Austria first country to make Covid vaccine mandatory

[Foxi4]

Big shocker coming from a libertarian, lol. You pay people minimum wage and you get minimum effort in return, which is not what most nonprofits are looking for in their staff.


Time is a resource even scarcer than money for many in the US, especially those working multiple jobs already. Bad enough we have to rely on nonprofits at all for stuff like feeding the homeless, when there's an insane amount of pork which could be cut out of corporate handouts and the military budget on the federal level. In most European countries, it'd be considered a failure of government in one of its most basic duties to the citizenry.

Oh, I have no problem with them earning however much they want. I have a problem with dishonesty, and lying to the public. The Better Business Bureau set a recommended *maximum* level of overhead at 35%, meanwhile large American non-profits have “overhead costs” measured in the 80%+ range, including Wishing Well USA (91%), Defeat Diabetes Foundation (81%) Faith’s Hope Foundation (91%) and more. The gross majority of the funds isn’t spent on the purported cause, it’s spent on “fundraising” in and out of itself. The average operating cost across the whole spectrum of foundations is 30%, so only 5% short of what the BBB would consider egregious. “Non-profit” is a classic case of false advertising as far as I’m concerned, they should just call them “charitable organisations” instead because pretending they don’t make a profit is deliberately misleading those who donate.

 

[Xzi]

“Non-profit” is a classic case of false advertising as far as I’m concerned, they should just call them “charitable organisations” instead because pretending they don’t make a profit is deliberately misleading those who donate.

The issue here is that you're trying to redefine what "profit" means, as employee salaries are not considered as part of profit by any capitalist company/corporation on the planet. In fact they're considered an expenditure, the opposite of profit. And I have to reiterate once again that $81K a year is hardly egregious by executive standards, as any other industry's executives very commonly pull in several hundred thousand a year, if not millions a year.

 

[tabzer]

Except there is, and I provided a source stating as much.

No you didn't. What you posted demonstrates what both me and Foxi4 have said.

Repeatedly doubling down after already being proven wrong is never going to

Mmmhmmm... I guess if anybody knew that, it would be the master... or not.

I also think it's dumb that salary is how you measure "corruption".

 

[Xzi]

I also think it's dumb that salary is how you measure "corruption".

I've not said anything like that. In fact I've outright stated the opposite, that paying employees a salary is not indicative of any sort of corruption on its own. But again, money and power leveraged in a certain way are the two most corrupting influence in modern society.

No you didn't. What you posted demonstrates what both me and Foxi4 have said.

Neither of you have disproved the notion that all money taken in by nonprofits must be directed toward operating costs, as employees' salaries are included in that. I was correct on that point the first time I said it, and I'm still correct on it now.

 

[tabzer]

Neither of you have disproved the notion that all money taken in by nonprofits must be directed toward operating costs, as employees' salaries are included in that. I was correct on that point the first time I said it, and I'm still correct on it now.

Again, not what you said. Also that is true, if there is no corruption.

Original statement:

Nonprofit means they spend equally as much on operating costs as they take in.

In which I said:

"That's wrong. Double check that. Also, nonprofits aren't 'less susceptible' to corruption."

Then I reiterated the point with an example of a method of corruption nonprofits are utilized for, hence calling them a "vector" of corruption:

"Nonprofits can and do operate as piggybanks with many methods of siphoning off funds."

With your original claim, you suggest that a nonprofit cannot have surplus (profit). See foundations, treasuries, donations.. You also alluded that they are outside the scope of capitalism.

Take the L. You've made a baseless claim that nonprofits are less susceptible to corruption--tax status does not expel/ward off corruption. You've made patently false claims about the nature of a nonprofit, that your own reference don't support--"nonprofit means they spend equally as much on operating costs as they take in". Suggested that they are beyond/above capitalism and economics. (lol) And you were making the argument how CEOs off corrupt big business make too much money (salary = corruption) where nonprofits don't make so much money so they are okay (less salary = less corruption).

*Snip*

Edit: I asked everybody earlier to refrain from using any insults. Don’t let me catch you again. Argue politely or not at all. -Foxi4

 

[Zajumino]

Neither of you have disproved the notion that all money taken in by nonprofits must be directed toward operating costs, as employees' salaries are included in that. I was correct on that point the first time I said it, and I'm still correct on it now.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the point being made is that for certain non-profits, way too much money goes toward overhead costs (in a sense profit for employees) and fundraising (a.k.a. collecting more money) rather than the useful things that the organization claims to be doing. And so they look corrupt to a certain degree.

It could be argued that for-profit companies are less susceptible to corruption due to things like competition and the fact that people want things of sufficient value in return for their money.

In any case, the moral of the story is:
1. Be careful about what "non-profits" you donate to.
2. You don't necessarily need to be careful about what companies you buy stuff from, but not supporting corrupt ones might be desirable.

By the way, what's an Austria? Is that like an ostrich? Is it a vaccinated ostrich?

 

[Immortallix]

 

[Xzi]

You've made a baseless claim that nonprofits are less susceptible to corruption--tax status does not expel/ward off corruption.

Good thing I said nothing about tax status having any effect on susceptibility to corruption then. Not all nonprofits are tax exempt, either.

You've made patently false claims about the nature of a nonprofit, that your own reference don't support--"nonprofit means they spend equally as much on operating costs as they take in".

"Patently false even though I've done nothing whatsoever to prove it false." Okay kiddo.

And you were making the argument how CEOs off corrupt big business make too much money (salary = corruption) where nonprofits don't make so much money so they are okay (less salary = less corruption).

Twisting my words again because you can't argue with the points I've actually made, cute. For the third time, I said money and power are some of the most corrupting influences in modern society when leveraged in a certain way. That's not referring to an annual salary or rank which stay more or less consistent from year to year within a given organization. Perhaps this relatively-simple concept is just too complex to wrap your mind around.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the point being made is that for certain non-profits, way too much money goes toward overhead costs (in a sense profit for employees) and fundraising (a.k.a. collecting more money) rather than the useful things that the organization claims to be doing. And so they look corrupt to a certain degree.

"Too much" is relative. In almost every case, nonprofit employees could be earning far more money in the private sector. So that might be the point that others are attempting to make, but it's a flimsy one at best.

 

[tabzer]

Good thing I said nothing about tax status having any effect on susceptibility to corruption then. Not all nonprofits are tax exempt, either.


"Patently false even though I've done nothing whatsoever to prove it false." Okay kiddo.


Twisting my words again because you can't argue with the points I've actually made, cute. For the third time, I said money and power are some of the most corrupting influences in modern society when leveraged in a certain way. That's not referring to an annual salary or rank which stay more or less consistent from year to year within a given organization. Perhaps this relatively-simple concept is just too complex to wrap your mind around.


"Too much" is relative. In almost every case, nonprofit employees could be earning far more money in the private sector. So that might be the point that others are attempting to make, but it's a flimsy one at best.

Lol, no u.

Hard to tell if you are pretending to be daft, and if so, why.

 

[Xzi]

Nobody's under the illusion that big pharmaceutical companies create vaccines out of the goodness of their hearts. If they weren't motivated by profit, they'd distribute said vaccines for free, rather than charging the governments of the world billions for them. No brand loyalty is required to get the vaccine, and ironically it's mostly anti-vaxxers which happen to be against taxing big pharma corporations more anyway.

 

[Foxi4]

The issue here is that you're trying to redefine what "profit" means, as employee salaries are not considered as part of profit by any capitalist company/corporation on the planet. In fact they're considered an expenditure, the opposite of profit. And I have to reiterate once again that $81K a year is hardly egregious by executive standards, as any other industry's executives very commonly pull in several hundred thousand a year, if not millions a year.

No, I’m not. In addition to salaries that are considerably higher than average, non-profits can and do post annual profits, defined as income that exceeds expenditure. We already went over that earlier, if you glossed over it. I was simply reiterating that “spending on the program” is literally the lowest item on the spending list for a charity, even though the watchdog-recommended program expenditure is 50%. The real life figures I commonly see on CharityWatch are between 5 and 10%, sometimes less, which is embarrassing. If I donate a dollar to charity, I am not operating under the misguided assumption that I’m giving a dollar to the needy, but I don’t expect it to be less than 10 cents - there’s a limit to acceptable overhead and administrative costs. You’ve also glossed over the fact that these salaries are medians, dragged down by the multitude of small, local charities. Many of the top-end charity-runners earn millions of dollars a year, they’re simply lumped in with those who earn next to nothing because there is no accepted salary standard. Once again, any excess income an NPO makes *does not* have to be spent on the charity purpose or any administrative purpose, it can just sit in a bank account. The only thing an NPO cannot do is spend that profit to the benefit of a private entity since they don’t have shareholders… in theory. We both know that there are ways to get around that also.

That’s not to say that you shouldn’t donate to charity. Absolutely do donate to charity, however you should always research the organisation in question to make sure that your money is being spent primarily on the cause and not on pretty buildings and road trips. Ideally you should spend on small, local charities which directly benefit your community, so that you can monitor whether the organisation is actually making a difference.

 

[Alexander1970]

By the way, what's an Austria? Is that like an ostrich? Is it a vaccinated ostrich?

Very funny.

 

[Xzi]

non-profits can and do post annual profits, defined as income that exceeds expenditure.

And these profits are then used to sustain the organization in the long-term, IE carried over for future operating costs. Per your own source, it cannot be used for the benefit of any private party.

the recommended BBB program expenditure is 50%. The real life figures I commonly see is between 5 and 10%, sometimes less, which is embarrassing.

"The figures you see?" That sounds an awful lot like, "many people are saying." It's anecdotal at best, just an opinion formed out of preexisting biases at worst.

You’ve also glossed over the fact that these salaries are medians, dragged down by the multitude of small local charities. Many of the top-end charity-runners earn millions of dollars a year, they’re simply lumped in with those who earn next to nothing because there is no accepted salary standard.

Again per your own source, 92 percent of all nonprofits take in revenue of less than one million a year. Logically then, no individual within one of those organizations can possibly be earning millions by themselves.

The only thing an NPO cannot do is spend that profit to the benefit of a private entity since they don’t have shareholders… in theory. We both know that there are ways to get around that also.

Correct, an individual cannot legally use a nonprofit's bank account as a slush fund, which is what the Trump Foundation got shut down for. And yes there are ways around that for smart criminals, but in general it's much easier to start a PAC/super PAC to conceal any sort of fraud/money laundering/tax evasion, as there's far less scrutiny into those.

 

[Foxi4]

And these profits are then used to sustain the organization in the long-term, IE carried over for future operating costs. Per your own source, it cannot be used for the benefit of any private party.


"The figures you see?" That sounds an awful lot like, "many people are saying." It's anecdotal at best, just an opinion formed out of preexisting biases at worst.


Again per your own source, 92 percent of all nonprofits take in revenue of less than one million a year. Logically then, no individual within one of those organizations can possibly be earning millions by themselves.


Correct, an individual cannot legally use a nonprofit's bank account as a slush fund, which is what the Trump Foundation got shut down for. And yes there are ways around that for smart criminals, but in general it's much easier to start a PAC/super PAC to conceal any sort of fraud/money laundering/tax evasion, as there's far less scrutiny into those.

When in doubt, revert to Trump. Weak sauce, do better. I already posted the averages as recorded by the BBB and CW. I never said that earning millions is a common, I said that many charity runners do earn salaries in the millions, and on average they earn higher-than-average incomes, to the tune of over 2x when compared to *a household*. I also specified that it’s contingent on the size of the organisation, since smaller charities obviously don’t operate on nearly as much money, so the slice is smaller. You haven’t rebutted anything I said, you just neglected to read the post. There’s nothing in my sources that contradicts anything I’ve said about non-profits. Your first point is actually something I’ve already mentioned as one of the few specific IRS requirements for NPO status, and one that is easily bypassed. If you don’t know how to bypass it, I don’t know what to tell you. Either way, we’re straying further and further away from the subject, I was merely questioning what you’ve said since you seem to put excessive trust in companies that are supposed to help the needy. Just because they’re classified under the NPO moniker doesn’t mean that they’re actually doing anything good - few do, the “big boys” mostly “raise awareness”, however you choose to define that, spending single-digit % on making a difference and the lion’s share of their income on making sure the well doesn’t run dry next year. I don’t define that as “charity”, that’s a “grift”.

 

[Xzi]

I was merely questioning what you’ve said since you seem to put excessive trust in companies that are supposed to help the needy.

Trust really has nothing to do with it, as most trustworthy NPOs voluntarily release their operating budgets to the public. If only most private corporations were even half as transparent.

 

[Foxi4]

Trust really has nothing to do with it, as most trustworthy NPOs voluntarily release their operating budgets to the public. If only most private corporations were even half as transparent.

Every publicly traded company posts a yearly report which is publicly available and detailed - they have to in order to maintain their position in the stock market. If you’ve never looked at one, perhaps you don’t invest in stock.

EDIT: In fact, quarterly reports are pretty much standard - shareholders like to know what their money is doing, but those are usually much shorter.

 

[tabzer]

Trust really has nothing to do with it, as most trustworthy NPOs voluntarily release their operating budgets to the public.

Trust really has nothing to do with it.

"But let me tell you about the most trustworthy NPOs."

*Snip*

EDIT: This is the second time I ask you not to troll and get personal, there won’t be a third. You’re not a hype man, either argue the points or not at all. -Foxi4

 

[Xzi]

Every publicly traded company posts a yearly report which is publicly available and detailed - they have to in order to maintain their position in the stock market. If you’ve never looked at one, perhaps you don’t invest in stock.

Yeah and I'm sure megacorps like Exxon Mobil totally include their foreign assassinations budget on those reports lmao. I'm not conspiracy-minded by nature, but nor am I naive.

 

[Foxi4]

Yeah and I'm sure megacorps like Exxon Mobil totally include their foreign assissinations budget on those reports lmao. I'm not conspiracy-minded by nature, but nor am I naive.

That’s a good point, I don’t report my assassination budget to the HMRC either, although I have killed many people’s whole careers this year.

*Mic drop, hardcore gangsta rap blasting with way too much bass*

 

[tabzer]

Yeah and I'm sure megacorps like Exxon Mobil totally include their foreign assassinations budget on those reports lmao. I'm not conspiracy-minded by nature, but nor am I naive.

Did you get your megacorp vaccine? (or the mom's and pop's one?)