The Eagle Will Not Fly Without the Poor

[GlennSter]

basically uls is saying na everything will trickle down to the poor and because of this effect without the poor walang yayaman. Pero pilosopo lang talaga ung pagsabi niya

it seems like it does because the poor out numbers the rich a billionfold.

but if you will really think about it...umiikot lang talaga yansa lahat ng tao.mayaman ka man o mahirap.but then..since pilosopo ang sinabi niya..then so be it.not a problem with me.

m54: you thought the forum was boring ha... herhehrehr...

[empy]

m54: you thought the forum was boring ha... herhehrehr...

medyo nakakatamad na basahin yung mga civic vs sentra vs mazda3 comparisons hehehe....no offense to anyone

[ILuvDetailing]

The basic arguement of this thread is whether those who donates to charities do it out of goodwill or have a hidden agenda whether possitive or negative. My view is that we should give the benefit of the doubt because it is totally unfair to those people/companies who do it out of goodwill. It is better to give for whatever reason than not do anything and criticize.

Sumakit ulo ko sa mga arguments dito

[uls]

What u do for a living? If u have a business. who are your customers? where do they get the money to pay for the goods or services u sell?

If u work for a company. Where does the company get money to pay your salary? Who are the company's customers? Where do those customers get the money to buy the goods or services ur employer sells?

If ur a professional. who are your customers? saan galing pera nila?

Pilosopo ba? oo sige. mali ba?

Mali ba that i look beyond my immediate surroundings? Mali ba that im concerned that if my customers are having a hard time making money, they would buy less goods or services from me?

If im selling electronic gadgets to gadget freaks, i would like my gadget-freak customers to make lots of money in their business or work coz the more money they make, the more gadgets they buy.

If im selling car accessories, i would like the economy to be healthy coz if the economy is healthy, people would be buying lots of new cars and they would come to my shop to buy accessories for their new cars.

If im SM, i would like people to have lots of disposable income coz if people have more disposable income, they go shopping.

Mali ba? pilosopo sige. hindi mali.

[prinsipe]

mga sir, with all the post here, hopefully may na inspire sa atin na tumulong sa mga mahihirap ng kababayan natin...praying for this every day.

"Do not be content in finding artificial security in gated subdivisions when you can provide yourself a buffer of peace by caring for the needy around you. Nor be content with living in first world luxury in a third world environment and contributing to the discontent and the growing threats around the security of your own family.

Give value to the land of your birth by sharing with those who for generations have been deprived of its use and abundance. Be a blessing to your children's future by making it your responsibility to be father or mother to the abandoned and neglected.

Be the healing of the soul of this nation and the fulfillment of the dream that we have forgotten.

Be the proud Filipino that we are not yet, but soon will be.

Be the hero who finds courage and the conviction that this country is worth saving, because it is a gift from God and that your life is meaningless if it is not dedicated to the fulfillment of a divine destiny to be a great people."

Peace!

God Bless us!

[Flagg]

No offense to you sir M54, but IMHO sir uls is right to say a company's charitable donation would still be fundamentally profit-driven for the simple reason that a company is subject to GAAP accounting. If you debit your cash, you have to credit something else. Goodwill perhaps, or marketing expense (para mabawasan sa taxable income). This is speaking of a company as a singular entity. Of course, this cold financial logic does not extend to the motives behind activities initiated by employees or shareholders like those admirably undertaken by your menyek self (single mom, ha?).

Sir uls, whatever the reasons for charity, IMHO it is still the correct thing to do. From a purely technical standpoint, you can see it as the wider distribution of resources for fuller exploitation, and thus more beneficial to the community.

For example: Instead of repatriating extra earnings, P&G runs a charity program to help youth go to school in-line with it's 'Tolits' campaign. A destitute's daughter can now go to school because of this. Since he doesn't pay tuition, he now has some extra disposable income. He can go buy some Tide (benefitting P&G) so her clothes are clean & white (pansinin!) & win a gold star. His purchase will help Tide's volume, keeping it's production in the Philippines rather than having it shipped out to some regional factory (benefit to the community). The P&G money has earned more than its value! Not only has it been claimed as an expense, it has now returned as sales!

Of course, instead of Tide, he can also go buy Ginebra. It won't help his daughter, but it will keep Ginebra going.

Finally, to give everything away is not necessarily better because there is one member of the community who does not benefit - the donor.
(eg:
Donor : Eto BMW ko.
Charity : Ambait-bait ninyo sir! A sir, ano ginagawa nyo?....
Donor : Eto, pati brief ko...
Charity : A sir, sayo nalang po yan, *ubo ubo* . )

[empy]

No offense to you sir M54, but IMHO sir uls is right to say a company's charitable donation would still be fundamentally profit-driven for the simple reason that a company is subject to GAAP accounting. If you debit your cash, you have to credit something else. Goodwill perhaps, or marketing expense (para mabawasan sa taxable income). This is speaking of a company as a singular entity. Of course, this cold financial logic does not extend to the motives behind activities initiated by employees or shareholders like those admirably undertaken by your menyek self (single mom, ha?).

i will not deny that a charitable company or individual will turn a blind eye towards the tax benefits, or not care about them. that is not true, of course. but again, it cannot be the sole motive - the math simply doesn't work. if my corporate tax rate is 40%, i can reduce my tax obligation by 40 pesos for every 100 pesos i donate. give 100, get back 40. that's a return on equity of -60%. surely you can find a better investment for your money than one that loses you 60 pesos for every 100 you put in :lol:

and any company that donates to charity purely for the pogi points, because they think it's the best way to boost revenues from the masa, is just plain stupid. all the formal research i've ever read on customer behavior (this is my day job) list "good citizenship" or "charitable giving" way way way down the priority list of things they look for in a company, if at all.

if i wanted to spend my marketing dollars and get the maximum return, i'll launch an advertising campaign. or buy a PBA team, hehe.

chaka hindi maganda yung single mom

[oldblue]

if i wanted to spend my marketing dollars and get the maximum return, i'll launch an advertising campaign. or buy a PBA team, hehe.

chaka hindi maganda yung single mom

investing in a poor community can have a very good return. for example, boracay in the 70's. just like any other beach in the Phils. boracay was just a common beach. and look at it now. now I hear that a beach in Basilan is even more beautiful than Boracay.

all it takes is one or more companies to conduct an outreach/charity program in that war-torn region of our world and the rest can be history ...

that's how our "food chain" works. the rich/big business dont invent nor discover. they only take the credit and of course, invest. charity can be a vehicle for an investment for it is tapping on one of the most important resource ever known: people.

is it not uncommon their in the states that companies give grants to universities/scholars (students who cant fund their own education) and others of similar form of charity?

[empy]

investing in a poor community can have a very good return. for example, boracay in the 70's. just like any other beach in the Phils. boracay was just a common beach. and look at it now. now I hear that a beach in Basilan is even more beautiful than Boracay.

all it takes is one or more companies to conduct an outreach/charity program in that war-torn region of our world and the rest can be history ...

i'm not familiar with Boracay and Basilan. was the story that an investor came in, beautified the beach, set up a resort and gave jobs to the community? ibang usapan na yan, and don't confuse that with charity. that's an investment, plain and simple. perhaps helping some poor folks was a very nice secondary benefit, but the investors are obviously there to set up a business.

that's how our "food chain" works. the rich/big business dont invent nor discover. they only take the credit and of course, invest. charity can be a vehicle for an investment for it is tapping on one of the most important resource ever known: people.

is it not uncommon their in the states that companies give grants to universities/scholars (students who cant fund their own education) and others of similar form of charity?

yes, they do. but they will only get a direct return if those students or scholars come to work for the company. that doesnt always happen, and they dont usually bond the scholar to work for them. if i wanted to invest in people and get the return myself, i would take my high-potential employees, send them to school, and promote them to management when they come back. again, much more direct benefit.

let me reiterate that i am not saying that charitable works do not benefit a company financially. YES, THEY DO - sometimes directly, but usually indirectly. i am only saying that financial gain cannot be the ONLY reason to give...because it just doesn't make sense economically.

[oldblue]

i'm not familiar with Boracay and Basilan. was the story that an investor came in, beautified the beach, set up a resort and gave jobs to the community? ibang usapan na yan, and don't confuse that with charity. that's an investment, plain and simple. perhaps helping some poor folks was a very nice secondary benefit, but the investors are obviously there to set up a business.

sa ngaun yan ang tingin natin lahat, investors came in and invested. after all nth generation na tayo ng Filipinos, who knows the truth behind that. what i'm just saying is if you give charity to a local isolated & poor community, then that community becomes productive in say 15 years or so.
productivity in a sense that it became an expert of halo-halo or chicken inasal or any other unique product, then charity becomes an investment. and like investments, it also takes years to have return (longterm/shortterm) and perhaps zero return (kung nagsara na yun company na nag-charity years ago).

let's take for example Camp Abubakar of the MILF, now it has been retaken by the govt. and charity/outreach from companies are pouring in that desolate place. who knows what will happen 10 years from now, maybe that area can become a nationwide supplier of vinta silk or whatever. the same thing with having outreach programs in the Mountain Province. it might be possible that that is the only push that those people need to discover another gold mine.

yan na kasi ang definition ko ng charity, maybe bec. I read it somewhere before about investments of big businesses. somehow a percentage of their profits are diversified to charity. and I believe that big businesses have been doing this for quite some time now. iba kasi view natin talaga sa charity, parang may religious context. and I understand naman na ganito talaga but try to put yourselves in businessmen's shoes. you'll see.