Posted on 01/20/2020 4:54:26 AM PST by Kaslin
Pity one can’t get a criminal conviction for politicians who say they will “reduce crime” or other such, and then fail to do so. (Not that politicians ever knowingly lie, or anything like that.)
Prison? Only if you are NOT one of the (Dem) elite...
Non-Profit: where the money over and above your expenses is called something else.
But in reality, it’s still profit.
yet the Clinton Foundation WALKS free.
he should have hired Comey’s brother to do his taxes.
Next: the Clinton Foundation. But I’m not holding my breath.
The PIAPS should be shaking in her colostomy bag over this
The swamp reigns supreme.
Our nation is under the control of the global socialists and they will use the system to destroy anyone who opposes them, regardless of precedent or law.
Trump can only do so much. The swamp cannot be drained in 8 years. It just cannot happen. The left has had decades to infest our government with active and sleeper agents.
We are only now seeing the tip of the iceberg they have waiting for us all.
People need to understand that “non-profit” is a tax term. That’s it. It has nothing to do with morality, or volunteerism, or helping your fellow man, etc. It’s a tax term and tax status. And tax statuses come with rules. If you don’t like the rules, don’t apply for the status.
I had a friend that jumped through a ton of hoops to finally get the status. But after working under it for a short time, he abandoned it. It wasn’t worth the government involvement and ongoing requirements.
Tyranny.
Ah, no—using the nonprofit code to redirect the bulk of funds to yourself in salary, while insignificantly contributing to your chosen “cause” is not okay.
Ten years in prison is ridiculously steep and of course we don’t want to compare it to all the Clinton Foundation-type fraud, etc. And the left gets away with this crap all the time while going after the right.
But that still doesn’t make it okay.
The legal status for a nonprofit is supposed to be that you are essentially the custodian of an entity for the public good, because with the tax breaks given the public is helping to fund it.
Yes, I understand that, but at the end of the day, all it really is is a tax status. And a danged restrictive one. Some people make very, VERY good money working for “non-profits”.
Isn’t the NFL a non-profit?
Aren’t Microsoft and Apple entities for the public good? They employ a LOT of well paid people and bring life changing products to the public.
As one guy said, Apple has helped a LOT more people than Mother Teresa did.
I’ll have to look at the facts closely on this one, but I am never comfortable with the idea of having a member of Congress getting paid exorbitant salaries while working for multiple non-profit organizations like this. This arrangement is a perfect opportunity for “legal” bribery.
The whole concept of nonprofits in this country is a pretty smelly business. There is a nonprofit that is attempting to take over maintenance of the city parks here in Pittsburgh. It has a paid staff of 38 and its CEO makes an annual salary of $210K. UPMC claims to be a nonprofit while it holds a virtual monopoly on medical care in this region.
Nonprofit. Riiiiiiiiiiiiggggggggghhhhhhhhhhttt!
What about the Clinton Foundation and all the money they stole from the people of Haiti? Does that fall under the same rules? Now Harry and Megan have set up a CF style foundation that he is president if and she is VP of. This is how they will continue to support their princely lifestyle now that they are no longer receiving any support from the British subjects, living in the Vancouver mansion was th security provided by Canadian subjects facilitated by Trudeau.
Yes there is. This is exactly what "the swamp" is. Maybe he was targeted because he is conservative and that is wrong. But this type of thing is part of the "I scratch your back; you scratch mine" mentality that creates the swamp. Do it at your own peril.
Ah, no—using the nonprofit code to redirect the bulk of funds to yourself in salary, while insignificantly contributing to your chosen “cause” is not okay.
Did I miss something here? Where in this article does it say anything about the ‘bulk of funds’ going to his salary?
‘Rothschild admitted afterwards that he thought his money had been adequately spent.’
Apparently, the main donor was happy.
I also noticed that missing from the article was how much the salary actually was. Makes me suspicious. If it was a small percentage then that is a different story than if it was a significant percentage. Does it say anywhere how much the salary was?
Recently set up a scholarship fund in name of dear departed friend...NO WAY will it be non profit! And the fund doesn’t care what a parents income is, either.
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.