If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(KATU)   Oregon passes law to take away charitable tax deductions for charities that devote less that 70% of funds towards actual charity work   (katu.com) divider line 121
    More: Hero, funds, Oregon, itemized deduction, tax breaks, local taxes, Oregon Department of Justice  
•       •       •

5443 clicks; posted to Main » on 30 Jun 2013 at 5:59 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



121 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-06-30 06:00:34 PM
Good. Next, churches.
 
2013-06-30 06:00:52 PM
Even charities have operating costs.
 
2013-06-30 06:03:20 PM

phillydrifter: Even charities have operating costs.


I don't think anybody disputes that. However, when operating costs, marketing and 'awareness' campaigns (which is just marketing under a different cost code) take up 70% of the budget, there is a problem.
 
2013-06-30 06:03:39 PM
Yeah, well let's make it illegal for politicians to spend more than 30% of their time fundraising, then.
 
2013-06-30 06:03:49 PM
Subby has it backwards - it takes away tax breaks for charities that spend  more than 70% of their donations on management, etc. So as long as you still spend 30% or more on charity you're still in the clear.

Good move, but it still seems like a very conservative number. Why not 50%?
 
2013-06-30 06:04:17 PM

phillydrifter: Even charities have operating costs.


And even the automotive industry has federally regulated MPG standards.

Same difference. If they can mandate how many miles per gallon a car has to achieve, they can regulate how much of your funds must be donated to be considered a tax exempt charity.
 
2013-06-30 06:05:50 PM

phillydrifter: Even charities have operating costs.


If your operating cost if more than 30% of what goes to helping people besides yourself, maybe you need to rethink your charity's structure.

Some charities are real, some are basically a scam. I don't have a problem with the government trying to regulate what was become an industry so that there is less fraud and the money actually goes to what people think it will.
 
2013-06-30 06:07:16 PM

SockMonkeyHolocaust: Yeah, well let's make it illegal for politicians to spend more than 30% of their time fundraising, then.


I'm OK with this too.
If I were dictator in charge for life, campaigns would be publicly funded and equally split among the candidates. Outside donations would be banned as well. Your idea sounds like a good start.
 
2013-06-30 06:07:41 PM
shiat now my charity has to flat out lie, or I have to have several barely legit charities to pay for my lifestyle
 
2013-06-30 06:08:23 PM

b-ham: Good move, but it still seems like a very conservative number. Why not 50%?


They might be anticipating having to defend this law in court. It might be more feasible to do so if they're only going after the worst offenders.
 
2013-06-30 06:08:53 PM

JesusJuice: Good. Next, churches.


Why are you against the separation of church & state?
 
2013-06-30 06:08:59 PM

b-ham: Subby has it backwards - it takes away tax breaks for charities that spend  more than 70% of their donations on management, etc. So as long as you still spend 30% or more on charity you're still in the clear.

Good move, but it still seems like a very conservative number. Why not 50%?


Deserves reiteration.
 
2013-06-30 06:11:14 PM
Everyone always talks about the worst charities. But what about the good ones? Farkers, which ones do you always give to knowing that the money is going to be used for what is intended for?
 
2013-06-30 06:11:22 PM
never mind F.T.A.

"The law will eliminate state and local tax subsidies for charities that spend more than 70 percent of donations on management and fundraising over three years "

we'll just go out of business and start a new one every two years

/more cynical than usual today
 
2013-06-30 06:11:55 PM
Cool, hero tag deserved.
 
2013-06-30 06:12:22 PM
So, Oregonians For Sharpening Satan's Horns is still okay? Amen. Oops, I mean Kiss the Devil.
 
2013-06-30 06:12:25 PM

ambercat: phillydrifter: Even charities have operating costs.

If your operating cost if more than 30% of what goes to helping people besides yourself, maybe you need to rethink your charity's structure.

Some charities are real, some are basically a scam. I don't have a problem with the government trying to regulate what was become an industry so that there is less fraud and the money actually goes to what people think it will.


Hard to draw a line there.  Is it a scam at 69%?

A lot of "purposes", the work is a lot of it.  For example, Make-A-Wish may get a football player to visit a dying child.  The football player isn't gonna be billing for this.  The plane ticket, sure, the charity can pay that.  A lot of it probably comes down to hiring someone with connections to make these calls and make this happen.  So it MAY appear the majority goes to "executive pay", but really I don't know how to judge it.
 
2013-06-30 06:14:05 PM
my charity only donates 0.01%  the other half goes to child pornography.  what's wrong
 
2013-06-30 06:14:49 PM
But how am I going to feel good about myself and all of my philanthropy if the charities I donate to can't lavish me and my guests at black-tie galas and million dollar awareness events?

What then?! How am I supposed to show everyone how much I care about  *insert cause here*if our pictures aren't on the B8 page of the local newspaper? Why bother anymore?

This is nonsense. It's all about awareness.

/Pay attention to me and my good deeds!!!!! LOOK AT ME!!!!
 
2013-06-30 06:14:55 PM

mekki: Everyone always talks about the worst charities. But what about the good ones? Farkers, which ones do you always give to knowing that the money is going to be used for what is intended for?


Charity Navigator helps sort stuff out.
 
2013-06-30 06:15:39 PM

mekki: Everyone always talks about the worst charities. But what about the good ones? Farkers, which ones do you always give to knowing that the money is going to be used for what is intended for?


I hate you all so I quite giving.

legion_of_doo: JesusJuice: Good. Next, churches.

Why are you against the separation of church & state?


lol......He wants to tax Jesus's helicopter blades.
 
2013-06-30 06:15:50 PM

b-ham: Subby has it backwards - it takes away tax breaks for charities that spend  more than 70% of their donations on management, etc. So as long as you still spend 30% or more on charity you're still in the clear.

Good move, but it still seems like a very conservative number. Why not 50%?


Yeah - I've basically stopped giving to charities because I don't know how the money will be spent.  I don't mind giving, but if most of my money is not actually going to help the cause I'm giving to then screw that.

If they can't even tell me how my money will be spent then I actually would rather give it to some homeless person on the street even if there's a good chance it will just be wasted on booze or drugs.

The most annoying charity grabs are the ones in the check out lines at PetSmart or Target.  "Would you like to donate a  dollar?"  As if you're some sort of scrooge if you don't cough up a 100 pennies while you're spending $50 on merchandise.

PetSmart asks for money for animals.  You know what, PetSmart?  Every single penny I spend at your store is going to a once homeless animal.

I'm really tempted to start my own charity.  You send me your dollars and tell me what cause you support and I promise to at least forward at least 30 cents on each dollar to whoever you want me to.
 
2013-06-30 06:16:30 PM
quit
 
2013-06-30 06:16:51 PM
So, 100% of them.

www.roadkilltshirts.com
 
2013-06-30 06:17:03 PM

mekki: Everyone always talks about the worst charities. But what about the good ones? Farkers, which ones do you always give to knowing that the money is going to be used for what is intended for?


Human Fund
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2013-06-30 06:17:28 PM
State officials and nonprofit leaders believe Oregon is the first state in the nation to pass a charity law that punishes nonprofits that spend too little of their money on their missions.

Massachusetts disallows charitable deductions for all charities. Politicians repealed a voter initiative to allow deducting charitable donations.
 
2013-06-30 06:18:51 PM
The last episode of Econtalk takes on this very issue and, as with many things, folks sometimes miss the point with the "use of overhead as a measure of effectiveness."  Germain to this issue.
 
2013-06-30 06:20:48 PM

gmpilot: Good move, but it still seems like a very conservative number. Why not 50%?

Deserves reiteration.


Iteration is exactly what I expect to happen here.

The goal of the law is presumably to get poorly managed charities to clean up their acts and do more good.  If they start off too strict, it'll probably just convince a lot of shysters and a few legit charities to get out of the game entirely, and the net result would be fewer charity dollars used to help people.

Assuming the version of the law with the 30% rule passes judicial muster and has positive results, I would expect versions requiring 40% and later 50% to come down the pike later.
 
2013-06-30 06:20:55 PM
The law will eliminate state and local tax subsidies for charities that spend more than 70 percent of donations on management and fundraising over three years, the Statesman-Journal reported. The measure, House Bill 2060, was signed by the governor in June.

While not the 70% of funds towards actual charity work, I think this is good to focus on is the reduction in spending on management and fundraising. What else is there to a charity besides management, fundraising, and actual charity work? No idea, but f*ck if you are spending 70% or more of your charitable donations on management and fundraising how good could your management be to think spending this outrageous sum also on fundraising was a good idea for a charity? What could you do with say 50% maximum spend on those? You would have to make an enormous sum for the reduction in fundraising and management in this way to hurt actual charitable contributions.
 
2013-06-30 06:21:16 PM

ZAZ: State officials and nonprofit leaders believe Oregon is the first state in the nation to pass a charity law that punishes nonprofits that spend too little of their money on their missions.

Massachusetts disallows charitable deductions for all charities. Politicians repealed a voter initiative to allow deducting charitable donations.


But Massachusetts probably doesn't yank the charities property tax exemption if they aren't putting enough of their revenue into their claimed cause.
 
2013-06-30 06:24:00 PM

gmpilot: b-ham: Subby has it backwards - it takes away tax breaks for charities that spend  more than 70% of their donations on management, etc. So as long as you still spend 30% or more on charity you're still in the clear.

Good move, but it still seems like a very conservative number. Why not 50%?

Deserves reiteration.


Arguably, I could see some new charity starting out very small having problems getting beyond that point in the first 3 years.
 
2013-06-30 06:25:32 PM

Krieghund: b-ham: Good move, but it still seems like a very conservative number. Why not 50%?

They might be anticipating having to defend this law in court. It might be more feasible to do so if they're only going after the worst offenders.


You mean the court of public opinion.  There's nothing legal that would stop them from taxing any and all charitable donations.

Way back before the Do Not Call list was even mentioned, I remember the confused stammering I heard from people asking for donations when I would ask how much would actually go towards whatever cause they were begging for.
 
2013-06-30 06:26:10 PM

gfid: If they can't even tell me how my money will be spent then I actually would rather give it to some homeless person on the street even if there's a good chance it will just be wasted on booze or drugs.


Hey now, whattaya mean "wasted"??
 
2013-06-30 06:27:01 PM
[ctrl-f] school

Nothing?  Wow.  OK, I'll check back later.
 
2013-06-30 06:27:55 PM

Rising_Zan_Samurai_Gunman: gmpilot: b-ham: Subby has it backwards - it takes away tax breaks for charities that spend  more than 70% of their donations on management, etc. So as long as you still spend 30% or more on charity you're still in the clear.

Good move, but it still seems like a very conservative number. Why not 50%?

Deserves reiteration.

Arguably, I could see some new charity starting out very small having problems getting beyond that point in the first 3 years.


Then maybe it's not really a charity but is a small for employment or profit company with a bad business model, even if the stated intent is noble.
 
2013-06-30 06:29:24 PM
good law.
 
2013-06-30 06:32:09 PM

legion_of_doo: JesusJuice: Good. Next, churches.

Why are you against the separation of church & state?


Do you really think churches aren't involved in political activity?

It is political suicide to go after those that are, but one can dream.

That being said, a part from a belief in the supernatural, what makes a religious belief so precious that my drinking with lab/science coworkers while we discuss science can't be given an exempt status?

Not saying it's a religion, but at least it's an ethos.
 
2013-06-30 06:32:39 PM

ambercat: phillydrifter: Even charities have operating costs.

If your operating cost if more than 30% of what goes to helping people besides yourself, maybe you need to rethink your charity's structure.

Some charities are real, some are basically a scam. I don't have a problem with the government trying to regulate what was become an industry so that there is less fraud and the money actually goes to what people think it will.


^This.  Some do-gooders do awfully well for themselves, and are less than charitable when it comes to actually ensuring the money donated doesn't get sucked in by the middle men.

I'm so poor most Farkers wouldn't associate with me, but I do give a small amount to charity when I can.  Not because I'm a nice person, I'm not; I simply find perverse pleasure in the fact someone is worse off than me.  But I do pay attention to how much of the money goes on overheads and not directly to the cause.
 
2013-06-30 06:32:51 PM
Most charities are just another form of business, not actual "charity'.  Collect money, provide jobs, pay big salaries to 'Executives'.  Make people feel good as you scam them out of their money.

What we should do is pass a nation wide law that says a Non-Profit Charity may spend no more than 25% on Operating Costs.
 
2013-06-30 06:33:27 PM
"These organizations have found the business model of using a nonprofit as a cover for what's basically a telemarketing for-profit firm," White said. "They're giving charities and nonprofits a black eye and need to be gotten out of our midst."

And a 70% administrative spending cap isn't going to do that. Jesus, do you actually feel good about this?
If you're spending even half of your donations on "administrative costs" you have no business calling yourselves a charity.
 
2013-06-30 06:34:11 PM

SockMonkeyHolocaust: Yeah, well let's make it illegal for politicians to spend more than 30% of their time fundraising, then.


How about we just have publicly financed elections so they never have to go fundraising?
 
2013-06-30 06:39:57 PM

ACunningPlan: ambercat: phillydrifter: Even charities have operating costs.

If your operating cost if more than 30% of what goes to helping people besides yourself, maybe you need to rethink your charity's structure.

Some charities are real, some are basically a scam. I don't have a problem with the government trying to regulate what was become an industry so that there is less fraud and the money actually goes to what people think it will.

^This.  Some do-gooders do awfully well for themselves, and are less than charitable when it comes to actually ensuring the money donated doesn't get sucked in by the middle men.

I'm so poor most Farkers wouldn't associate with me, but I do give a small amount to charity when I can.  Not because I'm a nice person, I'm not; I simply find perverse pleasure in the fact someone is worse off than me.  But I do pay attention to how much of the money goes on overheads and not directly to the cause.


I would like to subscribe to your newsletter, reading that was refreshing.
 
2013-06-30 06:44:39 PM
The article says the law is actually even more conservative than the headline. The charities will lose status only if they spend more than 70% on overhead. This should be a no brainer at that level.
 
2013-06-30 06:48:56 PM

NutWrench: "These organizations have found the business model of using a nonprofit as a cover for what's basically a telemarketing for-profit firm," White said. "They're giving charities and nonprofits a black eye and need to be gotten out of our midst."

And a 70% administrative spending cap isn't going to do that. Jesus, do you actually feel good about this?
If you're spending even half of your donations on "administrative costs" you have no business calling yourselves a charity.


No, but a 30% might weed out some of the more fraudulent ones.
 
2013-06-30 06:49:02 PM

mekki: Everyone always talks about the worst charities. But what about the good ones? Farkers, which ones do you always give to knowing that the money is going to be used for what is intended for?


Only ones I ever give to is the HRC and the Phoenix center. Not sure if HRC counts its more a political action group but I don't make enough to try to use them as a tax deduction. Phoenix center is a local gay outreach center that provideds housing and counseling for people that are HIV+
 
2013-06-30 06:50:38 PM
 

NutWrench: "These organizations have found the business model of using a nonprofit as a cover for what's basically a telemarketing for-profit firm," White said. "They're giving charities and nonprofits a black eye and need to be gotten out of our midst."

And a 70% administrative spending cap isn't going to do that. Jesus, do you actually feel good about this?
If you're spending even half of your donations on "administrative costs" you have no business calling yourselves a charity.


Forgive me, I commented because I thought headline was accurate.  You are correct in this case, and this is completely pointless.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2013-06-30 06:52:20 PM
Rising_Zan_Samurai_Gunman

You're right, I missed that the Oregon law does two things: revoke the tax deduction and revoke the faux charity's exemption from taxation.
 
2013-06-30 06:52:46 PM
I wonder what percentage of taxpayer dollars is used by our government to benefit the public. That's probably impossible to know, and our politicians know it.
 
2013-06-30 06:53:51 PM

ambercat: mekki: Everyone always talks about the worst charities. But what about the good ones? Farkers, which ones do you always give to knowing that the money is going to be used for what is intended for?

Charity Navigator helps sort stuff out.


I love Charity Navigator.

for myself, but also the non-profit I work for has 3/4.  Which is fair, there's definitely room for improvement.  But it's incredibly helpful to be able to point (justifiably) skeptical people to the site.

/over 80% goes straight to the work, the rest administrative and fundraising
//every office also has access to IRS filings and we print them out for anyone who asks
//70% *administrative* isn't great, but it's a start - weed out the BLATANTLY obvious scams first, then refine
 
2013-06-30 06:53:53 PM

b-ham: Good move, but it still seems like a very conservative number. Why not 50%?


I think they're mainly targeting some widely-publicized overt shams that are on the public's mind. The ones who pay 98% of their donations to a for-profit telemarketing firm owned by the administrators of the non-profit. For locally run shams, this just means they'll have to reduce their profit margins, but for nationally-run shams which the article mentions specifically, they probably won't want to adjust their overall business model this radically for a single state.
 
2013-06-30 06:54:21 PM

mekki: Everyone always talks about the worst charities. But what about the good ones? Farkers, which ones do you always give to knowing that the money is going to be used for what is intended for?


http://feedingamerica.org/
 
2013-06-30 06:54:56 PM

mekki: Everyone always talks about the worst charities. But what about the good ones? Farkers, which ones do you always give to knowing that the money is going to be used for what is intended for?


The Shrine hospital is always a good one.  So is your local Masonic lodge's particular charity.  Mine does a big Bikes for Books campaign each year as well as a hearty blood drive.
 
2013-06-30 06:56:15 PM
"In related news, the Mormon church has announced they are pulling out of Oregon, citing "unspecified reasons.""
 
2013-06-30 07:01:02 PM
 
2013-06-30 07:04:05 PM
What if they are an "advocacy" group?

http://zwingliusredivivus.wordpress.com/2010/09/25/bonos-charity-isnt - at-all-charitable/
 
2013-06-30 07:10:51 PM
I've worked for national and local charities. You need to spend about 15% -- 20% on administrative costs (including executive salaries). If you're spending less than 15%, the charity is going to be poorly managed and not operating efficiently. You need to pay people salaries close to what they could make in the for-profit world or you're not going to be able to hire quality employees. People are willing to make slightly less, but not significantly less, to do good. You make up for the smaller salary with perks that don't really cost anything, closing the office between Christmas and New Year, being generous with "discretionary time," etc.

TinyFist: But how am I going to feel good about myself and all of my philanthropy if the charities I donate to can't lavish me and my guests at black-tie galas and million dollar awareness events?

Those black-tie galas can bring in a lot of money for the organization. When I worked for a national charity, our local chapter had a certain "lavish gala" type event, full of congress critters, local celebrities, etc. We made about $250,000 with that event. For a local chapter, that's a great amount for a single event.

Some "awareness" events are BS, others are legit. An awareness event that encourages people to get early testing, or steps people can take to lower their chances of having a specific problem are good. Slapping a pink ribbon on every product in sight to raise awareness of breast cancer is BS.

gfid: PetSmart asks for money for animals.  You know what, PetSmart?  Every single penny I spend at your store is going to a once homeless animal.

I haven't looked at their financials, but PetSmart charities does a lot for homeless animals. They support groups that do animal rescue in the wake of a national disaster; they'll bring in an 18 wheeler full of crates, food, etc. to set up a temporary shelter. And they don't come and take back either, it gets donated to the city/county animal shelter after the need for the temporary shelter has passed. I volunteer for an animal rescue group and PetsMart regularly has special adoption weekends where they give us a certain amount per adoption. They donate space inside the store for cat rescue groups. They give grants for spay/neuter programs.

It's fine if you want to make your donations directly, but it's a good organization that really does help animals.
 
2013-06-30 07:13:27 PM

legion_of_doo: JesusJuice: Good. Next, churches.

Why are you against the separation of church & state?


How is paying rent on a building which is occupied 9:00am - 1:00pm Sunday and 5:00pm to 8:00pm Wednesday charity? How is paying a sky wizard priest to present a single hour of instruction per week 50k per year charity? It would be arguable if the funds were being used to hire someone to minister in the local prison for 40hrs a week, but I don't see that happening. Churches used to actually feed and clothe the poor, but nowadays I see the government doing that, so I don't see why that portion of the church goers income should be shielded from taxation.
 
2013-06-30 07:14:49 PM
Do salaries count as charity work?   There are a lot of good organizations which employees are a good chunk of the expenses.  Of course any exclusion could easily abused.
 
2013-06-30 07:18:18 PM

LiberalEastCoastElitist: legion_of_doo: JesusJuice: Good. Next, churches.

Why are you against the separation of church & state?

How is paying rent on a building which is occupied 9:00am - 1:00pm Sunday and 5:00pm to 8:00pm Wednesday charity? How is paying a sky wizard priest to present a single hour of instruction per week 50k per year charity? It would be arguable if the funds were being used to hire someone to minister in the local prison for 40hrs a week, but I don't see that happening. Churches used to actually feed and clothe the poor, but nowadays I see the government doing that, so I don't see why that portion of the church goers income should be shielded from taxation.


because teh SKY WIZARD IS JeSUS!!!
 
2013-06-30 07:19:39 PM
While the intent of the law is admirable, the crooks will always find a way around any inconvenient law or rule.

The best defense is the cold light of day being shined on these "charities" and the public becoming eductaed about them.

/like the public will ever do that . . .
 
2013-06-30 07:29:32 PM

ChuDogg: What if they are an "advocacy" group?

http://zwingliusredivivus.wordpress.com/2010/09/25/bonos-charity-isnt - at-all-charitable/


Salaries to employees who "raise awareness" *are* the charitable expenditures for those organizations. Self-promoting celebrity charities, like Lance Armstrong's LiveStrong (which makes us aware that cancer is bad) or Bono's ONE (which makes us aware that Africa is poor) were designed from their outset to skirt these types of regulations.
 
2013-06-30 07:29:45 PM
LawrencePerson: That means YOU, Humane Society of the United States!

FYI, your local Humane Society and SPCA are NOT local affiliates of the national group. These groups do not run or fund shelters, despite what they want you to think. "SPCA" and "human society" are not trademarked, you could wake up tomorrow and start the "Fark Humane Society" or "FARK SPCA." Less than 1% of their money goes to local shelters and the most they give is about $1200, which is only enough to save 4 or 5 animals.
 
2013-06-30 07:32:40 PM
I didn't think there were  anyorganizations that were anywhere close to giving 70%. Those expository flyers and websites claim most of them are less than 10%. But I'm not claiming to believe those, since I didn't check the sources... I do have a life to live, and cannot spend 3 days checking sources and record books every time I want to give $5 to a cause. If you do have that much free time, or if you just want to believe the first number you find in a google search, then good for you.
 
2013-06-30 07:33:54 PM
Let's say you want to open a Hospital/School/Community-center or whatever and it will cost you $100,000. So, you do a bake sale with your own money and make $1,000. Now according to a rule like this, you'd have to put aside $300 of that money for the building and only spend $700 producing and marketing your next fundraiser. Now the smart move, the move any for-profit business would make, is to reinvest %100 of the proceeds for your next fundraiser, and to do so over and over until you last, largest fundraising effort gives you the full 100k. So this rule should slow down a lot of charities. Good job guys.
 
2013-06-30 07:37:17 PM

eventhelosers: ACunningPlan: ambercat: phillydrifter: Even charities have operating costs.

If your operating cost if more than 30% of what goes to helping people besides yourself, maybe you need to rethink your charity's structure.

Some charities are real, some are basically a scam. I don't have a problem with the government trying to regulate what was become an industry so that there is less fraud and the money actually goes to what people think it will.

^This.  Some do-gooders do awfully well for themselves, and are less than charitable when it comes to actually ensuring the money donated doesn't get sucked in by the middle men.

I'm so poor most Farkers wouldn't associate with me, but I do give a small amount to charity when I can.  Not because I'm a nice person, I'm not; I simply find perverse pleasure in the fact someone is worse off than me.  But I do pay attention to how much of the money goes on overheads and not directly to the cause.

I would like to subscribe to your newsletter, reading that was refreshing.


You'd have to pay the publishing costs:)
 
2013-06-30 07:37:32 PM

buzzcut73: I'm OK with this too.
If I were dictator in charge for life, campaigns would be publicly funded and equally split among the candidates. Outside donations would be banned as well. Your idea sounds like a good start.


I'd go a little farther.  I'd prohibit campaign ads beyond "I'm appearing at such-and-such a location".

Your campaign is limited to appearances and a website--and your opponents get to put rebuttal links on any claims you make on that website.  The government hosts the websites--shared hosting, all candidates for a given race are hosted on the same box.  (There may be more than one box/candidate but it's still shared.  That way any server problems, whether accidental or deliberate, hit all candidates equally.)
 
2013-06-30 07:40:23 PM

Rising_Zan_Samurai_Gunman: gmpilot: b-ham: Subby has it backwards - it takes away tax breaks for charities that spend  more than 70% of their donations on management, etc. So as long as you still spend 30% or more on charity you're still in the clear.

Good move, but it still seems like a very conservative number. Why not 50%?

Deserves reiteration.

Arguably, I could see some new charity starting out very small having problems getting beyond that point in the first 3 years.


Possibly, and larger legit ones, too, but I think the '3 years' bit is great. For years I ran a kick-butt western regional non-profit and our numbers were awesome - around 90% going to programming - but when we started a big push to scale up, we invested a lot in staffing, infrastructure, etc. and although we were nothing close to even 50%, our admin numbers kinda sucked until those investments paid off a couple years later and we were able to reach far more kids. There would've been a serious issue if we weren't able to significantly turn around those numbers in three years; even for the little guys starting out, if you can't do the same, it's likely time for some mission/management soul-searching.

I guess it might be an issue for organizations whose missions are carried out by volunteers with the bulk of their funds going to paid management staff, but even then it's more of a communication issue with your donors - you've still got a compelling argument that the money does in fact go to programming, especially if you can point to results.

I am all for this law. It's about time.
 
2013-06-30 07:44:58 PM

fullyautomatic: I didn't think there were  anyorganizations that were anywhere close to giving 70%. Those expository flyers and websites claim most of them are less than 10%. But I'm not claiming to believe those, since I didn't check the sources... I do have a life to live, and cannot spend 3 days checking sources and record books every time I want to give $5 to a cause. If you do have that much free time, or if you just want to believe the first number you find in a google search, then good for you.


You can give it to me. I promise 100% of it will go to a good cause.
 
2013-06-30 07:49:46 PM

Phins: gfid: PetSmart asks for money for animals.  You know what, PetSmart?  Every single penny I spend at your store is going to a once homeless animal.

I haven't looked at their financials, but PetSmart charities does a lot for homeless animals. They support groups that do animal rescue in the wake of a national disaster; they'll bring in an 18 wheeler full of crates, food, etc. to set up a temporary shelter. And they don't come and take back either, it gets donated to the city/county animal shelter after the need for the temporary shelter has passed. I volunteer for an animal rescue group and PetsMart regularly has special adoption weekends where they give us a certain amount per adoption. They donate space inside the store for cat rescue groups. They give grants for spay/neuter programs.

It's fine if you want to make your donations directly, but it's a good organization that really does help animals.


Well, it's good to hear that PetSmart actually does make an effort and I wasn't trying to say they didn't.  It's just that there's usually no way to know when the cashier rings up your bill and then you get asked for a donation.

I've gone from "Of course I'll pitch in a dollar" to "I'll throw in a dollar and hope it's being well spent" to " I would if I knew where exactly the money went even though money is tight right now".

The thing that bugs me is they're playing on your emotions - or at least mine - when they hit you up like that whether it's PetSmart asking for money for a pet charity or Target asking for money for breast cancer.

They either train their cashiers well or the cashiers are used to people not donating because I've never gotten any grief from them for refusing, but I still feel a twinge of guilt when I tell them no.  I feel a little embarrassment.  At PetSmart I'm spending $30-40 on cat food and litter and I can't even cough up a buck for a poor defenseless animal?  They don't say that, but that's how I feel when asked.

Similarly for Target (and they're not the only non pet store that does it).  You're buying $60 worth of groceries to feed yourself, but you won't even cough up a single dollar for breast cancer?

It's a guilt tax if you can actually afford a whole 'nother dollar and if you can't actually afford that extra dollar then the question just makes you feel bad (if you care at all that is - some people don't care, but I do).

It's a great fund-raising technique but I don't know where the money goes and the checkout line isn't exactly the best place to seek out financial statements of charities you're being asked to donate to.

I suspect it's even dirtier than I think.  A pet food company may make a charitable donation to an animal shelter, but they also expect the animal shelter will buy the balance of what they need from them at premium prices.  And I also realize that vets have to make a living, but I think at least some of them are gouging.  I read a story recently (probably here on Fark, but I don't remember for sure) where someone put down their dog because they couldn't afford a $7000 bill.

If I were the vet in that case I would save the dog and tell them to pay as they could, but I could never be a vet because although I love animals, I don't think I could handle seeing severely sick or injured pets.  I don't even think I could handle cutting into an animal to spay or neuter them.
 
2013-06-30 08:05:34 PM

b-ham: Subby has it backwards - it takes away tax breaks for charities that spend  more than 70% of their donations on management, etc. So as long as you still spend 30% or more on charity you're still in the clear.

Good move, but it still seems like a very conservative number. Why not 50%?


Subby did get it wrong. The old law seems to be 0%. The new law is targeting the worst charities organizations and they happen to be Out Of State.
 
2013-06-30 08:15:37 PM

buzzcut73: SockMonkeyHolocaust: Yeah, well let's make it illegal for politicians to spend more than 30% of their time fundraising, then.

I'm OK with this too.
If I were dictator in charge for life, campaigns would be publicly funded and equally split among the candidates. Outside donations would be banned as well. Your idea sounds like a good start.


But that violate my free speech rights!
 
2013-06-30 08:31:24 PM

ZAZ: Massachusetts disallows charitable deductions for all charities. Politicians repealed a voter initiative to allow deducting charitable donations.


Because the only valid charities are the ones approved by liberals for government funding.
 
2013-06-30 08:34:44 PM

JesusJuice: Good. Next, churches.


This. I sincerely hope Washington passes a similar law. I'm tired of charity scams in which, sure, the charity claims good works, but their balance sheet claims they spend only 8% of the money they receive on actual charity programs, and 91.8% on fundraising & administrative costs.

That evil has to stop.
 
2013-06-30 08:35:59 PM
Subby here.

When I first read the article, I thought it said that 70% had to go to the actual charity. Then I read it again, and realized that only 30% needed to be used for the charity. I was thinking that was pretty lax, and the number SHOULD BE 70%.

Then I typed the headline and got it wrong anyway. I will place the blame on the heat, which right now is roughly at 70+30 degrees.
 
2013-06-30 08:37:11 PM

LiberalEastCoastElitist: How is paying rent on a building which is occupied 9:00am - 1:00pm Sunday and 5:00pm to 8:00pm Wednesday charity? How is paying a sky wizard priest to present a single hour of instruction per week 50k per year charity?


So that is what you think that is the extent of churches do? Is this what the athiest really belive?
 
2013-06-30 08:44:57 PM

FormlessOne: JesusJuice: Good. Next, churches.

This. I sincerely hope Washington passes a similar law. I'm tired of charity scams in which, sure, the charity claims good works, but their balance sheet claims they spend only 8% of the money they receive on actual charity programs, and 91.8% on fundraising & administrative costs.

That evil has to stop.


What does the Children's Charity Fund have to do with any church?
 
2013-06-30 08:45:50 PM

HeadLever: LiberalEastCoastElitist: How is paying rent on a building which is occupied 9:00am - 1:00pm Sunday and 5:00pm to 8:00pm Wednesday charity? How is paying a sky wizard priest to present a single hour of instruction per week 50k per year charity?

So that is what you think that is the extent of churches do? Is this what the athiest really belive?


Actually, I was brought up in a Christian fundamentalist house. Six siblings all together. Home schooled. I know that's all they do. Thanks for playing.
 
2013-06-30 08:56:00 PM

LiberalEastCoastElitist: Actually, I was brought up in a Christian fundamentalist house.


So you had a bad experience?

Sure doesn't mean you point is accurate in any way, shape or form.  I was brought up in a household that was agnostic and love to spend my time in church-sponsored sandwich lines and these other type of volunteer type programs.  You stereotypical painting of what may of these do seems to come from a personal hatred.  Many of these entities are sure not a two hour a week and give-me-my-money outfit.  Despite your hatred, many of them do practice what they preach.
 
2013-06-30 08:57:35 PM

b-ham: Subby has it backwards - it takes away tax breaks for charities that spend  more than 70% of their donations on management, etc. So as long as you still spend 30% or more on charity you're still in the clear.

Good move, but it still seems like a very conservative number. Why not 50%?


Foot in the door etc.
 
2013-06-30 08:59:00 PM

mekki: Everyone always talks about the worst charities. But what about the good ones? Farkers, which ones do you always give to knowing that the money is going to be used for what is intended for?


The West Michigan Food Bank uses 98% of donations for programs and gets an A+ rating from BBB. They have a thrift store where all but operating costs go to the program and is staffed by volunteers.

I also applaud Oregon's efforts and think it's too conservative.
 
2013-06-30 09:03:53 PM

HeadLever: LiberalEastCoastElitist: Actually, I was brought up in a Christian fundamentalist house.

So you had a bad experience?

Sure doesn't mean you point is accurate in any way, shape or form.  I was brought up in a household that was agnostic and love to spend my time in church-sponsored sandwich lines and these other type of volunteer type programs.  You stereotypical painting of what may of these do seems to come from a personal hatred.  Many of these entities are sure not a two hour a week and give-me-my-money outfit.  Despite your hatred, many of them do practice what they preach.


What percent of those people in the sammich lines are on the pay roll? That's what we're talking about here. We're talking about the money and taxation involved in church activities, not volunteering time since that has nothing to do with tax (unless you're somehow trying to use that to reduce your tax burden).

And I meet your accusation of hatred with a mixture of amusement, exasperation and indifference. Have a nice night, oh victimized one!
 
2013-06-30 09:14:07 PM
gfid: Well, it's good to hear that PetSmart actually does make an effort and I wasn't trying to say they didn't.  It's just that there's usually no way to know when the cashier rings up your bill and then you get asked for a donation.
I've gone from "Of course I'll pitch in a dollar" to "I'll throw in a dollar and hope it's being well spent" to " I would if I knew where exactly the money went even though money is tight right now".


Perfectly understandable. I just wanted to put in a good word for PetsMart charities because I volunteer for a rescue group and they're really good to us and and other rescue groups.

I refuse to guilty about saying "no" at the register. I give to the charities I choose and I do volunteer work.
 
2013-06-30 09:16:55 PM

LiberalEastCoastElitist: What percent of those people in the sammich lines are on the pay roll?


The sandwich line is for the homless in Denver Colorado.  I am pretty sure that 0% of those are are being paid by the church for showing up at the sandwich line as those that are in busy slathering mayo on bread.  The volunteer line usually has one or two paid church staff each day there helping - which kind of makes sense.


We're talking about the money and taxation involved in church activities, not volunteering time since that has nothing to do with tax (unless you're somehow trying to use that to reduce your tax burden).

The money comes from the parisioners out of a specific collection (has nothing to do with the clergy's salaries) to buy the ingredients and the effort to put them together comes from the volunteers and clergy.

Still not sure where the problem lies in this situation.

As far as the victimized one, that seems to be your beef, not mine.  I don't know of anyone in this argument that has *wronged* me.   I have no issues here as opposed to you that grew up in that aweful fundy home.
 
2013-06-30 09:39:58 PM

HeadLever: LiberalEastCoastElitist: What percent of those people in the sammich lines are on the pay roll?

The sandwich line is for the homless in Denver Colorado.  I am pretty sure that 0% of those are are being paid by the church for showing up at the sandwich line as those that are in busy slathering mayo on bread.  The volunteer line usually has one or two paid church staff each day there helping - which kind of makes sense.


OK, so this has nothing to do with the topic of this thread, including the the hours of the church staff spend at the sammich line because they're actually engaged in charity. The extremely specific examples I brought of up non-charity are paying full time sky wizzards to give one sermon per week (ok, so maybe the do the Wednesday service too and a handful of other activities per week which if were performed by a competent person couldn't possibly exceed 10hr/wk) and paying rent on mostly unoccupied buildings. I went out of my way to include feeding the poor as an example of charity.


The money comes from the parisioners out of a specific collection (has nothing to do with the clergy's salaries) to buy the ingredients and the effort to put them together comes from the volunteers and clergy.

Again, nothing to do with this thread.

As far as the victimized one, that seems to be your beef, not mine.  I don't know of anyone in this argument that has *wronged* me.   I have no issues here as opposed to you that grew up in that aweful fundy home.

Let me get this right. First you accuse me of being an atheist and imply that my opinion is somehow wrong because I don't have exposure to religion. Now you're flipping 180 saying my experience being raised in a religious household has also made me so damaged that I can't possibly have an clear view of this topic. Also, you added "aweful" to that upbringing and are ascribing to me the feeling of hatred towards religion. And I'm the one with the "issues"?
 
2013-06-30 09:41:19 PM

mekki: Everyone always talks about the worst charities. But what about the good ones? Farkers, which ones do you always give to knowing that the money is going to be used for what is intended for?


St. Vincent de Paul societies are generally phenomenal. I know our chapter in Detroit gives 92% straight to the poor.
 
2013-06-30 10:05:16 PM

LiberalEastCoastElitist: HeadLever: LiberalEastCoastElitist: What percent of those people in the sammich lines are on the pay roll?

The sandwich line is for the homless in Denver Colorado.  I am pretty sure that 0% of those are are being paid by the church for showing up at the sandwich line as those that are in busy slathering mayo on bread.  The volunteer line usually has one or two paid church staff each day there helping - which kind of makes sense.

OK, so this has nothing to do with the topic of this thread, including the the hours of the church staff spend at the sammich line because they're actually engaged in charity. The extremely specific examples I brought of up non-charity are paying full time sky wizzards to give one sermon per week (ok, so maybe the do the Wednesday service too and a handful of other activities per week which if were performed by a competent person couldn't possibly exceed 10hr/wk) and paying rent on mostly unoccupied buildings. I went out of my way to include feeding the poor as an example of charity.


The money comes from the parisioners out of a specific collection (has nothing to do with the clergy's salaries) to buy the ingredients and the effort to put them together comes from the volunteers and clergy.

Again, nothing to do with this thread.

As far as the victimized one, that seems to be your beef, not mine.  I don't know of anyone in this argument that has *wronged* me.   I have no issues here as opposed to you that grew up in that aweful fundy home.

Let me get this right. First you accuse me of being an atheist and imply that my opinion is somehow wrong because I don't have exposure to religion. Now you're flipping 180 saying my experience being raised in a religious household has also made me so damaged that I can't possibly have an clear view of this topic. Also, you added "aweful" to that upbringing and are ascribing to me the feeling of hatred towards religion. And I'm the one with the "issues"?


You missed the obvious point - he's trolling. Classic "pick a fight, wait for response, flip response and claim that you have a problem" routine. Waste of time responding to him (that's why I didn't bother.)
 
2013-06-30 10:06:58 PM

Chach: mekki: Everyone always talks about the worst charities. But what about the good ones? Farkers, which ones do you always give to knowing that the money is going to be used for what is intended for?

St. Vincent de Paul societies are generally phenomenal. I know our chapter in Detroit gives 92% straight to the poor.


Here's the "10 of the Best Charities Everyone's Heard Of" list from Charity Navigator. Their site's usually a good place to start when investigating worthwhile charities.
 
2013-06-30 10:10:26 PM

LiberalEastCoastElitist: OK, so this has nothing to do with the topic of this thread, including the the hours of the church staff spend at the sammich line because they're actually engaged in charity.


So charity is not the topic of this thread?  Did we miss something here?  Churches are very much engaged in charity and that is an intregal part of many of them.  For some, it is kind of their identity.  In essence, it has everything to do with this thread and our argument.

First you accuse me of being an atheist and imply that my opinion is somehow wrong because I don't have exposure to religion.

My point is that your sterotypical painting of  churches being  building that is occupied  a time or two a week  so that some vauge instructuion can be given is the extent of thier charitable works.  That is only part of it.  You and I both know that they are much more than that, but yet you try to paint them different.  Still not sure why, but it appears to be out of some sort of anger.
 
2013-06-30 10:11:52 PM
Next target: Florida.
 
2013-06-30 10:17:01 PM

FormlessOne: Classic "pick a fight, wait for response, flip response and claim that you have a problem" routine.


Ah, the classic, 'I ignore him because you are right and he is wrong' White Knight routine
 
2013-06-30 10:20:13 PM

legion_of_doo: JesusJuice: Good. Next, churches.

Why are you against the separation of church & state?


I don't believe it's impossible to tax religious institutions while retaining a secular government.
 
2013-06-30 10:21:10 PM
http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pallotta_the_way_we_think_about_charity_ i s_dead_wrong.html

So this is a pretty interesting argument in favor of spending money to run a charity
 
2013-06-30 10:24:29 PM

JesusJuice: I don't believe it's impossible to tax religious institutions while retaining a secular government.


That is correct.  However, if you do tax religious institutions and these contributions, you need to know that much of this giving will decrease.

The tax codes in this regard is nothing but a social engineering via the wallet.
 
2013-06-30 10:29:05 PM
Non-Profits are the biggest rip off and I used to work for one that was pretty good.  But most are money machines that do little good.  Go good if they do that.
 
2013-06-30 10:34:00 PM

mr_a: Subby here.

When I first read the article, I thought it said that 70% had to go to the actual charity. Then I read it again, and realized that only 30% needed to be used for the charity. I was thinking that was pretty lax, and the number SHOULD BE 70%.

Then I typed the headline and got it wrong anyway. I will place the blame on the heat, which right now is roughly at 70+30 degrees.


i14.photobucket.com
 
2013-06-30 10:40:24 PM

museamused: http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pallotta_the_way_we_think_about_charity_ i s_dead_wrong.html

So this is a pretty interesting argument in favor of spending money to run a charity


I watched this video. Beforehand, I was absolutely 100% in the camp of "less admin cost spending = better". His arguments are so compelling that he changed my opinion nearly completely by the end of the video.

To those not yet motivated to click, he basically says that marketing, awareness, getting good people, etc., can take a charity from weekly-bake-sale territory and scale up to levels where that charity can actually start to (positively) affect global issues.

He asks: Which really does more good - a charity that raises $10,000 and spends 95% on actual work (so $9500), or a charity that generates $300,000,000 and spends 67% of it on actual work (so $200,000,000). He then points out that very few charities grow from the former level to the latter level without money spent on marketing/paying good people/etc.

His isn't the only video like that on TED, either. Melinda Gates has a similar one on what nonprofits can learn from Coke.

http://www.ted.com/talks/melinda_french_gates_what_nonprofits_can_le ar n_from_coca_cola.html

All that said, I agree that there has to be a way to weed out fake/fraudulent charities, so the law in TFA is probably still a good thing, but I no longer think that 90+% not-admin-costs is the way to go, either.


Dhabu
 
2013-06-30 10:43:35 PM

museamused: http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pallotta_the_way_we_think_about_charity_ i s_dead_wrong.html

So this is a pretty interesting argument in favor of spending money to run a charity


That was very good. .
 
2013-06-30 10:45:48 PM
I'm_ok_with_this.jpg

/So long as we don't get caught up in what defines "Charitable work".
 
2013-06-30 10:49:52 PM

fullyautomatic: I didn't think there were  anyorganizations that were anywhere close to giving 70%. Those expository flyers and websites claim most of them are less than 10%. But I'm not claiming to believe those, since I didn't check the sources... I do have a life to live, and cannot spend 3 days checking sources and record books every time I want to give $5 to a cause. If you do have that much free time, or if you just want to believe the first number you find in a google search, then good for you.


I would imagine a lot of variables could come into play.  The Church I attend doesn't pay anyone a salary.  All officers and priesthood of the church are either retired from a lifetime of work or still working full time jobs.  Even without that overhead there isn't much money after building expenses.  Not a lot of money collected, because we don't scream throw money in till you starve and lose your house.  We actually go with the rule of 10% AFTER paying taxes, bills and other budget needs like food and gas.  After all that to consider, some years there is a little to bank and some years we pull from the bank.  Either way, around the clock there is help on the other end of the phone.  These guys will drop everything and drive out of state to get to someone in the hospital.

Once we were having a meeting in Lansing when one guy got a call.  Not a word was even spoken, he looked over at a couple of us and we just grabbed our stuff, poured into a van (I drove) and made our way to Oxford to be with a man who was dying.  We were hitting I-69 before we started getting the details and without knowing how much time we had, I think I got them there in about 1hr 30min.  For non-MI folks that is normally a 2 hr+ drive.  It is and always should be about people, not really the percentages.

When money is needed then give it, when they need you then get there.  I think the government taxes the average person too much, the places really doing good work shouldn't be taxed so they can't help those in need.
/obvious, I know
 
2013-06-30 10:50:12 PM

ACunningPlan: eventhelosers: ACunningPlan: ambercat: phillydrifter: Even charities have operating costs.

If your operating cost if more than 30% of what goes to helping people besides yourself, maybe you need to rethink your charity's structure.

Some charities are real, some are basically a scam. I don't have a problem with the government trying to regulate what was become an industry so that there is less fraud and the money actually goes to what people think it will.

^This.  Some do-gooders do awfully well for themselves, and are less than charitable when it comes to actually ensuring the money donated doesn't get sucked in by the middle men.

I'm so poor most Farkers wouldn't associate with me, but I do give a small amount to charity when I can.  Not because I'm a nice person, I'm not; I simply find perverse pleasure in the fact someone is worse off than me.  But I do pay attention to how much of the money goes on overheads and not directly to the cause.

I would like to subscribe to your newsletter, reading that was refreshing.

You'd have to pay the publishing costs:)


Oh well fark it then, I'll have to keep getting my life advice from random fark posts.
 
2013-06-30 10:54:58 PM

lack of warmth: the places really doing good work shouldn't be taxed so they can't help those in need.
/obvious, I know


Sadly, not for some......
 
2013-06-30 11:00:25 PM

LiberalEastCoastElitist: HeadLever: LiberalEastCoastElitist: How is paying rent on a building which is occupied 9:00am - 1:00pm Sunday and 5:00pm to 8:00pm Wednesday charity? How is paying a sky wizard priest to present a single hour of instruction per week 50k per year charity?

So that is what you think that is the extent of churches do? Is this what the athiest really belive?

Actually, I was brought up in a Christian fundamentalist house. Six siblings all together. Home schooled. I know that's all they do. Thanks for playing.


No funerals, births, baptisisms, sunday school, bereavement counseling, etc.?  Your church sucks
 
2013-06-30 11:10:47 PM

buzzcut73: phillydrifter: Even charities have operating costs.

I don't think anybody disputes that. However, when operating costs, marketing and 'awareness' campaigns (which is just marketing under a different cost code) take up 70% of the budget, there is a problem.


I guess you can distribute funds to have some of your campaign expenses in a charitable form. Hiring homeless people to be sign wavers, leaflitterers.
 
2013-06-30 11:23:37 PM
Dan Pollotta pretty much nailed this misconception of charity overhead / administrative costs in this TED talk:  http://www.youtube.com/wa tch?v=bfAzi6D5FpM

Give it a watch before throwing a percentage out and arbitrarily saying "No charity should ever exceed THAT."
 
2013-06-30 11:31:40 PM

Nonrepeating Rotating Binary: Most charities are just another form of business, not actual "charity'. Collect money, provide jobs, pay big salaries to 'Executives'. Make people feel good as you scam them out of their money.


Yup.
 
2013-06-30 11:36:11 PM
encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com
 
2013-06-30 11:38:13 PM
They'll just move to Delaware!
 
2013-07-01 12:15:23 AM

HeadLever: JesusJuice: I don't believe it's impossible to tax religious institutions while retaining a secular government.

That is correct.  However, if you do tax religious institutions and these contributions, you need to know that much of this giving will decrease.

The tax codes in this regard is nothing but a social engineering via the wallet.


I don't see how less giving to churches is a bad thing. Sure, they do some charitable work, but most of the money goes toward convincing poor people to believe crazy shiat.
 
2013-07-01 01:23:41 AM

JesusJuice: I don't see how less giving to churches is a bad thing.


So you don't see any issues when they give less to a church that provides the following:
Sandwiches served (usually in front of church; see schedule above)
• Socks (available year-round); hats & gloves (October-April)

• Personal care items (soap, razors, shampoo, toothbrushes, etc.)

• $$ for work tools/shoes (must have regular employment)

• $$ for vital records (birth, death, and marriage certificates)

• $$ for Colorado I.D. cards and driver's licenses
• Assistance filling out forms

Yep, no issues at all so long as you don't like the poor.
 
2013-07-01 01:46:47 AM

HeadLever: JesusJuice: I don't see how less giving to churches is a bad thing.

So you don't see any issues when they give less to a church that provides the following:
Sandwiches served (usually in front of church; see schedule above)
• Socks (available year-round); hats & gloves (October-April)

• Personal care items (soap, razors, shampoo, toothbrushes, etc.)

• $$ for work tools/shoes (must have regular employment)

• $$ for vital records (birth, death, and marriage certificates)

• $$ for Colorado I.D. cards and driver's licenses
• Assistance filling out forms

Yep, no issues at all so long as you don't like the poor.


All those services could be more efficiently provided by the state. We could fund the programs by taxing churches.
 
2013-07-01 01:56:23 AM

Beerguy: "In related news, the Mormon church has announced they are pulling out of Oregon, citing "unspecified reasons.""


I don't think Mormons pull out.
 
2013-07-01 02:33:24 AM

StreetlightInTheGhetto: I love Charity Navigator.

for myself, but also the non-profit I work for has 3/4.  Which is fair, there's definitely room for improvement.  But it's incredibly helpful to be able to point (justifiably) skeptical people to the site.


The problem is that there are issues with how charities do the accounting.

For example, money paid to me (as a contractor for a 501c(3)) is considered overhead, despite the fact that a large part of what I do could be categorized as support costs for various charitable endeavors (monitoring offshore water quality, etc.). There's no easy way to separate the work and other costs (servers, maintenance, etc) of actual charitable work from the stuff like maintaining donation websites, so it all gets lumped together as "overhead".
 
2013-07-01 03:45:15 AM
I almost got into a chocolate pudding wrestling for charity business once. I thought I'd do okay until I found out that in some states could keep 95% of the money I raised. Needless to say I got out before I got in because I have a soul.
 
2013-07-01 07:06:13 AM

buzzcut73: phillydrifter: Even charities have operating costs.

I don't think anybody disputes that. However, when operating costs, marketing and 'awareness' campaigns (which is just marketing under a different cost code) take up 70% of the budget, there is a problem.


All those expenses you just listed they will claim ARE charity work. LOL.
 
2013-07-01 08:59:41 AM
This applies to the law and subby's use of the Hero tag.
www.davart.net
 
2013-07-01 09:38:12 AM
Interestingly enough something similar has been happening to (at least some) health insurance carriers... I was notified that mine was required to spend at least 80% of their income on paying health care costs and if they didn't they'd have to pay out the difference to their subscribers.

Great idea, right?

Yes, it's the Affordable Care Act, AKA Obama care...  dang, those evil liberals are at it again.
 
2013-07-01 11:25:47 AM

JesusJuice: All those services could be more efficiently provided by the state.


[citation needed]

If the fraud in Medicare is any indication of the efficiency of this program, I'll have to kindly disagree with you there.

We could fund the programs by taxing churches.

But then it stops being charity.  As anyone knows, forced charity is not charity at all. It just becomes another bureaucratic social program.
 
2013-07-01 12:04:39 PM

legion_of_doo: JesusJuice: Good. Next, churches.

Why are you against the separation of church & state?


What part of separation of Church and State means that churches should operate on different rules than everyone else?

Any exceptions for churches/religions should be removed.
 
2013-07-01 03:17:44 PM

buzzcut73: phillydrifter: Even charities have operating costs.

I don't think anybody disputes that. However, when operating costs, the CEO's salary, marketing and 'awareness' campaigns (which is just marketing under a different cost code) take up 70% of the budget, there is a problem.


Added something for you
 
2013-07-01 03:51:32 PM

HeadLever: JesusJuice: All those services could be more efficiently provided by the state.

[citation needed]

If the fraud in Medicare is any indication of the efficiency of this program, I'll have to kindly disagree with you there.

We could fund the programs by taxing churches.

But then it stops being charity.  As anyone knows, forced charity is not charity at all. It just becomes another bureaucratic social program.


Why do you hate social programs?
 
2013-07-01 05:19:07 PM

Odd Bird: This applies to the law and subby's use of the Hero tag.
[www.davart.net image 350x350]


Unless it's a limbo contest.
 
Displayed 121 of 121 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report