Maggie's Farm

I agree.

The whole concept of a nfp is misleading. It conjures up an image that the people working for the nfp are either working for free or earning less than those at a for profit company doing similar work.

NFP has simply become a tax classification that tilts the playing field and is ripe for abuse.

INSURANCE PREMIUMS

Trade-offs are everywhere!

Prior to ObamaScare, you had a choice - you could buy insurance or not buy insurance. Because rational people would weigh the cost of purchasing insurance versus the risk going without, insurance companies had to negotiate premiums in a marketplace that reflected the possibility that people would opt to go without if the premium did not make financial sense.

Today, the scale is tipped. When weighing the cost of the premium versus the risk of not buying insurance, the buyer must not only consider the risk of remaining uninsured, but also Obama's financial penalty for not paying a premium to his insurance company bedfellows. Thus, it is reasonable to expect that premiums will increase by an amount approaching the penalty, i.e. equilibrium.

The insurance companies know that Obama(Doesn't)Care has a gun to the head of every American forcing them to buy insurance at whatever price they charge.

This is what happens when leftist policies are put into play.

FIXING OUR EDUCATIONAL PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM

Even if it provided an education, it's costs are too high. That it focuses on political indoctrination while ignoring education makes it that much worse. Public school employees and their unions have one goal - and it's not educating our kids. It's stuffing their wallets and leftist politicos are happy to participate in the charade as long as the teachers push an agenda aimed at dumbing down bright young mind and creating more mindless Democrat voters.

NON-PROFITS: The New Rich

The concept of a "non-profit" organization is flawed. All organization, corporations, etc. are made up of individual people. None of these people operate on a non-profit basis. That is, all of the individuals are paid for whatever it is they do (or are supposed to be doing).

Take for example Adventist Health Systems, a "non-profit" hospital chain based in Florida that was recently found guilty and fined by the federal government for giving kickbacks ($$$) to doctors in return for their referrals for high priced hospital services. Their join-profit status allows their corporate structure to avoid millions of dollars in corporate taxes so that these dollars can be used elsewhere - as in for higher salaries for their executives.

A search shows at least 10 executives being paid in excess of $1,000,000.00 with the CFO receiving over $3,000,000.00. These are not the salaries we think of when we imaging charitable religious organizations. They are the salaries we associate with top executives at large US corporations. Clearly, these folks are not "non-profit"!

Many, perhaps most, non-profits are used by for profit people who abuse the tax advantages in order to enhance their profits and line their pockets.

Run away? I work for a living while you evidently troll the internet while pretending to direct something?

As for my sources, first start by reading the US tax code to understand what it means to be a "non-profit" organization - for purposes of my discussion, I have clearly implied organizations that are organized under US law as tax exempt (a bit of a misnomer) organizations. I did so when forming and organizing a 501(c)(3) organization myself. I have also worked or consulted for several "non-profit" hospitals.

If you take the time to look at non-profit hospitals and search the appropriate records, such as their annual 990 returns, you'll see that most non-profits are run by people making very large profits. This includes hospitals and many "charitable" organizations such as the American Heart Assn, American Cancer Soc, the Red Cross, etc.

Many of these organizations also play games with their donations and budgets to make it look like they are spending more of their income (donations) on charitable services versus administrative expenses than they actually are.

Here's an example form Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/sites/williampbarrett/2012/02/22/charities-fudge-their-fundraising-costs-shocking/

I once helped with a fund raiser for Am. Cancer Soc. Donors were asked by ACS reps to make their donations for set up expenses payable to the individual reps rather than the ACS. When I asked a rep the reason, she stated that it was so that a higher proportion of donations showed up as going to services rather than admin costs. When also stated that it was OK to make the checks payable to the individuals until I challenged her and then she admitted that the IRS could deny such a deduction.

As to executives at non-profit hospitals making huge salaries, I have no doubt that many are talented and hard working. The issue that I have is that using non-profit status to reduce one's corporate tax when the corporate profits are flowing thru to for profit individuals means that these so-called non-profits have an unfair advantage over admitted for profit organizations that operate for like purposes.

PS - I see that you are a director of a "non-profit" organization. Do YOU draw a salary? Are you working for no profit, i.e. no income. If so, you're not the problem I'm talking about. But let's take my point a bit further. As a non-profit, your organization has certain tax advantages over a similar for profit organization that provides the same service, namely your organization's "excess" income - what a for profit company calls profits - for a year is taxed at a far lower rate than the retained income of a for profit company. Also, YOUR salary is not considered to be profit, at least for the organization. It's considered a corporate expense. But please don't tell me that your salary (if you don't receive one, extrapolate to the similar non-profits where the director does) is not a profit for you, i.e. YOU are not non-profit.

Capisce?

Here's the crux of the matter, Donald.

1. The farther any organization or government is away from the people who pay for that organization, the easier and more likely it is for that organization or government to misuse and abuse its "income".

Corollary: It's harder for citizens in Anytown USA to keep track of what the federal govt is doing with their money and harder for them to do anything about it than for them to watch and control the spending by their local government.

2. Obtaining non-profit status from the IRS allows an organization certain competitive advantages.

3. Small local non-profits (in general) are less likely to get away with abusing the system than large national non-profits, but both extremes do happen.