Some fundraisers pay >90% of the funds to themselves • Hacker News Board

Re: Some fundraisers pay >90% of the funds to themselves

#61

Post by yieldcrv » Mon, Jun 24, 2024, 6:44 AM UTC

Frieren wrote: post #22

"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...

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.

Re: Some fundraisers pay >90% of the funds to themselves

#62

Post by throw__away7391 » Mon, Jun 24, 2024, 7:20 AM UTC

mNovak wrote: post #50

Frieren wrote: post #22

"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...

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…

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.

Re: Some fundraisers pay >90% of the funds to themselves

#63

Post by LargoLasskhyfv » Mon, Jun 24, 2024, 1:31 PM UTC

mNovak wrote: post #50

Frieren wrote: post #22

"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...

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…

That's the plot of some recent, just 'so-so' action movie.

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.

Re: Some fundraisers pay >90% of the funds to themselves

#64

Post by zarathustreal » Mon, Jun 24, 2024, 4:46 PM UTC

zogrodea wrote: post #32

zarathustreal wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you really need an answer or are you as guilty as they are?

It's a reasonable request. Readers who see the charity to be named named may also donate to them, and seeing such a claim would make readers think twice and perhaps make their donations elsewhere.

It’s not a request, it’s a rhetorical question with the same intent as the comment it’s responding to: signaling outrage.

Both are self-serving and harmful to the actual cause. Despite being on the same side of the issue, neither actually affect any change. Even worse, they both probably feel like they’ve done something to help by posting a comment on a social media site and are now less likely to take any real action