3 ms·

"charity spent millions to raise thousands" is a very usual way of tax evasion. The charity owner has parties with friends and family as guests. This is taxes a

"charity spent millions to raise thousands" is a very usual way of tax evasion. The charity owner has parties with friends and family as guests. This is taxes as "charitable work". Can this be improved? Yes, this was going to be improved but the politicians were invited to a fundraiser where they got good food and some freebies. And then it stopped. Or something like that...

ben_w 2y ago
It doesn't even need malice or selfishness, this kind of thing can also be lack of skill. A lot of for-profit businesses also take a lot of investments and fail to make much money. I did a sponsored walk as a kid, I don't think I even raised enough to cover the cost of the petrol to get to the place it was at. And I hear hospitals have to ask people to not do sponsored skydives to raise money for them, owing to the mean amount raised being lower than the mean cost of the healthcare they need to provide due to skydiving accidents.
- elaus 2y ago
  But why would hospitals have to cover the cost of skydiving accidents if they didn't even organize the fundraiser? (side note: Living in Europe, I never heard of skydiving as a popular way to do fundraisers – interesting!)
  - ben_w 2y ago
    I forget the region, but by way of example: My understanding is that in the UK, the NHS is underfunded by taxes and therefore the hospitals do accept charitable support, but also very few people have private insurance on top of the HNS and the NHS hospitals will treat you no matter the cause.
- jzebedee 2y ago
  At these scales, the difference between intentional fraud vs. incompetence or negligence is meaningless. Millions of dollars purportedly for charity are being laundered tax-free and enriching someone else.
dylan604 2y ago
Susan G Koman is infamous for this. So many people assume money raised is for cancer research, when it's actually meant for awareness. Yes yes, we're well aware that breast cancer exists. Let's cure it with the money instead.
- hilux 2y ago
  That is infuriating! It also seems to not be true: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1508105/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1508105/
  - stogot 2y ago
    I don’t see how that (which is written by the Susan Komen foundation) is a viable source for disagreeing with OP. It also clearly says they use the funds for shaping public policy (in addition to grants)
    - hilux 2y ago
      The comment I'm replying to strongly implies that Susan G Komen funds are NOT used for research. According to LOTS of links hosted on many credible sites, that is false. E.g. "Yes yes, we're well aware that breast cancer exists. Let's cure it with the money instead" is negative snark and appears to be completely unjustified.
mNovak 2y ago
While this is also true, the article is more about the direct scam that is fundraising companies. These are in principle separate of the charity, basically running a call center and collecting the funds, and that company pockets 90% of the funds people think they're donating to the charity. Of course the 'charity' is aware of this and is complicit, either because they have no other means of fundraising, or (as seems to be the case in this article) the charity is also a scam, basically just having a good name to plug into the script. Point is, it's more than just writing off parties and entertainment or high salaries, it's directly taking cash in pocket.
- throw__away7391 2y ago
  I worked with about a dozen or so for a few years and from what I saw they are nothing but one layer of horror built upon another. The incentives are so misaligned that the distinction between "scam" and "incompetence" is virtually meaningless. There is absolutely zero sense of financial reality or proportion present anywhere. If your organization spends $500,000 to rescue one dog but gets a lot of media coverage and banks a ton of photos and video to use in future fundraising efforts, this is a win. If next year you spend $10 million on marketing and development events and are able to raise $10,600,0000 for your efforts, that's also a win. One especially crazy example of this thinking is the constant internal fundraising efforts. Most of the organizations I worked with were constantly doing internal fundraising, e.g. collecting donation from the same employees they were paying. These efforts would consume absolutely enormous amounts of on the clock employee time on frankly quite childish activities (think accountants doing arts and crafts with markers and construction paper) to raise a pittance in donations from their own employees. Most of the organizations did this once per month. In some cases this consumed an entire workday for a large proportion of employees for an average donation of $5-$15 dollars.
- LargoLasskhyfv 2y ago
  That's the plot of some recent, just 'so-so' action movie. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beekeeper_(2024_film) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beekeeper_(2024_film) You'll get to see these call centers being blown up, and some scammers beaten or killed by the main protagonist. Also government/political conspiracy, because the main villain is the son of Mrs. President. And of course the secret service protecting her and family at all costs against revenge. Maybe also elements of persiflage of current tech-guruism.
yieldcrv 2y ago
Many wealthy people that I know in the non-profit space vote for gridlock in Congress. I’m talking otherwise Democrat northeasterners aiming to send a Republican to the Senate or vice versa. Nothing gets passed on this topic as long as the filibuster cannot be met. It’s interesting to me. I can see benefitting from the status quo as well compared to some bills I’ve seen.

ben_w 2y ago

It doesn't even need malice or selfishness, this kind of thing can also be lack of skill. A lot of for-profit businesses also take a lot of investments and fail to make much money. I did a sponsored walk as a kid, I don't think I even raised enough to cover the cost of the petrol to get to the place it was at. And I hear hospitals have to ask people to not do sponsored skydives to raise money for them, owing to the mean amount raised being lower than the mean cost of the healthcare they need to provide due to skydiving accidents.

elaus 2y ago
But why would hospitals have to cover the cost of skydiving accidents if they didn't even organize the fundraiser? (side note: Living in Europe, I never heard of skydiving as a popular way to do fundraisers – interesting!)
- ben_w 2y ago
  I forget the region, but by way of example: My understanding is that in the UK, the NHS is underfunded by taxes and therefore the hospitals do accept charitable support, but also very few people have private insurance on top of the HNS and the NHS hospitals will treat you no matter the cause.
jzebedee 2y ago
At these scales, the difference between intentional fraud vs. incompetence or negligence is meaningless. Millions of dollars purportedly for charity are being laundered tax-free and enriching someone else.

dylan604 2y ago

Susan G Koman is infamous for this. So many people assume money raised is for cancer research, when it's actually meant for awareness. Yes yes, we're well aware that breast cancer exists. Let's cure it with the money instead.

hilux 2y ago
That is infuriating! It also seems to not be true: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1508105/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1508105/
- stogot 2y ago
  I don’t see how that (which is written by the Susan Komen foundation) is a viable source for disagreeing with OP. It also clearly says they use the funds for shaping public policy (in addition to grants)
  - hilux 2y ago
    The comment I'm replying to strongly implies that Susan G Komen funds are NOT used for research. According to LOTS of links hosted on many credible sites, that is false. E.g. "Yes yes, we're well aware that breast cancer exists. Let's cure it with the money instead" is negative snark and appears to be completely unjustified.

mNovak 2y ago

While this is also true, the article is more about the direct scam that is fundraising companies. These are in principle separate of the charity, basically running a call center and collecting the funds, and that company pockets 90% of the funds people think they're donating to the charity. Of course the 'charity' is aware of this and is complicit, either because they have no other means of fundraising, or (as seems to be the case in this article) the charity is also a scam, basically just having a good name to plug into the script. Point is, it's more than just writing off parties and entertainment or high salaries, it's directly taking cash in pocket.

throw__away7391 2y ago
I worked with about a dozen or so for a few years and from what I saw they are nothing but one layer of horror built upon another. The incentives are so misaligned that the distinction between "scam" and "incompetence" is virtually meaningless. There is absolutely zero sense of financial reality or proportion present anywhere. If your organization spends $500,000 to rescue one dog but gets a lot of media coverage and banks a ton of photos and video to use in future fundraising efforts, this is a win. If next year you spend $10 million on marketing and development events and are able to raise $10,600,0000 for your efforts, that's also a win. One especially crazy example of this thinking is the constant internal fundraising efforts. Most of the organizations I worked with were constantly doing internal fundraising, e.g. collecting donation from the same employees they were paying. These efforts would consume absolutely enormous amounts of on the clock employee time on frankly quite childish activities (think accountants doing arts and crafts with markers and construction paper) to raise a pittance in donations from their own employees. Most of the organizations did this once per month. In some cases this consumed an entire workday for a large proportion of employees for an average donation of $5-$15 dollars.
LargoLasskhyfv 2y ago
That's the plot of some recent, just 'so-so' action movie. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beekeeper_(2024_film) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beekeeper_(2024_film) You'll get to see these call centers being blown up, and some scammers beaten or killed by the main protagonist. Also government/political conspiracy, because the main villain is the son of Mrs. President. And of course the secret service protecting her and family at all costs against revenge. Maybe also elements of persiflage of current tech-guruism.

yieldcrv 2y ago

Many wealthy people that I know in the non-profit space vote for gridlock in Congress. I’m talking otherwise Democrat northeasterners aiming to send a Republican to the Senate or vice versa. Nothing gets passed on this topic as long as the filibuster cannot be met. It’s interesting to me. I can see benefitting from the status quo as well compared to some bills I’ve seen.