlorine injection pump that had a 32 page full color comic book that smelled like a +$30,000 art project where someone literally spent days, weeks to come up with illustrations that communicate hazards and instructions without a breath of English for fear of offending someone. I had to stare down the damned thing for an hour to figure out (mostly from experience NOT direct comprehension) what specific things were being communicated. In the end how much will it cost them to remain 'sub-literate'?

I found something that claims to be a Google Decoder Ring but every time I slip it on I disappear. Time to take up writing again.

Disclaimer: I was negatively triggered by Thomas The Train but (oddly) Teletubbies were fine. I think it's about the level of presumption involved.

Re:Next you'll be outraged that microsoft donates

[Anonymous Coward]

Why should MS donating windows be better than Google offering their products?

Because one is MS and the other Google?

When is it not charity?

[Insanity Defense]

It isn't charity when it is done to promote the interests of the giver.

duh?

[ganjadude]

If google makes chromebooks, it makes sense that they are donating chromebooks and not donating paper and pencils. Where are the paper and pencil makers stepping up to donate????

Re:duh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Reading comprehension fail!

they are not donating chromebooks, they donate $ but only if it will be used to buy google products like chromebooks. there is a big difference there. one is altruistic, the other is a way to get a double benefit of a tax break and sales of google merchandise.

Re:duh?

[ganjadude]

no i read it, and if they are donating for X, then thats all there is to it.

its smart business AND it is helping people in need. who are you or I to tell them what and how they should be charitable?

Re: duh?

[Anonymous Coward]

it was thier money to begin with the tax exempt doesnt mean anything. I think its more about yes one promoting thier brand but also updating the learning proccess or tools used.

Re: duh?

[SmaryJerry]

You are showing how uninformed you are. Tax deductible doesn't mean it is free for google you dolt.

Merry fucking Christmas

[Anonymous Coward]

Merry fucking Christmas to meeeeeeee!

Fuck the rest of you people.

Re:Next you'll be outraged that microsoft donates

[Anonymous Coward]

Because directly donating the product doesn't get you a tax break. Donating cash, and then requiring that the funds buy your product gets you a tax break on money you never *really* donated.

Re:Next you'll be outraged that microsoft donates

[Etcetera]

Because directly donating the product doesn't get you a tax break. Donating cash, and then requiring that the funds buy your product gets you a tax break on money you never *really* donated.

Mod parent insightful. OS licenses are free and are exactly why education licenses can be given out rather cheaply to begin with.

A "donation" to purchase my own products is just money laundering.

Get the stick out of your ass!

[Macdude]

You're complaining about how an organization chooses to donate money to help people because they are not donating their money in the exact way that you want them to?

Get the stick out of your ass, donate your own money as you see fit and shut the hell up!

Re:Get the stick out of your ass!

[ganjadude]

this times 1000

Found the person who has never donated anything

[raymorris]

When you donate property, the deduction from taxable income is the fair market value of the item. That's why the charity gives you a receipt listing the value of the item. Most of the time, that makes sense. Our family donated a $10,000 car. We could have sold the car and donated the $10,000, which the charity would use to buy a car (perhaps our car). Why jump through hoops buying and selling when we can just give the charity what they need?

When Microsoft gives Windows to schools (allows schools to force students to use Windows), Microsoft deducts the "fair market value" of 10,000 copies of Windows.

You may recall the Clintons donated their used underwear and listed the value at $2 - $15 per pair. The reason they listed the value was because the Clintons were treating each pair of used underwear as a tax deduction of $2-$15. The Salvation Army says they're worth max $1/pair, so that's probably tax fraud.

Buy More

[Anonymous Coward]

Christmas is 100% about you buying and buying into things. Seems like Google has the best sort of Christmas spirit.

Re:Next you'll be outraged that microsoft donates

[Anonymous Coward]

Still not explained. The OS licenses aren't free. Go try to take one from the shelf. Won't work.

Re:Next you'll be outraged that microsoft donates

[ganjadude]

yes it does, you can write off the products you donate. where do you get the idea you cant??

Don't look a gift horse in the mouth

[Anonymous Coward]

Some people will complain about anything

Re:Next you'll be outraged that microsoft donates

[Anonymous Coward]

Because directly donating the product doesn't get you a tax break.

Since when? In most jurisdictions it does. You tax deduct at full commercial value.

Andrew Orlowski

[ysth]

If he isn't getting paid under the table for his decades of relentless google-bashing, he's an idiot.

It really isn't worth reading anything he writes. Even when he has an interesting story or information to share, his biases make anything he says untrustworthy.

Blaming the wrong thing

[Solandri]

"The most critical learning resources that teachers need are often exercise books, pen and paper, but incentives built into the process steer educators to request and receive Google hardware, rather than humble classroom staples,"

The U.S. is near the top in education spending per student among OECD countries (change Perspectives to "primary to non-tertiary" to eliminate college costs). Only Austria, Norway, Switzerland, and Luxembourg spend more. If a U.S. teacher doesn't have enough money for "humble classroom staples" like exercise books, and pen and paper, it is not Google's fault.

About 5 years ago I stumbled across a full internal accounting report of a local school district online. The biggest expense wasn't teacher salaries, classroom supplies, or building construction and maintenance. It was administrative salaries. Think about that. The administrators at the school - the people who sit in offices, push paper, and rarely interact with parents or kids - take a bigger chunk of the school's budget than the teachers.

I'm convinced the administrators massage the numbers to cover their tracks in the official budgets. You can see a side-effect of this in the published stats. According to ED, the salaries of teachers, student support, and instructional staff is $4271, $388, and $291 per student respectively - total $4950. The benefits these teachers resceive is $1596, $142, and $102 per student - $1840 total.

The student to teacher ratio has been about 16:1 since 2000. So according to these ED stats, the average teacher salary is $80,000/yr, and benefits just under $30k/yr. Yet ED lists the average teacher salary as just $56,383. These numbers don't match up, not by a long shot. My hunch is administrators have shifted some of their salaries into the teacher salary figures to hide just how big a slice of the pie they're taking.

I suspect what's going on is a scam of epic proportions. Every time the education budget is cut, instead of applying the cuts to the least important programs and staff like any good business, the administrators apply the cuts to the most essential items like exercise books, pen and paper. They tell the teachers there's not enough money in the budget, and the teachers go into a frenzy telling the public we're not spending enough on education. When the education budget is increased, the administrators spend a few dollars per student to restore the textbooks, pen and paper, and siphon off most of the increase for themselves. How else can you explain teachers not having money for exercise books, pen and paper, when we spend more on education per student than all but 4 other countries on Earth?

Anyhow, Google is donating money - giving it for free. Don't look a gift horse in the mouth. Yeah it would've been great if the donation didn't have restrictions on how the money was to be used. But from the school's perspective, a donation with restrictions is still better than no donation at all.

Re:Blaming the wrong thing

[wisnoskij]

But that is the entire point. Sure Google donates a little to the school board, but they do that so to get billion dollar orders of classroom tech. While Administrative salaries are a problem, that does not mean their are not other problems. And Google is not giving away money, they are running a campaign to sell more units, at the expense of our school system. They are not idiots, they know Google Tablets will provide zero benefit to children's education.

Re:Blaming the wrong thing

[JaredOfEuropa]

Administrative bloat is a plague over here as well, and not just in schools; health care suffers from the same problem. I recently visited a high school and was surprised at the size of the administrative wing. My old high school (about 30 years ago) only had a handful of non-teaching staff: a janitor, lab assistants, cafetaria staff, librarian, and 2 secretaries. There was no school director, we had a rector to run the school, but this did not take up all of his time and he taught Latin as well. Some stuff like cleaning was outsourced, but it was easy to see that most of the school's budget went towards actual education.

Re:Blaming the wrong thing

[Anonymous Coward]

When comparing spending, averages can be misleading. Could be that there are just a few 'elite' schools that pull that average up so much. I suspect the spending is more evenly divided in those other countries.

Re:Blaming the wrong thing

[larryjoe]

About 5 years ago I stumbled across a full internal accounting report of a local school district online. The biggest expense wasn't teacher salaries, classroom supplies, or building construction and maintenance. It was administrative salaries. Think about that. The administrators at the school - the people who sit in offices, push paper, and rarely interact with parents or kids - take a bigger chunk of the school's budget than the teachers.

It's possible that your suggestion that administrators claim a lack of funds for supplies in order to garner government support for budget increases may be true. However, the assertion that administrator salaries are greater than that of teachers is not believable. For example, for my local school district in the previous school year, teacher salaries were $65.5 million versus $8.7 million for administrators. I'm confident that it's similar for the vast majority of school districts simply because there many more teachers than administrators, and while administrator salaries are usually larger than teacher salaries, the ratio of average administrator to teacher salaries is far lower than the ratio of teachers to administrators.

Re:Next you'll be outraged that microsoft donates

[Half-pint HAL]

The cost of donation is (almost) zero, because of the unit cost. MS make their profit off people and corporate/institutional bodies with money. Institutions without money are not a target market, so there is no opportunity cost in donating either.

Did you know why CEOs get paid more for layoffs?

[rsilvergun]

It's because companies are allowed to buy back their own stock. It sounds weird, but that used to be against the law. Something about manipulating their own stock prices. Well, after that little rule change CEOs started being paid in stock and most of their pay was made by cashing out that stock. This is why raising the stock prices is job # 1 for a CEO. The easiest way to do that is buy backs, and the easiest way to do that is to score some quick cash in the form of outsourcing and layoffs.

As a funny little aside it was the Regan administration who was responsible for that little rule change.

Not their job

[Anonymous Coward]

... for basic school supplies ...

Google isn't offering welfare, it's not their job to keep the school 'alive'. They're offering a gift the school can't afford buy itself. It's not an altruistic gift, since the school has to spend time and money to integrate it into teaching/student activities. Plus, Google indirectly benefits from everyone using their technology.

Google's charity purchases Google products?

[Anonymous Coward]

This sounds awesome! A company that produces goods creates a charity that collects money to help the poor and a portion of the money collected goes to purchasing products from the company. The company does not lose any revenue while at the same time they appear to be charitable because those products got to the poor. The bottom line is solid profit. Have OTHER people donate the money to purchase your products while appearing that your company is charitable! Brilliant!

On the other hand, if said company decided to donate the products directly to the poor at no cost, they would have lower revenue and smaller if any profit even though they were just as charitable.

There is no such thing as philanthropy

[Anonymous Coward]

The Gates Foundation has been doing the same shit for years. Oh, an international movement to relax patents on life-saving drugs? How about a "charitable" "humanitarian" "donation" to desperate governments to make them forget about the whole idea?.

Reminds me of Microsoft

[HalAtWork]

Many of their charity gifts and settlements were in the form of MS software, hardware, training, and support contracts

This is over the top

[SmaryJerry]

Now people are criticizing charities for not giving what the want them to give? Okay guys, if you want "pencils" that bad maybe sell a chrome book or two or simply don't accept the charity if it is soooo bad. If you can't get "pencils" for your school you have bigger problems than getting the wrong type of charity.

Re:This is over the top

[Anonymous Coward]

Corporate charity is great. Picking and choosing what they donate to is their choice.

But relying on corporate charity is beyond stupid, because corporations sometimes lose money, and would not be able to donate for a quarter, or two, or a few years.

Not directed at anyone in particular... the world cannot rely on charity. Either accept that we are all in this together or say, out loud, so we can all hear you, that we're all on our own, and if you ever find yourself in a bad spot, the rest of us should keep walking.

We have reached peak theodp

[Anonymous Coward]

'nuff said.

Nice summary, Editor David

[Darkness Of Course]

Well done, many times summaries and the articles, as claimed by the submitter, are wildly different. Not always click-bait but distinctly not accurate. The closing paragraph clarified the attitude of the article, such that clicking on it would be a waste of time. We even have some comments that aren't only from the 'you must hate google' crowd.

Re: Did you know why CEOs get paid more for layoff

[Anonymous Coward]

The Reagan administration that has a majority democratic congress that wrote that law? Whoops. Sorry you believed the fake news.

OMG!

[Dishevel]

Google gave contributions to people and entities that may align with their interests?
Fuck that! Either give and make sure it benefits you in no way whatsoever of keep your fucking money.

Fucking triggered fucking socialist scum. Left leaning fucktards that spend all their time demanding what other people should be forced to do for the poor while never giving a dime in charity and bitching that those that do give to charity should feel bad because it dose not align with your shitty, fucked up and useless views.

Author should shut the fuck up forever.