Posted on 09/21/2013 2:12:57 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
India's government still struggles to provide reliable basic services to a majority of its citizens, trapping hundreds of millions of them in poverty. Now the country's richest firms have been told they must help.
Under the new amended Companies Act passed last month by parliament, large businesses have been asked to spend 2.0 percent of their profits each year on "Corporate Social Responsibility" (CSR).
"The idea is that if we could divert some corporate energy and the corporate way of doing business into our development sector, for a country like India it could help enormously," the head of the Indian Institute of Corporate Affairs (IICA), Bhaskar Chatterjee, explained to AFP.
CSR is broadly -- some say vaguely -- defined in the law to mean funding programmes for education, poverty alleviation, protecting the environment or tackling disease, among others.
It's one of the first such laws of its kind in the world, promising a cash bonanza for charities and non-government organisations (NGOs) while raising serious concerns the funds could worsen India's endemic corruption...
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Get rid of the caste system.
But the DNC insist we keep ours.
hmmm Forced Charity.....Interesting...Interesting...
I suspect that His Barack Hussien Obama will use this incident as a benchmark of some sort....and SOON.
Let me tell you what just happened. The accounting rules just changed. There will be no more profits. Money will get moved off-shore. Businesses will relocate.
France passed a law that some relatively small percentage of art sales had to go to the living relatives of long dead artists. (No word on figuring out who was related to whom.) Virtually all of the art sales moved to England and New York. I don’t think they collected a single red cent.
We have that system in the U.S. - it is run by the IRS.
Wonder who the charities are (really)?
Otherwise known as a tax.
And all taxes are eventually passed on to consumers.
India’s problem is NOT a lack of wealth, it goes far, far FAR deeper than that. And money isn’t going to have any effect on it, either.
libs - forced giving == charity
conservatives - voluntary giving == charity. forced giving == taxes
it is not charity, if you are forced to do it.
Over here, we call it the "individual mandate."
Over here, they tell us that we're forced to pay for our OWN health care, but we know that we're really paying for someone else's health care.
In fact, our own health care will be rationed, while the health care for others will be open-ended.
And then they plan to open the borders and make us pay for the world's health care.
-PJ
“libs - forced giving == charity” Wrong Secret Agent Man. Forced giving equates to robbery. The imminent threat of the use of force, or fear of force being used, to relieve someone of their property, constitutes a crime. There are no differences between forced charity or taxes for that matter, particularly when government reaches the point of being the sole determining agent for how the funds are used.
I’ll leave it at that.
Honestly, it’s probably more efficient than funneling the money through a government run welfare agency.
A lot of companies force the United Way down employees’ throats.
On the plus side, they then say that "our company donated $100k to the United Way."
How many times does something like this have to happen before people realize the government can’t deliver on all it promises?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.