- Joined
- Jul 26, 2009
- Messages
- 19,035
- Reaction score
- 7
Ok, so it isn't a 501(c). Is it some other 501(x)?
No, as the project developed we realized it was better not to seek any exemption.
Ok, so it isn't a 501(c). Is it some other 501(x)?
"Nonprofit" is a misnomer for a corporation or organization. Really it should be called "tax exempt" corporation, for example.
I feel like I'm on an acid trip in Wonderland.
Then it seeks to exist for you and becomes the subjectively interpreted reality of those who are still around to interpret it.
Like I said, without interpretation, it doesn't exist.
Go walk the woods.
A perfect example of how celebrities profit from "non-profits" is Bono's charity ONE:
The non-profit organisation set up by the U2 frontman received almost £9.6million in donations in 2008 but handed out only £118,000 causes (1.2 per cent).
Dude, come back to the topic. We are talking about American Michael Moore, not Irishman Bono. No strawmen allowed.
DaveM - don't know if you missed my question but I'll repost
are you trying to say that Michael Moore used his non-profit foundation to make a profit to buy a house? for his personal use?
Reality seeks to exist for me?
I'm sorry, but I can't take that seriously.
Reality is what it is, regardless of our attempts to interpret it. A rock will fall if we drop it. That is what we understand to be the law of gravity. We cannot will it to be otherwise. We can interpret it to be otherwise and we can dream up all sorts of superstitions about it. But it will be what it is. That rock will fall.
We can either accept that reality or ignore it and get beaned in the head by a falling rock.
That's reality vs. our interpretation.
I am aware that any attempt to define reality is itself an interpretation. But by using reason and science, we can augment our understanding of reality over time. It is the closest thing we have to reality itself.
Reality will carry on without us. We should not be so conceited to imagine that reality revolves around our interpretation. We all discover the consequences of not accepting reality for what it is sooner or later.
A perfect example of how celebrities profit from "non-profits" is Bono's charity ONE:
The non-profit organisation set up by the U2 frontman received almost £9.6million in donations in 2008 but handed out only £118,000 causes (1.2 per cent).
Dude, come back to the topic. We are talking about American Michael Moore, not Irishman Bono. No strawmen allowed.
Topic was also 501c3's. No strawmen here, jillio.
please remember to wear hi-viz vest. don't want you to get mistakenly shot by scared locals because they thought they saw Bigfoot.
Ooops, missed it Jiro.
Not sure if any of the profits accumulated from his charity went into building his vast 50 million dollar net worth or not?
It's possible. Remember his charity wasn't feeding the poor or caring for the sick. It was for making films, so who knows?
What I do know is that 50 million is a nice hunk of change. More than an average CEO can hope to make!
No, as the project developed we realized it was better not to seek any exemption.
Again, you are wrong. They have a tax exempt status BECAUSE they are non-profit and show a 0 profit margin at the end of the fiscal year.
Go walk the woods.
Umm. Not true. You really should do more research before you post. Non profits can make a profit.....the difference is the profits are reinvested rather than paid out to individuals. They can also make profits from unrelated activities. They may or may not have to pay tax on that. If they do, they still only pay tax on that portion. Unless outside activites are a major source of their income they can usually maintain their non profit status.
I see. How does that work out?
Simple, it's no longer non-profit.
Umm. Not true. You really should do more research before you post. Non profits can make a profit.....the difference is the profits are reinvested rather than paid out to individuals. They can also make profits from unrelated activities. They may or may not have to pay tax on that. If they do, they still only pay tax on that portion. Unless outside activites are a major source of their income they can usually maintain their non profit status.
Right. Just like I said in #92: "Provision in the IRS does not prohibit profits! They just limit the use of those profits."
Man, never saw so much bitchy attitudes in my life.