Jump to content
  • Welcome to AngelsWin.com

    AngelsWin.com - THE Internet Home for Angels fans! Unraveling Angels Baseball ... One Thread at a Time.

    Register today to join the most interactive online Angels community on the net!

    Once you're a member you'll see less advertisements. Become a Premium member and you won't see any ads! 

     

Alex Rodriguez’s charity gave only 1 percent of donations to charitable causes


Wallerrrr

Recommended Posts

Alex Rodriguez' woes continue. A new Boston Globe review of IRS filings by more than 50 athletes found that the charity established by Rodriguez, as well as those by other notable players, gave far less than the expected percentage of their income to actual charitable causes.

 

Nonprofits are generally expected to donate 65 to 75 percent of their revenues to charitable causes, with the remainder going to pay whatever expenses and, if necessary, salaries of nonprofit employees. But according to the Globe, nearly half of the 50 athletes' foundations reviewed fell below that line.

 

Rodriguez was not the only athlete whose foundation failed to meet acceptable giving rules, but his was certainly one of the most notorious misses. In 2006, Rodriguez teamed with Jay-Z for a charity poker tournament that helped the A-Rod Family Foundation raise $403,862. (Final reported records often differ from the "big check" as posted above because of facility use and similar expenses.) However, the IRS reported that barely 1 percent of that total reached charities: $5,000 to Jay-Z's Shawn Carter Scholarship Fund and $90 — yes, ninety dollars — to a Little League baseball team in Miami. The organization then stopped submitting financial reports to the IRS, and was subsequently stripped of its tax-exempt status.

 

read more...

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/mlb-big-league-stew/alex-rodriguez-charity-gave-only-1-percent-donations-163106184--mlb.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If only people knew how much money was "made" by non-profits for so-called charity, but really do NOT go to charitable activities, they'd demand and end to the exempt status for all charities. The last time I looked, less than about 100 of the over 1 million charities had over 80% of their proceeds go to charitable activities. Most charities are lucky if more than 10% actually do. The rest go to employ people fundraising and to pay for wonderful promo items that make the donors feel good, but don't do good work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The military (and many other branches of the government) uses CFC for charity drives.  They distribute an information booklet that has all of the charities along with what they do, and how much of their money goes to administration and how much to the actual charity purpose.

 

http://www.opm.gov/combined-federal-campaign/

 

 

Thanks to them and the Simpsons, one year I donated a large portion of my contribution to a charity that trains helper monkeys for the disabled.  Pray for Mojo!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If only people knew how much money was "made" by non-profits for so-called charity, but really do NOT go to charitable activities, they'd demand and end to the exempt status for all charities. The last time I looked, less than about 100 of the over 1 million charities had over 80% of their proceeds go to charitable activities. Most charities are lucky if more than 10% actually do. The rest go to employ people fundraising and to pay for wonderful promo items that make the donors feel good, but don't do good work.

Its not just AROD but most charitable organizations.  They claim to be nonprofit, but part of the revenue goes to salaries.  Hell AROD could pay himself a salary for appearing at the golf event and it would still be considered nonprofit.  That is why I am very cynical in donating to charites.  Even organizations like the red cross spend too much money on "administrative" costs.  Adiministrative cost could mean a plasma TV in your office!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But, but, but Republicans say that we should lower taxes for the rich and give them tax exemptions for charities! That works, right?

Don't go there, because you will lose in a debate if I list all of the examples of where the government waste our money.  For example the 13 million dollars the government spent recreating sesame street for Pakastani TV!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But, but, but Republicans say that we should lower taxes for the rich and give them tax exemptions for charities! That works, right?

 

 

Don't go there, because you will lose in a debate if I list all of the examples of where the government waste our money.  For example the 13 million dollars the government spent recreating sesame street for Pakastani TV!

No no, go there. Makes you look like a punk taking cheap shots that has nothing to do with the discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its not just AROD but most charitable organizations.  They claim to be nonprofit, but part of the revenue goes to salaries.  Hell AROD could pay himself a salary for appearing at the golf event and it would still be considered nonprofit.  That is why I am very cynical in donating to charites.  Even organizations like the red cross spend too much money on "administrative" costs.  Adiministrative cost could mean a plasma TV in your office!

For this reason I won't donate to the Red Cross, but I will to the Salvation Army. Most of their donations (I've heard 90%) go out to help people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I currently run a small Non-Profit theater company and I have woked for Non-Profits for most of my adult life. I think for some Non-profits, the larger you get, the further you get away from you mission and that is where things get dicey.

 

 

We have a focused mission for providing theater arts and theater arts education to the community with one of our focuses on bringing theatre
to kids through classes, in school perfromances and Theatre for Young Audiences Productions. If we get away from that, then we aren't achieving our mission. Obviously, it looks like Arod's charity isn't doing what it is supposed to  and that sucks for all Non-Profits because most people only hear about the big organizations, not the thousands of small 501 © (3)'s that are working their asses off for the greater good of their community

 

The organization that I run now runs on the most shoe string of budgets ( I am the Artistic director and President of the Board and receive zero pay, our actors receive a Stipend and our teachers are paid. The rest is primarily volunteer). If it wasnt for our tax exempt satus, we would be screwed. There are plenty of large Non-Profits that pay their high up staff quite a large salary, but the law says they are allowed to recieve a fair and reasonable salary based on their job description. Sometimes I think that is unfair when the low end staff is struggling to make rent because they are working in a field they love.

 

Sadly, I think it is true hat a lot of these large charities that are started by sports figures, celebrities and the like are meerely a way to hide funds, make more money or re-direct their earnings to not pay taxes and that sucks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the way, for anyone that cares, here is the legal definition and description of what a Non-Profit is-

 


        

A corporation or an association that conducts business for the benefit of the general public without shareholders and without a profit motive.

 

Nonprofit corporations differ from profit-driven corporations in several respects. The most basic difference is that nonprofit corporations cannot operate for profit. That is, they cannot distribute corporate income to shareholders. The funds acquired by nonprofit corporations must stay within the corporate accounts to pay for reasonable salaries, expenses, and the activities of the corporation. If the income of a corporation inures to the personal benefit of any individual, the corporation is considered to be profit driven. Salaries are not considered personal benefits because they are necessary for the operation of the corporation. An excessive salary, however, may cause a corporation to lose its nonprofit status.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its not just AROD but most charitable organizations.  They claim to be nonprofit, but part of the revenue goes to salaries.  Hell AROD could pay himself a salary for appearing at the golf event and it would still be considered nonprofit.  That is why I am very cynical in donating to charites.  Even organizations like the red cross spend too much money on "administrative" costs.  Adiministrative cost could mean a plasma TV in your office!

 

It's a little more complicated than that though. While a charity's priority should be to it's mission not every person involved should be donating their time. There is a lot of work that needs to be done and people have to be paid to do it. Just because you are a charity it does not mean your rent is going to be lower or that people are going to be lining up to file papers in their spare time for free.

 

I believe I read criticism of a rule that prevents certain employees from being paid more than $100k a year. It's makes it difficult for charities to hire talented individuals who are capable of adding a lot of value.

 

I'm not trying to defend Arod really, but it is important to realize that charities are businesses, and like a lot of businesses things don't always go well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...