7.3 Earthquake hits Haiti; Tsunami feared

[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.