Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
They sure did. Lucknow said: "When it comes to charities there should be a law stating NO ONE can make over 100 grand a year in a charity or it loses it's charity status." I was responding to that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiGuy2.5
The whole reason I posted this in the great debates forum is because there really is two sides to the story. In my opinion however, the reason I believe NPO's should not pay these wages is because of the source of income.
I also outlined that most organizations/charities have to list what percentage goes to non-direct charity issues. So, I agree with you to a point here, but people need to inform themselves. In just a quick search I found a website [charitynavigator.org] that shows that 75% of the money is for program expenses and a breakdown of the other 25% into administrative, fundraising, etc. I personally like a program that spends less than 20% on non-program expenses. It's not a secret.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiGuy2.5
$417K per year is an incredibly high salary. If she was paying herself $200K, I wouldn't be complaining. But $417K is far more than the average American, whom also happen to be paying for that salary.
Again, agree with you here... already said that. But, you are using your ethical standards to measure another person, or expectant values across the board. Life doesn't work that way. And, as I've said over and over, she's not doing anything illegal. You want to get mad, based on the site I listed above, they were still 14 million over what they took in/spent. Get after them for not spending more of the money. They seem to be solvent, they didn't LOSE money, and they didn't spend it all. But you want to focus on one person's pay. That's not the issue with the organization, and the desire for justness is misplaced.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiGuy2.5
When somebody donates, they are under the assumption that MOST of that money will be going to the cause. They are assuming that those who are collecting are doing their absolute best to provide for those who need it. I dont believe the $417K/year salary is really "doing her best" in regards to sacrificing for the sake of her cause. I believe she should step down and hire somebody for the position who is willing to work for less. She is very well qualified and could easily find a job with similar pay elsewhere.
Again, that's the person's fault who donates. In this world we live in today, I wonder how many "charities" aren't really charities at all, but really shams. One's assumptions should never override their responsibility to research what they are contributing to - the functioning of the organization as a whole.
Even if someone's skill set and drive make them deserving a large salary, I believe NPOs should be a labor of love. If you want $400k a year, do it in a company that focuses on profit. Otherwise, do what you love, for a cause that you love for $200k - that is still a great salary.
Is the NPO growing and healthy? Does the NPO provide the lion's share of its revenue to whatever cause it espouses? Is the CEO making a salary commensurate with what she'd make with similar experience, ability, and contacts in the private sector? If the answer to all these questions is Yes, then it's not a big deal.
Agreed. And, here on this thread we also have the same tired excuses of:
1. Putting one's nose in other people's business
2. Validation of class warfare
3. Validation of Marxism
4. Downplaying of capitalism
5. Liberal dogma of creating laws not because something is dangerous or unfair, but because of jealousy.
"When it comes to charities there should be a law..."
Why? Who was hurt in this? Who was treated unfairly?
Oh... I get it. "I don't like it... so I think there should be a law!!!" Man... there are a LOT of things I would like to make law because I don't approve of it. Who cares that it's none of my business, doesn't hurt anyone, or doesn't affect anyone? Could one imagine what we'd all be in jail for if we created laws just because we didn't like something?!?
I don't like it either, but for goodness sake, people need to mind their own business. Everyone is so worried about what every one is LEGALLY making. And since they can't justify legally why it's wrong, they'll create a law, by God!!!
What a complete and utter rant. Your points are totally wrong and they are very easily proven wrong.
Your first point about, "Nose in other people's business. It's utterly wrong because the tax laws of the country ARE the people's business. A charity pays NO taxes and because of that they operate under LAWS. You know those pesky little things that we are all subject too. The tax laws of the country are every one's business as is crystal clear if you are watching the election right now.
Your second point of the validation of class warfare is just soooo far out there in space it's hard to comment on. It's totally irrelevant to the OP in any case. You realize I hope that when you are running a charity, it's not your money in any way shape or form. It's not a business and in fact you really are a trustee of a sort. I can't think of a lower life form that someone who loots a trust, BECAUSE THE CAN!!
Your third point is just ignorant stupidity and deserves no comment.
The next point is just really weird. We are talking about CHARITIES here. How in the world that applies to "CAPITALISM" is just weird and strange to anyone who is capable of thinking.
Point number 5 is another really weird and strange idea also. The function of the government is to make and enforce LAWS. Liberals do not have a monopoly on that. Because you don't think a law is necessary does not make that true. There are all kinds of laws that charities operate under and in my opinion there needs to be more to STOP all the cons and garbage charities that are out there.
This is why I would never ever financially support these so-called "charities" any more than I'd support the televangelists of years past that took in millions to live grandly.. Most of the donations go to the business aspects and those CEO's rather than doing any real good. What good has she accomplished? Pink ribbons on cars?? Pink cups?? What has that accomplished other than awareness we were already aware of?
At least the ASPCA uses their funds for the cause and not the workers. That's the only organization I recommend ever giving to.
As for the person who said "it's none of our business".. Good grief! Of course it's one's business if you're the one donating $$ to a cause; giving out your hard-earned money (and most people donating live on a lot less salaries) to give to support someone's extravagant living vs. it going to what you think it's going to go to.
CEO's exorbitant salaries are a real sore spot with me... Profit or non-profit.. but non-profit is the worst of the worst!
Compared to some of the top-paid nonprofit CEOs her salary is not outlandish.
James Mongan, CEO of Partners HealthCare System - operates nonprofit hospitals in Boston $3.4 million
Glenn Lowry, director Museum of Modern Art NYC $2.7 million
Pete Carroll, head football coach of non profit University of Southern California $4.3 million
Zev Rosenwaks, Professor of Obstetrics & Gynecology Cornell University $3.7 million
I have a bigger problem with the CEO of the non-profit hospital system making $3.4 million because in effect that adds to healthcare costs. There are a lot more nonprofit healthcare CEOs making millions in salaries than there are Nancy Brinkers.
Given that the Susan Komen Foundation is the largest breast cancer fundraiser in the U.S., and it raises about about $400 million each year, I would rather have her making that salary and leading the organization than not. I mean, the benefits of millions of dollars for breast cancer research and support outweigh her high salary. And after all she did start the whole thing.
....Given that the Susan Komen Foundation is the largest breast cancer fundraiser in the U.S., and it raises about about $400 million each year, I would rather have her making that salary and leading the organization than not. I mean, the benefits of millions of dollars for breast cancer research and support outweigh her high salary. And after all she did start the whole thing.
So what has this annual $400 million accomplished?? It sure hasn't helped the women suffering from the disease. The results/methods of treatment are pretty much the same as usual. And not a penny of that money helps pay for poorer women's treatment/care..
That's a pile of money (including her salary) for miniscule returns. How does one justify these ridiculous salaries (including your other examples)
I see SO much economic waste in our society.. "money thrown in the streets" but we still have nothing but potholes.
So what has this annual $400 million accomplished?? It sure hasn't helped the women suffering from the disease. The results/methods of treatment are pretty much the same as usual. And not a penny of that money helps pay for poorer women's treatment/care..
That's a pile of money (including her salary) for miniscule returns. How does one justify these ridiculous salaries (including your other examples)
I see SO much economic waste in our society.. "money thrown in the streets" but we still have nothing but potholes.
Here's a breakdown of where Susan B Komen has put its funding as reported on wiki. As you can see it includes treatment.
$283.2 million went towards program services
$75.4 million (20.9 percent of total expenditure) went to research
$140.8 million (39.1 percent) went to public health education,
$46.9 million (13 percent) went to health screening services,
and $20.1 million (5.6 percent) went to treatment services.
Actually breast cancer mortality rates have decreased over the last few decades, and every year there are advances in treatment options.
Here is one hot topic that came up on my Facebook. Nancy Brinker the CEO/Founder of Susan G Komen for the cure made a BASE salary of $417K last year. Is that too much? Do non profit charity executives deserve high salaries?
She is a very qualified candidate and deserves a high paycheck. But as the CEO of a charity organization she should be given a modest salary. What are your thoughts?
She gets what the organization deems necessary for her to get paid in order to further the organizations interest and goals. To me it does not matter how much it gets if the organization is happy with her performance.
Is there a chart that says how much for pay organizations should get as compared to non-profits? In my opinion there is no such chart so is there a problem with her pay? Not in my opinion. Like any other organization whether it is for profit or not it is a free country for private organizations to pay their people as they see fit. Take care.
So what has this annual $400 million accomplished?? It sure hasn't helped the women suffering from the disease. The results/methods of treatment are pretty much the same as usual. And not a penny of that money helps pay for poorer women's treatment/care..
That's a pile of money (including her salary) for miniscule returns. How does one justify these ridiculous salaries (including your other examples)
I see SO much economic waste in our society.. "money thrown in the streets" but we still have nothing but potholes.
You make some claims there without much support. Not a penny helps pay for poorer women? Can you support that claim?
I get the perception you make such claims without proof? Do you have any proof? Please share. Take care.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Man... there are a LOT of things I would like to make law because I don't approve of it. Who cares that it's none of my business, doesn't hurt anyone, or doesn't affect anyone? Could one imagine what we'd all be in jail for if we created laws just because we didn't like something?!? 
