O'Neill. "Ch.3: Religion" from Nonprofit Nation:
Though O'Neill takes care to highlight that the religious sector is the largest chunk of the nonprofit pie, and though there is notice given to the fact that there is a historical reason for the separation of church and state, I am still at odds with the fact that churches in the US are not responsible for reporting their financial activities. In my mind separation != secrecy. We are reminded of this in many quotes, and this is reiterated ad nauseum by leaders and those who wish to foster a free society. For nearly half of the world's 7th largest economy to be unconstrained by regulatory or reporting functions is not only ridiculous but reprehensible. Is it realistic to expect that churchgoers protect themselves from an organization they freely elect to be in? No, and it's absurd to argue this point.
The very word 'secrecy' is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths, and to secret proceedings. John F. Kennedy
(from an address to ANPA, 1961)
Our Ineffectiveness at Measuring Effectiveness: Dan Pallotta:
The Dan Pallotta article on measuring non-profit effectiveness highlights the chase that always plagues evaluative programs, but for me invokes another question: Why is it that we hold nonprofits under such scrutiny when we don't hold for-profit businesses to NEARLY the same standards? What would our markets look like if we did?
Say that a non-profit is the subject of a huge scandal that shakes it up from the top down. The executive, and all their staff resign, might be blacklisted in the non-profit world, and they could face the shutdown of their organization entirely. Maybe they were evading taxes. In the for-profit world, the same company might face fines, might lose face, might even close down, but they would not face the same magnitude of judgment and scorn from the public. It's not going to happen.
When the Pinto was known to kill people due to its faulty fuel tank, Ford analyzed the cost of paying out death settlements and the cost of a recall, and decided they would just pay the settlements. That company is still around today, and when the Pinto debacle comes up, it's old news, just another abuse we expect from the for-profit sector.
Then there is the group in between, the Catholic Church, a group known to harbor and protect pedophiles and sex offenders, yet they get a write-off. Is that what separation of church and state means?
These organizations didn't close down under scandal. We ought to be considering a mutual standard, and mutual accountability. Is it as important to stop the executive taking an extra 10K in salary as it is to stop the executives taking 20 billion?
PhilanTopic: Estate Tax and Charitable Giving:
Taxes. Everyone hates taxes. Gotta' get that big gov. hand out of your pocket, am I right?
No. There is an attitude in this country among the people, fostered and nurtured by the ultra-wealthy, that taxes are oppression, and that somehow, it is cost-free to enjoy the benefits of a society. People do not comprehend that the less tax that is taken in, the larger our deficit grows. That is simple math; less in, more out, and nothing for the future.
A simple pressure tactic used for years by lawmakers is to pressure negotiations by threatening A) "liberty" or B) needed programs.
Less than 15% of the GDP of the US goes to programs in the general public's interest--education, public safety, etc, etc--but these are the areas that get cut. Cutting estate tax out will cause a disproportionate amount of hardship for charities that rely on government support.
Suzanne Perry's article deals with the same issues of taxation and donation to charities. It is a question of what is real--without incentive, will anyone give to charities? Yes, but the incentive is gone for people to individually contribute. It shifts the onus onto the people to do their own good, and as we all know, this means they won't. Given the opportunity to give, those who have less to give usually give more, and the people who really benefit from tax cuts, the upper middle class and the rich, give much smaller percentages, and report they have less to give. By that logic, it's reasonable to argue that it's therefore not a huge loss. But in an industry where money is scarce, organizations are expected to maximize output, and people are already growing weary of spending, now is not the time to hit this minor tax loss. The amount of lost revenue from NOT taxing charitable contributions is significantly less than the taxes GE would have paid if they had paad any tax on their business in the US. The tax breaks are a strawman for the larger holes in our government. Will we let them do it? Of course. When the man who earns 30K a year hears that 100 billion is lost, he doesn't feel this is SO different from 700 billion. 100 and 700 aren't that far apart. It's a hoax, a ruse, a lie, and it's awful.
My $.02 for the week.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
So first off I would like to say, although I respect individual opinion and I myself am not Catholic, I found the stereotype of the Catholic Church as “a group known to harbor and protect pedophiles and sex offenders” offensive and rude. That being said, I enjoyed your analytical approach to the book reading with the inclusion of a quote from JFK. As far as the differing levels of scrutiny between nonprofits and for-profits, while I may not be the most qualified to provide a response, I believe that this difference relates back to societal perceptions of the two sectors. The average person does not fully understand the complexity of the nonprofit world. In my opinion, it is from the name of the sector that the misconception (that the majority, if not all, of nonprofit funding must go directly to the cause) is derived. The mainstream engraining of large corporations into our lives since childhood may be a strong reason as to why we typically do not question the monetary efficiency of the for-profit world.
The market crashes, everyone takes their money out of the bank because they panic... the govt needs more money, so they start cutting taxes... neither make any sense at all. I wonder if we need better education starting in grade school about what the actual repercussions of these things are...Did you learn this stuff in school? Did your parents?
During the last major market turn down, I was talking to my grandparents and trying to explain to them why they shouldn't stick their life savings under the mattress. You would think, after the depression, people would have caught on but we tend to repeat our mistakes don't we?
The best that can be said is that at least we will not have to be bailing out churches. Oh wait! We give them money in faith based initiatives! The layer between church and state is not permeable-it is a funnel that only goes from state to church.
No doubt that the Catholic church has done much good-I stayed at a incredibly neat and cheap convent in Venice-but they have harbored pedophiles, it is a fact. And Steve Jobs himself (or his company) couldn't get away with that.
The misperception of nonprofits is because they have greatly evolved, are not sexy, and no one has really tried to change their image. Change to what? Do we really want to think of them as businesses? No, we want our money going to HELP something, somewhere, someone.
Quite the inspiring reading this week, eh? Religion is always a good spark. I find it hard to remove my own bias from a train of thought when thinking about religious entities. I, too, believe that we need to further explore some sort of equality with non-profits. I like your statement about mutual equality... I believe it's very important because without some kind of checks and balances in place - who's to say what's right and what's not?
Any other organization is responsible for reporting financial activities - not only for taxation but for ethical reasons. I find it hard to swallow that religious organizations are able to use this separation (secrecy) for who knows what - without a societal review.
It is extremely important that you highlighted how taxes, to put it plainly, are not evil. The view of taxes is obviously flawed. The idea that money is coming out of one's own pocket is too easily put into people's minds as the sole identity of the tax. The money that is used by tax dollars is used in many everyday pathways that most are unaware of.
The division of church and state was established for many reasons. In the same way that founders that it would be protecting the people is also the way that it used being used in present day in the opposite of what had been intended. It is interesting to read your opinion on the issue.
Post a Comment