4 ms·

Aren't they a non-profit?

by xhkkffbf 3y ago

muro 3y ago
What does being a non-profit have to do with management compensation? People don't work there for free.
- olyjohn 3y ago
  No but that seems to be the expectation. People act like if it's a non-profit that they have to be held to the highest standards, and everybody there should be volunteering out of the goodness of their heart. Meanwhile, anything done by a for-profit company is okay, because they're a business and they have to make money. Fucking bullshit.
jstarfish 3y ago
Yes. All that means is that the money siphoned off by management was never taxed as revenue. Non-profits are not charities (though some are). It is just a business model. The fucking NFL is a non-profit organization. See also: Boy Scouts of America. Nearly bankrupt from sex abuse lawsuits, the program itself may fold, but no executive is going hungry. See also: the Susan Komen foundation, whose only function is to raise money to talk about breast cancer. Not to cure it, just to raise awareness of it.
- runlaszlorun 3y ago
  > Yes. All that means is that the money siphoned off by management was never taxed as revenue. Non-profits are not charities (though some are). It is just a business model. The fucking NFL is a non-profit organization. Honestly, every sentence in there is incorrect. Are many senior non-profit execs overpaid for underperforming? You’re prob right. But the hyperbole takes away from your point, IMHO.
  - throwaway-blaze 3y ago
    Salaries and benefits are generally deducted from taxable gains at every company in the western world, not even just in the USA.
  - jstarfish 3y ago
    > Honestly, every sentence in there is incorrect. The NFL's non-profit status has been contentious for years. > Section 501(c)(6) of the Internal Revenue Code specifically defines professional football leagues as exempt organizations under that section. These organizations are exempt whether or not they administer a pension fund for football players. (Irs.gov)
    - okprod 3y ago
      To be clear, the difference between the NFL (when it was a 501(c)(6)) and Mozilla as a 501(c)(3) is the former tax status specifies an entity's purpose as serving members of an association, while 501(c)(3)s have a purpose to serve the public good. Strictly from a nonprofit financial perspective and from reviewing its most recently filed public 990, Mozilla doesn't pay its senior staff an exorbitant amount; it looks to be an entity with $20-$30M in revenue and double that in assets, so seeing its highest paid employees making $200-$300K isn't out of the ordinary. It does look to pay quite a bit to Upwork, which I assume is their rent expense. It can be difficult to tell from a 990 if there is fraud going on however.

Aren't they a non-profit?

muro 3y ago

What does being a non-profit have to do with management compensation? People don't work there for free.

olyjohn 3y ago
No but that seems to be the expectation. People act like if it's a non-profit that they have to be held to the highest standards, and everybody there should be volunteering out of the goodness of their heart. Meanwhile, anything done by a for-profit company is okay, because they're a business and they have to make money. Fucking bullshit.

jstarfish 3y ago

Yes. All that means is that the money siphoned off by management was never taxed as revenue. Non-profits are not charities (though some are). It is just a business model. The fucking NFL is a non-profit organization. See also: Boy Scouts of America. Nearly bankrupt from sex abuse lawsuits, the program itself may fold, but no executive is going hungry. See also: the Susan Komen foundation, whose only function is to raise money to talk about breast cancer. Not to cure it, just to raise awareness of it.

runlaszlorun 3y ago
> Yes. All that means is that the money siphoned off by management was never taxed as revenue. Non-profits are not charities (though some are). It is just a business model. The fucking NFL is a non-profit organization. Honestly, every sentence in there is incorrect. Are many senior non-profit execs overpaid for underperforming? You’re prob right. But the hyperbole takes away from your point, IMHO.
- throwaway-blaze 3y ago
  Salaries and benefits are generally deducted from taxable gains at every company in the western world, not even just in the USA.
- jstarfish 3y ago
  > Honestly, every sentence in there is incorrect. The NFL's non-profit status has been contentious for years. > Section 501(c)(6) of the Internal Revenue Code specifically defines professional football leagues as exempt organizations under that section. These organizations are exempt whether or not they administer a pension fund for football players. (Irs.gov)
  - okprod 3y ago
    To be clear, the difference between the NFL (when it was a 501(c)(6)) and Mozilla as a 501(c)(3) is the former tax status specifies an entity's purpose as serving members of an association, while 501(c)(3)s have a purpose to serve the public good. Strictly from a nonprofit financial perspective and from reviewing its most recently filed public 990, Mozilla doesn't pay its senior staff an exorbitant amount; it looks to be an entity with $20-$30M in revenue and double that in assets, so seeing its highest paid employees making $200-$300K isn't out of the ordinary. It does look to pay quite a bit to Upwork, which I assume is their rent expense. It can be difficult to tell from a 990 if there is fraud going on however.