3 ms·
>Some non-profits exist mainly to enrich their officers This could very well be, but it goes against what first comes to the mind of most people when talking a
by GTP 4y ago
>Some non-profits exist mainly to enrich their officers
This could very well be, but it goes against what first comes to the mind of most people when talking about a non-profit: the name itself implies that those companies are "not for profit" after all.
EDIT: I also think that the reason why most countries have a special tax law regarding non-profit organization, is to help people that want to do "the right thing" even if it is not profitable, not to provide their officers with an easier way to enrich themselves. So if a non-profit is being used by their officers to enrich themselves, I think it is correct to see them as people that are cheating the system. If they are doing it in a way that is technically legal, I would say they are probably exploiting some loophole.
- leephillips 4y agoI’m sorry, I thought that by “we” you were referring to a group of people including yourself (first person plural), not, in fact, “most people”, whom you seem to believe are naive and uninformed, a belief that is probably correct. Unless you were? EDIT (replying to your edit): They are neither cheating nor exploiting any loophole. At least in the U.S., there is no limit to the total compensation that a non-profit corporation may pay to its officers. The law refers to “reasonable” compensation, which of course is meaningless. In 2019 there were so many officers of “charitable” corporations earning more than a million dollars annually that the IRS instituted an excise tax on their earnings (21% I think).
- GTP 4y agoYou highlight what the law say, and it is for sure interesting for me, as I'm not American and so ot familiar with US laws. But what I'm saying is that all laws are written for a reason. E.g. there are laws that say you can't kill another person because the vast majority of people agree that this is a thing that shouldn't be done. So what I'm saying here is that in this discussion we should also consider which was the reason behind the law, not just the technicalities of how the law is written.