Churches are automatically exempt from taxation, but most sell their independence for the corporate shield. The 501 C-3 is truly an insidious compact.
The entire structure of non-profit law is the yellow underbelly of the beast that is the Left. It not only funds the Left; it subjugates legitimate charities to godless bureaucracies staffed and headed by Leftist ideologues. The accumulation of wealth and power under the guise of good has always been chapter one in the devil’s playbook.
The complete elimination of non-profit status would be one of the greatest goods in world history. Let everyone play by the rules and let those who are motivated by religion or principle continue without temporal “reward.”
Thank you for posting that. Agree completely.
I’m hoping that when all is said and done, Trump will have eliminated the income tax and therefore all tax deductions and the IRS.
...Leftist ideologues....
__________________
501 C-3 & 501 C-4 (educational focus) take inheritances and use them to set up tax-free structures, even if the enterprise has an income stream. The *profit* is subsumed in salaries to the principles, who are usually the inheritors and their siblings/friends. They now have CEO-type status and personal power from being able to hire and approve grants. The BoDs can be packed to suit the founders’ agendas.
I believe they are liable for personal income taxes on their *salaries*.
These non-profits can be force multipliers. They provide agenda focus. They lure the next generation of activists/organizers and provide the resume. People compete for unpaid or stipend-level internships. They provide seed money for activism and are also recipients of funds from less-focused inheritors who can buy credibility with tax-free donations.
We’ve commented before on how corporations seemed to make a huge leftward turn in the past 30 years or so. In some generationally-wealthy families, directorships are handed to heirs at the same time as access to their trust funds. This gives them both an income and a voice in management. Enough of these type directorships can eventually sway a corporation.
There are also public Boards that disseminate grants, supposedly on merit. These are populated with the wives/daughters of the politically powerful donor class and are not compensated. I have served on one of these (State Arts Board)in the 1980s as the sole member representing the target population and observed that 90% of the grants are given to the well-endowed, admission-charging activities of the powerful/wealthy (Opera, Repertory,prominent museums) and not, as advertised, to the struggling artists seeking small amounts to complete projects. When I complained, the tape recorder was turned off and I was admonished that such grants were legal. These Boards of the National endowments also wield power and are a subtle payoff to the families of the elite.
It might be instructional to research the BoDs of the most radical corporations and see the compensation and the direction taken by the corporation. Not sure how much of all this is public. I am posting based on factoids dropped by such people back over 30 years ago.
Your post. Brilliant.