Are most non-profits largely a scam?

[Anonymous]

The biggest scam charities are often focused on military/troop support.

I worked for a fed agency and by far the troop support charities were the worst. It was incredible to see how much money some of them raked in, simply by saying they were doing something "for the troops" and exploiting that.

Example: The recent photos of bad food troops are eating. Without even looking, I can bet you $1,000 there are charities who have glommed on to that and are seeking money to send "food boxes" to the starving troops.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"most" is a strong word. Check the IRS determination letter and their 990s if in doubt.

This. You can see how much of their funds are going to non-program expenses, or fundraising, for example.

Exactly. Don’t be Trumpian and form ideas based upon your “gut.”

Seek data first.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"most" is a strong word. Check the IRS determination letter and their 990s if in doubt.

This site makes it easy. https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/237098123

[Anonymous]

Some are scams. taking donations to pay themselves without paying taxes, coming up with scam ideas etc.

Some are legit and add tremendous value to society. Primarily the big ones like Red Cross.

The vast majority of them are not “scams” in the legal sense but are an outrageously inefficient use of resources. It would be far better for all the money of, say, poverty orgs in your town to pool cash and let the Red Cross or similar handle it. But no, every bored housewife or college applicant thinks they can do it better.

I immigrated to the us from a more socialist country and a few years after moving here had an aha moment that Americans are fundamentally suspect of govt and would rather give their money to private charity. Where I’m from it’s the opposite, citizens are fundamentally suspect of private charity and trust that the govt is best placed to provide the social safety net. I trust that the govt is not only best placed to pool and spend resources efficiently, but I also trust the govt to decide best priorities for charity. In the us, everyone and their uncle thinks that their pet project, or their view of solving a social ill, is better than everyone else’s. Where I’m from, charitable giving is just not that big of a thing, minus the big ones (Red Cross, medicine sans frontiers etc).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Some are scams. taking donations to pay themselves without paying taxes, coming up with scam ideas etc.

Some are legit and add tremendous value to society. Primarily the big ones like Red Cross.

The vast majority of them are not “scams” in the legal sense but are an outrageously inefficient use of resources. It would be far better for all the money of, say, poverty orgs in your town to pool cash and let the Red Cross or similar handle it. But no, every bored housewife or college applicant thinks they can do it better.

I immigrated to the us from a more socialist country and a few years after moving here had an aha moment that Americans are fundamentally suspect of govt and would rather give their money to private charity. Where I’m from it’s the opposite, citizens are fundamentally suspect of private charity and trust that the govt is best placed to provide the social safety net. I trust that the govt is not only best placed to pool and spend resources efficiently, but I also trust the govt to decide best priorities for charity. In the us, everyone and their uncle thinks that their pet project, or their view of solving a social ill, is better than everyone else’s. Where I’m from, charitable giving is just not that big of a thing, minus the big ones (Red Cross, medicine sans frontiers etc).

I agree. I'm French.

[Anonymous]

If they pay salaries over 100k then it shouldn't be considered a non-profit anymore.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some are scams. taking donations to pay themselves without paying taxes, coming up with scam ideas etc.

Some are legit and add tremendous value to society. Primarily the big ones like Red Cross.

The vast majority of them are not “scams” in the legal sense but are an outrageously inefficient use of resources. It would be far better for all the money of, say, poverty orgs in your town to pool cash and let the Red Cross or similar handle it. But no, every bored housewife or college applicant thinks they can do it better.

I immigrated to the us from a more socialist country and a few years after moving here had an aha moment that Americans are fundamentally suspect of govt and would rather give their money to private charity. Where I’m from it’s the opposite, citizens are fundamentally suspect of private charity and trust that the govt is best placed to provide the social safety net. I trust that the govt is not only best placed to pool and spend resources efficiently, but I also trust the govt to decide best priorities for charity. In the us, everyone and their uncle thinks that their pet project, or their view of solving a social ill, is better than everyone else’s. Where I’m from, charitable giving is just not that big of a thing, minus the big ones (Red Cross, medicine sans frontiers etc).

I agree. I'm French.

Except the primary argument from DOGE last year before they summarily cancelled hundreds of federal contracts supporting people in need is that it’s not the responsibility of the government to care for the disadvantaged, that it should be private charities picking up the slack.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If they pay salaries over 100k then it shouldn't be considered a non-profit anymore.

And ask for volunteers to do the work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Some are scams. taking donations to pay themselves without paying taxes, coming up with scam ideas etc.

Some are legit and add tremendous value to society. Primarily the big ones like Red Cross.

The vast majority of them are not “scams” in the legal sense but are an outrageously inefficient use of resources. It would be far better for all the money of, say, poverty orgs in your town to pool cash and let the Red Cross or similar handle it. But no, every bored housewife or college applicant thinks they can do it better.

I immigrated to the us from a more socialist country and a few years after moving here had an aha moment that Americans are fundamentally suspect of govt and would rather give their money to private charity. Where I’m from it’s the opposite, citizens are fundamentally suspect of private charity and trust that the govt is best placed to provide the social safety net. I trust that the govt is not only best placed to pool and spend resources efficiently, but I also trust the govt to decide best priorities for charity. In the us, everyone and their uncle thinks that their pet project, or their view of solving a social ill, is better than everyone else’s. Where I’m from, charitable giving is just not that big of a thing, minus the big ones (Red Cross, medicine sans frontiers etc).

The Red Cross here in the US has much to improve upon. I've experienced them during natural disasters twice and in both cases I was appalled at how little they did. They always seemed to manage to have their people in their logo-branded vests in full force wherever the media cameras were, however.

The most responsive and generous activity was from local people helping local people. I remember a local business guy driving around quietly handing out bags of hot meals to everyone in the neighborhood. There were state National Guard folks helping clean up. There were Salvation Army teams who came around with empty boxes we could put our stuff in. There were groups from churches walking around with rakes and shovels and helping in any way they could.

The Red Cross never showed up. In both cases, in two different geographic locations. Never once did they come around.

And lets not forget that the Red Cross had access to military bases to get blood donations from healthy young troops. Then turned around and sold it to hospitals, and even worse, sold it back to the military when they needed it.

As long as I live, i will never give a dime to the Red Cross. YMMV, though. This was my personal experience.

[Anonymous]

Tunnels to Towers is another legit non profit with a wonderful mission.

You have not done your homework. Turn off Fox News ASAP!

[Anonymous]

The funniest ones are the ones on Fox News urging Christians to give money to elderly Jews.

[Anonymous]

It's just the kids and their parents starting a non profit to put on their college application. I assume a small percentage of them are actually a passion project by the kid, the rest are resume filler.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I see several people around me starting non-profits, they get paid by it, their kids get resume bumps by it and social life prospers with it. They do some good work but most of the donations go towards administrative expenses and salaries so net effect is low. We give as much in donations as possible but sometimes it feels like we are only supporting lifestyles of people who can't find other jobs. Is it true or just skepticism?

You know SEVERAL people employed by nonprofits they founded themselves?

[Anonymous]

Most are scams. Just donate directly to people in need.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some are scams. taking donations to pay themselves without paying taxes, coming up with scam ideas etc.

Some are legit and add tremendous value to society. Primarily the big ones like Red Cross.

The vast majority of them are not “scams” in the legal sense but are an outrageously inefficient use of resources. It would be far better for all the money of, say, poverty orgs in your town to pool cash and let the Red Cross or similar handle it. But no, every bored housewife or college applicant thinks they can do it better.

I immigrated to the us from a more socialist country and a few years after moving here had an aha moment that Americans are fundamentally suspect of govt and would rather give their money to private charity. Where I’m from it’s the opposite, citizens are fundamentally suspect of private charity and trust that the govt is best placed to provide the social safety net. I trust that the govt is not only best placed to pool and spend resources efficiently, but I also trust the govt to decide best priorities for charity. In the us, everyone and their uncle thinks that their pet project, or their view of solving a social ill, is better than everyone else’s. Where I’m from, charitable giving is just not that big of a thing, minus the big ones (Red Cross, medicine sans frontiers etc).

The Red Cross here in the US has much to improve upon. I've experienced them during natural disasters twice and in both cases I was appalled at how little they did. They always seemed to manage to have their people in their logo-branded vests in full force wherever the media cameras were, however.

The most responsive and generous activity was from local people helping local people. I remember a local business guy driving around quietly handing out bags of hot meals to everyone in the neighborhood. There were state National Guard folks helping clean up. There were Salvation Army teams who came around with empty boxes we could put our stuff in. There were groups from churches walking around with rakes and shovels and helping in any way they could.

The Red Cross never showed up. In both cases, in two different geographic locations. Never once did they come around.

And lets not forget that the Red Cross had access to military bases to get blood donations from healthy young troops. Then turned around and sold it to hospitals, and even worse, sold it back to the military when they needed it.

As long as I live, i will never give a dime to the Red Cross. YMMV, though. This was my personal experience.

The CEO is compensated at $1.3m. Wages account for 35% of the Red Cross's expenses.