7.3 Earthquake hits Haiti; Tsunami feared

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by bignasty

Like I told you the first two times the minimum that has to go to the victims is only 10%.

Like I told you, you're wrong.

Originally Posted by bignasty

John Stossel did a story for 20/20 a few years ago on the Red Cross and non profits. Some of the execs in the story were making 6 or 7 figures. According to Stossel only 10% of the donations had to go to the victims and as much as 90% could be spent on expenses.

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by bignasty

I am right. Cite a source proving me wrong.

No problem.

To be tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, an organization must be organized and operated exclusively for exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3), and none of its earnings may inure to any private shareholder or individual. In addition, it may not be an action organization, i.e., it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates.

Organizations described in section 501(c)(3) are commonly referred to as charitable organizations. Organizations described in section 501(c)(3), other than testing for public safety organizations, are eligible to receive tax-deductible contributions in accordance with Code section 170.

The organization must not be organized or operated for the benefit of private interests, and no part of a section 501(c)(3) organization's net earnings may inure to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual. If the organization engages in an excess benefit transaction with a person having substantial influence over the organization, an excise tax may be imposed on the person and any organization managers agreeing to the transaction.

Section 501(c)(3) organizations are restricted in how much political and legislative (lobbying) activities they may conduct.

Source: http://www.irs.gov/charities/charita...=96099,00.html

To recap:

1) The expenses of a non-profit (administrative, fundraising, programming) must be tied directly to its exempt purposes.

2) Expenses may not inure to any private shareholder or individual, meaning that no single person can benefit unreasonably from a non-profit's activities.

3) Expenses cannot go toward attempting to influence legislation as a substantial part of the non-profit's activities.

These are the rules.

In reality, a non-profit can spend 100% of its revenue on salaries if it wanted to, as long as no private inurement took place.

There is no such thing as a 10%/90% rule as you're suggesting. Either you heard wrong or the "reporter" was blowing smoke.

[Senusret I]

Originally Posted by shimano

The legal minimum is 10% and the maximum is obviously 100%. The 90% that I mentioned was the max that a charity can spend on administrative costs, ads, fundraising, overhead, junkets to Hawaii, ect.

Which is not true.

[Senusret I]

Originally Posted by shimano

Then prove it. Posting the max does not dispute my post of the minimum.

There is no law that can be referenced which supports your assertion. I actually think you're confused -- perhaps you are familiar with a specific grant which requires that figure and you're misinterpreting that for a hard and fast rule in every situation.

The sources have already been cited.

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by shimano

Are you an idiot? Your post does not dispute anything. I said the legal MINIMUM a charity has to spend on the victims is 10%. You reply with a charity can spend 100%. No Shirlock.

The legal minimum is 10% and the maximum is obviously 100%. The 90% that I mentioned was the max that a charity can spend on administrative costs, ads, fundraising, overhead, junkets to Hawaii, ect.

If you had told me you had a reading comprehension problem, I would have tried to break it down further. My post presents the law. There is no law that states any legal minimum that the Red Cross must spend on victims.

A charity can spend 100% on administrative costs if it so chooses. However, charities tend to follow recommendations from various national non-profit watchdog organizations and attempt to make themselves look good to donors by limiting their overhead and fundraising/development costs.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by preciousjeni

If you had told me you had a reading comprehension problem, I would have tried to break it down further.

I think he has a you're-banned-we-don't-want-you-here-go-away comprehension problem.

It's really pointless to respond to or argue with him -- it just gives him the attention he so obviously craves, and he's going to get banned again anyway.

[Psi U MC Vito]

Originally Posted by shimano

If that is the case then that is even worse. The victims will get ZERO. You tried to prove me wrong but doing so you made my point.

No you dumbass, she proved you wrong. What she was saying was that there is no legal limit to the amount of spending on administration that a nonprofit can do.

[Senusret I]

Originally Posted by shimano

If that is the case then that is even worse. The victims will get ZERO. You tried to prove me wrong but doing so you made my point.

Salaries are an important part of nonprofit work. You have to fairly (if not competitively) compensate those who are in the field. You get what you pay for -- good leadership nets good results.

I'm not saying that organizations who are specifically requesting Haitian relief should be giving their executives bonuses. When you run a campaign for a specific cause, that funding should go to that cause.

But general direct public appeals (annual fund, for example) can, should, and do go toward the organization in whatever way the organization sees fit, which usually is salary and operating costs, because the direct service components are often paid for by other grants and donations.

And to look at at another way, if my organization got a donation of ten million dollars RIGHT NOW that was earmarked specifically for surgeries for cleft palates, that would be money wasted ultimately, because it far outweighs the need. Realistically, two million of that could go toward cleft palates, and the rest could go toward purchasing a state-of-the-art facility and competitive salaries.

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by shimano

Are you an idiot? Your post does not dispute anything. I said the legal MINIMUM a charity has to spend on the victims is 10%. You reply with a charity can spend 100%. No Shirlock.

The legal minimum is 10% and the maximum is obviously 100%. The 90% that I mentioned was the max that a charity can spend on administrative costs, ads, fundraising, overhead, junkets to Hawaii, ect.

She said "In reality, a non-profit can spend 100% of its revenue on salaries if it wanted to, as long as no private inurement took place." She did not say that a charity can spend on victims. She said they can spend 100% on SALARIES.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by bignasty

I am right. Cite a source proving me wrong.

LOL. You really are too funny. To quote an "authority:"

Originally Posted by bignasty

Look it up yourself.

Originally Posted by bignasty

I don't need help making the point. I already made it.

Hey, you're the one who set the rule that we can claim whatever we want without backing it up. (And sorry, Stossel as an authority is just plain laughable.)

Whatever. At the end of the day, you're still wrong. And sad.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by bignasty

I am right. Cite a source proving me wrong.