Posted on 03/01/2009 4:02:16 PM PST by theBuckwheat
The top leaders of the 5,3241 charities in America evaluated by Charity Navigator2 earn an average salary of $148,9723. This represents a modest pay raise of 2.55% over the previous year studied, and is similar to last year’s pay raise of 2.34%. All together, the salaries total nearly $770 million. Although this is a considerable amount of money, CEO compensation accounts for just 3.32% of an average organization's total spending....
(Excerpt) Read more at charitynavigator.org ...
Amazing how resilient some people are.
Wow! Has the One changed America's numbering system already?
Poop on that. CEO's hide their real income in other things like stock options and bonuses. As far as charities go, the poeple who run them should really only earn enough to pay for getting money donated to the charity, what it costs them to produce; it's a charity, right? Not a for-profit corporation.
They should donate their time like everyone else at the charity, and just make a small salary in compensation, otherwise they're just stealing from those who need it the most - the poor.
Do you really think that 150G is too much to pay the president of a large charitable organization?
That depends. It should be commensurate with what they bring in each year. Do they sit on their butt each day and direct underlings to do all the work (do they have a large staff to do all the "heavy lifting" so they themeselves need not get their hands "dirty")?
Do they only organize "fund-raisers" (little more than lavish bashes to enjoy with their friends, so they can socialize with the beautiful people), or do they really go out there and meet with needy people to find out for themselves what people in need really . . .need?
In other words, shouldn't they be donating their time, too?
Now most charitable orgs are on the up-and-up, but some aren't. They're little more than cover for the rich to stuff some cash somewhere as their accountant told them to, to avoid a big tax hit. All the while looking like they're "doing something" to help people, but all they really do is attent the lavish "fund-raisers" and parties.
Yes, you do need someone in their social status to bring them together, but do they really need to be paid alot of money to so and have a big budget to do it with?
Try this: hand them a wad of cash and tell them to raise funds with it, and at the end of the year they can keep what's left as their salary. Think the parties would be so lavish or numerous? Would they raise as much money this way?
I always (as you probably do, too) check to see what percentage of a charitable org's funds actually go to help people before donating. Below 50% - they're a front to collect money for themselves. Above 75% - they're worthy of my donation.
I know the president of a non-profit. They are my largest client. The guy has almost no time off. He is constantly driving and flying, sometimes flying oversees. The time and skills he uses in managing, copywriting, editing, media buying, appearing in public and on television and radio, as well as fundraising is worth several times his salary. His fundaising alone brings in 10 times his salary.
He has a family and a home support. Should he do this for free?
No, no, no!!! See, he is actually doing what all of them should do (kudos to him, too. That's a charity I would donate to!), but not all do - That's what I'm trying to say.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.