Are not for profit organizations a worthwhile endeavor for society to keep? (statistics, military)
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.
For a few dollars, or maybe an occasional large contribution, the idea that people can bring their hard earned dollars together for the betterment of mankind. Those dollars add up too. $355B in 2014 alone, and the figure keeps rising.
Undoubtedly, there are some great organizations out there.
Yet, the self serving part of giving means that likely $100B in taxes were avoided by giving said contributions. There's also the chaotic nature of having so many entities not necessarily working together to attack larger than life problems, after they've paid for the organizational costs any group needs to cover. There's a question of wether the jobs created, even then, are the type that offer a worker their full value. Finally, there's the difficulty that comes from a transaction that is so one sided in lacking transparency and the accountability that would inherently safeguard a normal transaction for goods or services.
The question for this board is therefore....are not for profits a net positive for the United States?
----
2014 Charitable Giving to Recipients
The flip side of where charitable donations come from, of course, is where those gifts go. Giving USA’s research covers what happens within nine different categories of charities; here’s what 2014 looked like for each:
Religion—at $114.90 billion, 2014 giving increased 2.5 percent in current dollars, and a modest 0.9 percent when adjusted for inflation.
Education—giving increased to $54.62 billion, 4.9 percent more in current dollars than the 2013 total. The inflation-adjusted increase was 3.2 percent.
Human Services—its $42.10 billion total was 3.6 percent higher, in current dollars, than in 2013. The inflation-adjusted increase was 1.9 percent.
Health—the $30.37 billion 2014 estimate was 5.5 percent higher, in current dollars, than the 2013 estimate. When adjusted for inflation, the increase was 3.8 percent.
Arts/Culture/Humanities—at an estimated $17.23 billion, growth in current dollars was 9.2 percent in 2014. When adjusted for inflation, the increase was 7.4 percent.
Environment/Animals—The $10.50 billion estimate for 2014 was up 7.0 percent in current dollars, and 5.3 percent when adjusted for inflation, over 2013 giving.
Public-Society Benefit—the $26.29 billion estimate for 2014 increased 5.1 percent in current dollars over 2013. When adjusted for inflation, the increase was 3.4 percent.
Foundations—at an estimated $41.62 billion in 2014, giving grew 1.8 percent in current dollars and 0.1 percent when adjusted for inflation.
International Affairs—the $15.10 billion estimate for 2014 decreased 2.0 percent, in current dollars, from 2013. The drop was 3.6 percent when adjusted for inflation.
In addition to the above, 2 percent of 2014’s total — $6.42 billion — went to individuals, largely through in-kind donations of medicine via patient assistance programs.
Well, here's the big problem with your thesis. It has the unspoken presumption that some body, read government, should assess which non-profits are deserving and which are not. That means that the government gets to decide priorities, not the consumer who voluntarily gives his or her money.
I mean, I'm on the board of both a musical organization for youth and a homeless shelter. They are utterly different in terms of objectives and operations. But both do their job effectively and, for the most part, on a shoe string. Who are you, or anyone else for that matter, to tell me that they serve their purpose? As long as nobody is skimming money to pay for Learjets or enormous mansions, it's simply not the government's business. Or yours.
Wrapping your headline in the noble 'flag' of "a worthwhile endeavor for society to keep" only seeks to conceal your real objective: "Eliminating the tax deduction for charitable giving."
In other words, you believe big government is better able to decide where their income and tax dollars should be spent, than individuals. The $335B (?) voluntarily given in private donations by individuals (or the $100B you believe would otherwise accrue to the government) is not the problem. The real issue is trillions in other people's money, wasted by corrupt bureaucrats interested only in padding their own bloated power base.
Wrapping your headline in the noble 'flag' of "a worthwhile endeavor for society to keep" only seeks to conceal your real objective: "Eliminating the tax deduction for charitable giving."
In other words, you believe big government is better able to decide where their income and tax dollars should be spent, than individuals. The $335B (?) voluntarily given in private donations by individuals (or the $100B you believe would otherwise accrue to the government) is not the problem. The real issue is trillions in other people's money, wasted by corrupt bureaucrats interested only in padding their own bloated power base.
Yep. I know a fig leaf when I see it. People who advocate for stripping non-profits of their tax-exempt privileges -- for both the organizations and their benefactors alike -- are just using noble language to rationalize a money grab.
Lets put your innocent question in simpler terms. Seeing as this talks about tax deductions, and charitable dedeuctions are not tax reducing in every country, lets talk just about the US.
Should US population giving money to charities that help protect nature, reduce illiteracy, alleviate poverty, fight malnutrition and promote disease research etc instead have that money taxed to be spent by the US government. On increased military defense spending.
Hmm. Thats a hard one, don't know where I fall on that.
Yep. I know a fig leaf when I see it. People who advocate for stripping non-profits of their tax-exempt privileges -- for both the organizations and their benefactors alike -- are just using noble language to rationalize a money grab.
I don't think so. I think there is a MONEY GRAB from religions worth billions of dollars. We also end up subsidizing cults like Scientology, etc.
I have worked and volunteered for many non-profits. IMHO the system needs to be changed. Not to say there should be no breaks, but when I see some of the abuses (religious and otherwise) of our tax money I do think this is one of those gigantic loopholes you can fly a private jet through (and many religious leaders do fly that way).
It's asking too much from government to rate all of these scams. So therefore it seems too much to ask of them to give all these scams money.
It's not gonna happen - but, wow, a lot of lost revenue in this one..
I think they should have to prove that 65% of the donations are used in a manner that shows a positive outcome for the intended group they say they serve.
And I mean outcome. For example, if the charity is focused on a medical issue, they can't just do research for 10 years straight and offer no benefit to the patients. That's not a charity. That's a funded lab, with salaried staff.
If a church is collecting donations, then they need to offer classes, childcare, services, whatever.
Too many organizations just collect donations and pay staff. It's such a scam.
I mean, I'm on the board of both a musical organization for youth and a homeless shelter.
As long as nobody is skimming money to pay for Learjets or enormous mansions, it's simply not the government's business. Or yours.
I didn't propose a thesis, merely statistics and a question.
But if you want me to take the other side, I'll do so as an illustrative exercise, though it's not my position:
Why would it not be my business? As a taxpayer, am I not indirectly subsidizing these activities? After all, I may well never benefit from the expenditure on your homeless shelter, though I do pay for the shelter of my own family, and frankly never raise rents on my tenants. Shall I organize my rentals into a not-for-profit, or keep them as a benevolent for profit affair.
I will also never be invited to participate in your musical organization. Yet I have provided my own child with musical instruments, and donated to my local school's program to keep it going in addition to paying property taxes and assorted bond add-ons. Why should I support your musical program?
Frankly, I am all for keeping the government out of local programs. But the local program that elects to become a 501 3c organization or something similar makes it the government's business, not the other way around.
That's why you can look up Form 990 on all of these organizations.
I need to run for now, but hopefully this sole comment hasn't tilted it too much. Simply, stop and think....there's a lot of money flowing through here. Don't guess my position, tell me your position.
I don't think so. I think there is a MONEY GRAB from religions worth billions of dollars. We also end up subsidizing cults like Scientology, etc.
I have worked and volunteered for many non-profits. IMHO the system needs to be changed. Not to say there should be no breaks, but when I see some of the abuses (religious and otherwise) of our tax money I do think this is one of those gigantic loopholes you can fly a private jet through (and many religious leaders do fly that way).
It's asking too much from government to rate all of these scams. So therefore it seems too much to ask of them to give all these scams money.
It's not gonna happen - but, wow, a lot of lost revenue in this one..
What a ridiculous analogy. People give freely to their denomination of choice. But when the government begins deciding which non-profit serves a valid purpose and which does not, it's authoritarian. In a sense, you've made my case for me. Because you disapprove of churches or religious faith, you'd love to deal them a crippling blow. That's why there's blanket protection. There's always someone who want to pass judgment over the charitable choices of others. You seem to be one of those.
Well, let's lay aside the over-the-top notion that churches are just wellsprings of cash lying around. A very select few are, while the rest run on a shoestring. Yet, even if you don't approve of religion, most of them perform services for the community in ways large and small. If you could quantify it, I would imagine the social value of what they do is far beyond any perceived cash the government would reap.
Simply put, as long as the organization follows the rules and satisfies the needs of its donors and its board of directors, it's not your damned business.
That's how fascism begins, by the way. When people start stripping others of rights to fulfill what they think is the greater good.
Last edited by MinivanDriver; 03-24-2017 at 07:15 PM..
I didn't propose a thesis, merely statistics and a question.
But if you want me to take the other side, I'll do so as an illustrative exercise, though it's not my position:
Why would it not be my business? As a taxpayer, am I not indirectly subsidizing these activities? After all, I may well never benefit from the expenditure on your homeless shelter, though I do pay for the shelter of my own family, and frankly never raise rents on my tenants. Shall I organize my rentals into a not-for-profit, or keep them as a benevolent for profit affair.
I will also never be invited to participate in your musical organization. Yet I have provided my own child with musical instruments, and donated to my local school's program to keep it going in addition to paying property taxes and assorted bond add-ons. Why should I support your musical program?
Frankly, I am all for keeping the government out of local programs. But the local program that elects to become a 501 3c organization or something similar makes it the government's business, not the other way around.
That's why you can look up Form 990 on all of these organizations.
I need to run for now, but hopefully this sole comment hasn't tilted it too much. Simply, stop and think....there's a lot of money flowing through here. Don't guess my position, tell me your position.
I don't need statistics. I have a principle to defend.
My position is pretty obvious. Hands off non-profits. The problem has zip to do with non-profits and everything to do with the fact that the Federal government has grown to monstrous proportion. So any money that anyone has now is fair game to feed the beast.
Last edited by MinivanDriver; 03-24-2017 at 07:14 PM..
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.
