Nonprofit Reform

Currently, nonprofit organizations are only required to distribute between 5-10% of their funds to their supposed cause.

Aside from meaning that there is little requirement that nonprofits actually focus on the causes they claim to support, it also means that nonprofits are easily abused by people looking for an easy way to get rich by exploiting honest people’s good intentions.

As such, there should be a major change to this system to ensure that rather than nonprofits being free to call themselves a nonprofit and get away with tax-free status despite paying minimal attention to the cause they claim to support, nonprofits should instead be required to direct a majority of their funds to the causes they claim to support.

At minimum, 65% of nonprofit funds should be directed towards their designated cause, but anywhere up to 75%, 80%, possibly even 90% would be good too. The main emphasis would be that any and all nonprofit organizations should be focused on the cause, not making money. Likewise, this should create a major obstacle to people who are just looking for a way to get rich by scamming people with generous hearts, but without creating laws mandating pay for nonprofit members.

As an additional element, I would also encourage that this be accompanied by a major increase in the amount of tax deductions individuals can claim from charitable contributions. This would also create the benefit of helping push charity work from being a focus of the government back to being a focus of individual citizens.

1 Like

I believe free-market solutions like charitynavigator.org meet this need.

The incursion of NGO’s funded by the state (a lot of CIA operations) is clearly a problem. Block granting funds to NGO’s by federal government seems to be more of a pressing issue.

I’d rather all non-profits be non-state-sponsored and allow for the free market to determine the winners and losers.

How does that website address the problem of individuals being able to use charities as means of getting rich off of charity and laundering money?

I get the impression that you do not actually understand the proposal I am presenting here.

Consumers that are well educated should be given the right to make their own choice of consumption. If a product is dangerous to the public good, government is needed to regulate that.

If a consumer (donor) wants to participate in consumption (donations) with an organization, the responsibility of making an educated decision lies with the person.

If you would like to address black money, money laundering, or CIA incursion into NGO’s (as I’ve added to your proposal) I would agree with your position.

Otherwise your proposal simply reads as a government incursion into non-profits, very similarly to your proposal on the federal government regulating board members of corporations. It shows a lack of understanding of non-person entities, how corporate boards work, and the role of government in ensuring a safe and fair marketplace.

The government already has rules specifying what is required to qualify as a non-profit organization (and as consequence, avoid paying taxes).

All this proposal does is adjust the existing rule in order to clamp down on people abusing the system, with a possible side-bonus of further rewarding people who do make charitable contributions.

Then please, enlighten me and demonstrate that you actually know better.

Then please, enlighten me and demonstrate that you actually know better.

Just did on your other post.

Huh?

Sir, you’re going to have to address policies on a policy-by-policy basis.

I’m not engaging in cross-policy conversations that require I jump from page to page.

1 Like