View Full Version : WhiteBlaze "For Profit"?
StoveStomper
11-10-2007, 23:16
There's some newbie (hiker99/Dave) over on thebackpacker.com forums claiming you guys are "For Profit" and his new AT Forum is not.
http://www.thebackpacker.com/trailtalk/thread/49764,3.php
I thought that was kinda a strange way to describe WhiteBlaze.
Nightwalker
11-10-2007, 23:32
There's some newbie (hiker99/Dave) over on thebackpacker.com forums claiming you guys are "For Profit" and his new AT Forum is not.
http://www.thebackpacker.com/trailtalk/thread/49764,3.php
I thought that was kinda a strange way to describe WhiteBlaze.
He's the ex-owner of this place. He has some real resentments going.
His beef is basically over AT Troll selling a trail guide. I think he's a nut, but some people are on his side.
It hardly matters one way or another, really, but you should have seen some of his more insane posts here from the "old days."
I hope that he does well with his site, but I really wish that he wouldn't do it by knocking this one. Or at least knocking one of the owners of this one.
Uncle Silly
11-10-2007, 23:45
I think I met Dave at the Gathering. Wasn't that him, way too drunk most of the time and constantly, incoherently babbling?
AFAIK Whiteblaze is organized as a "for-profit" business, so that bit's correct (if not precise). There's no requirement for a for-profit organization to actually make a profit. That's the lack of precision in Dave's statement: he's implying they are (making a profit). It's a rhetorical trick and IMHO a particularly dirty one.
Personally I'd be happy if Troll and Rock made enough from Whiteblaze that they wouldn't need separate day jobs, but I don't think that's the case.
Frolicking Dinosaurs
11-10-2007, 23:46
Is this the same guy that used to shut this site down for a few days every so often? If so, I hope he is more stable now or participating in the new site will be like - well, like participating here was before Dixi, Rock and Troll took over. I'm sure some stories about what that was like will ensue in this thread :eek:
I wish Former Admin / Easy / Dave well, but if his only reason for starting the site was a problem with Troll's business interests away from the site I doubt the venture will succeed. Running a site like this takes a lot of work and sacrifice. If you aren't there because you care, you just can't hang in there.
Yes it seems he does have some resentment towards me. I can see this after reading his post on his web site. I am sorry he feels this way. I don’t know why though. Since me and Rock have worked out the differences with the guidebook and all is resolved, I don’t know what his issues are. As you can see I posted a reply in on the Trail Talk forums responding to his nonprofit assumptions. I probably should not have replied at all but just wanted everyone to know that we are still a nonprofit web site even though we are not reporting to the IRS as a nonprofit. The guidebook issue has been hashed out and resolved and that does not need to be brought up anymore, its old news.
I am not going to get involved in any of this at all. I am not going to drag anything up from the past.
Here is what I posted as my reply on Trail Talk.
Dave
Nice to hear from you again, I will jump in and give my two cents on this. WhiteBlaze is a nonprofit web site. We stopped reporting to the IRS as a nonprofit web site only because it was recommended advice from lawyers and consultants.
We do not put any of the donations form the web site into our pockets. We do not see one red cent of any of the donations coming in. All profits go right back into the web site and anything left over goes to other Appalachian Trail organizations.
Just because we switched from reporting as a nonprofit to the IRS dose not necessarily mean we are not nonprofit. You should check into what you saying before you make assumptions.
I also find it funny that you picked the name you did for your web site when www.athiker.net (http://www.athiker.net/) is our other web site that we own that we use for testing things out before they get installed on our WhiteBlaze web site. If this all intended as some kind of joke then it is a tasteless one? Then again that is your style.
I'll file this in the "don't give a chit" folder.
camojack
11-11-2007, 03:18
I think I met Dave at the Gathering. Wasn't that him, way too drunk most of the time and constantly, incoherently babbling?
That was him, all right. :(
SGT Rock
11-11-2007, 09:20
I have e-mailed him about this. The site is not a Non-Profit 503C or whatever it is called, but we don't run it for profit. While there is a pool of funds for the site to cover us in case of lean months, there isn't a profit coming out of anything we do here. Neither Troll or I see a cent of money in this for our own use, and the occasional outlay above and beyond site and server costs (such as a feed or something) is agreed upon by both of us and has to be something that is related to the site. You won't see something like a thru-hike by one of us paid for with user donations.
You won't see something like a thru-hike by one of us paid for with user donations.
Only section hikes? ;)
Just kidding. Keep up the great work.
buckowens
11-11-2007, 10:25
I could use an under quilt for my section hike...just kidding ;)
As a fellow soldier says best, "there are always whack jobs out there to keep life interesting."
I know how valuable my time is, and I know what it is like to be away from home on Uncle's dime for many months. The fact that Rock and Dixi dedicate their valuable time to the site is true testimony to their dedication. Especially considering how long Rock was just gone for. The same goes for the efforts of Attroll as well. If you have ever tried to sell anything (profit or not), it is truly a pain in the neck. Collecting money, shipping and all else that goes with it....Keep it up guys, and from those of us who benefit, thanks :) .
CoyoteWhips
11-11-2007, 11:28
Start a hiking BBS and make big bucks!
My theory is that good things should be profitable enough to keep them good, but if you guys wanna do it for free, I'm ok with it.
I could even live with a banner ad at the top, if it helped pay for the bandwidth.
Fiddleback
11-11-2007, 11:34
There's some newbie (hiker99/Dave) over on thebackpacker.com forums claiming you guys are "For Profit"...
To paraphrase that great sitcom, "Not that there's anything wrong with that...!" I sense in this thread and in the above quote the idea that 'profit' or actions that lead to 'profit' are not 'good.':-? I find this particularly disheartening since, like 'profit', our recreation experience promoted by this forum is paid for by what's left over after our expenses. Most of us wouldn't be backpacking if our revenues didn't exceed our costs of living, i.e., we didn't make a profit.;)
But beyond that, there are many definitions and concepts of 'profit' that don't fit an IRS description but none the less contain a motivational drive. I imagine that those behind this forum experience a benefit that is not measured in dollars. Likewise, there is an undefined amount of social good that results from this forum. The good feeling or good result that comes from doing something (social profit) is an externality that is hard to measure but is motivational none the less. It's just the payment that's different.
Filthy lucre!:D
FB
I guess it is just the capitalist in me, but I would see nothing wrong if the admins here made a buck or two. It is a great site and they are providing a service to the hiking community. I respect Attrol and Rock for returning all available funds back into the website or hiking community, but if they should change that policy and pay themselves for their time, I would applaud them. Profit is not a dirty word.
Appalachian Tater
11-11-2007, 12:12
we are still a nonprofit web site even though we are not reporting to the IRS as a nonprofit.
That's probably not the best choice of words to silence critics. WhiteBlaze is either a registered non-profit or it is not. Consider saying "unprofitable website " rather than "nonprofit website".
It's probably also better not to ask for "donations" or talk about "donating members" if you don't want to be accused of using deceptive language. "Subscription" is a better term.
Formal non profit designation (technically a 501c3) is important if you need to raise thousands of dollars a year to buy land because big donors want the tax deductions. Both of my land trusts are 501c3 organizations, Phippsburg Land Trust, and Maine Appalachian Trail Land Trust.
But for a small group the hassles of complying with IRS rules isn't worth it. Few who donate $10 or $20 to White Blaze do so because their contributions are tax deductible. Most probably take a standard deduction, anyway.
Weary www.matlt.org
max patch
11-11-2007, 13:18
It hardly matters one way or another, really, but you should have seen some of his more insane posts here from the "old days."
Remember some of those 3:00 am posts? If you slept in late you missed them as they soon got deleted.
Hopefully he's turned over a new leaf. From his site:
"....Swearing - Absolutely no swear words or disguiseing them by leaving a letter out etc
We will delete un-appropiate content and may even delete and block you from use of ATHiker.org if you have a problem with these few guidelines.
This is a G rated site, lets keep it that way...."
Sounds good. I hope he is successful.
SGT Rock
11-11-2007, 13:22
LOL. I love old DAve to death, but that is like putting Larry Flint in charge of "Where's Waldo" books. I think Dave would appriciate that compariosn. I hope it works out for him though.
LOL. I love old DAve to death, but that is like putting Larry Flint in charge of "Where's Waldo" books. I think Dave would appriciate that compariosn. I hope it works out for him though.
Yeah. He'd probably rename it "Where's Dildo" at 2 AM, then apologize profusely the next morning. (can I say that on WB?) :eek:
As a recovering drunk myself, I hope he gets it together too.
Fiddleback
11-11-2007, 13:54
I hope he is successful.
...and profitable!:D
Profit vs. non-profit should only be meaningful to the IRS and those who are taxed. I doubt it has much impact on personal motivation inside either type of organization while some level of personal compensation will always be criticized by certain groups of on-lookers.
A little over 40 years ago Bob Dylan moved on from being the voice of the protest movement and supposedly 'sold out' to electrification...and took lots of criticism for the hint of a profit motive. Silly.
FB
I ain't gonna work on Maggie's farm no more.
No, I ain't gonna work on Maggie's farm no more.
Well, I try my best
To be just like I am,
But everybody wants you
To be just like them.
They sing while you slave and I just get bored.
I ain't gonna work on Maggie's farm no more.
-- Bob Dylan, 1965
I don't get it. The new site is practicially identical to this one as far as the layout and headings of all the forum categories. What's the point? :confused: WB is awesome, who needs some knockoff/clone site run, apparently, by some angry (and reportedly drunken) WB-hater?
SGT Rock
11-11-2007, 15:57
He isn't really a WB hater - he started WB.
berninbush
11-11-2007, 16:32
That's probably not the best choice of words to silence critics. WhiteBlaze is either a registered non-profit or it is not. Consider saying "unprofitable website " rather than "nonprofit website".
It's probably also better not to ask for "donations" or talk about "donating members" if you don't want to be accused of using deceptive language. "Subscription" is a better term.
As a nonprofit professional, I have a mild professional curiousity as to why you were advised not to incorporate as a 501 (c) 3. I'm guessing the answer is what was mentioned above, that the hassle of doing the paperwork was not worth the little bit of tax you pay on incoming money.
Appalachian Tater makes a good suggestion above, I think, that you talk about "subscriptions" rather than "donations." It's good for the members who contribute to know that the money they send you is not tax-deductible, so they don't get themselves in trouble on their tax returns in case they do itemize deductions. "Subscriptions" fits, too, because there are user privileges associated with giving money.
But I don't think it's a big deal and I certainly don't think anyone needs to feel "deceived" by your legal for-profit status. If you did decide at some point to pay yourselves for the hours you put in, you would be well within your rights. Even "nonprofits" pay their employees a salary-- sometimes a nice one, sometimes peanuts, but if you're going to make a career of it (as I do) you have to earn something. The only practical difference is that nonprofit employees get a fixed salary, no matter what money comes into the organization, while a for-profit business owner gets whatever profits come in over and above operating expenses.
It always amazes me the number of people who assume that everyone who works in the nonprofit field or "for a good cause" must do it solely on a volunteer basis for love of the cause, or for minimal salary. I went into the nonprofit field because I want to do good, and I'm willing to make far less than I could in the corporate world, but I still have to live (and pay my student loans). People do nonprofits a disservice when they develop an unrealistic starry-eyed view of how they work, and then get disillusioned and bitter when the real world doesn't work that way.
Ok, stepping off my soap box now. :D
He isn't really a WB hater - he started WB.
Oh. Why did he give it up, only to start a nearly identical site that appears to want to compete w/WB?
Oh. Why did he give it up, only to start a nearly identical site that appears to want to compete w/WB?While I understand the curiosity factor in your question, I'd suggest that the posts by attroll and SGT Rock are about all you really going to get as far as an explaination, and they are pretty much the be all, end all. To sum up what I know: Dave decided several years ago that attroll and SGT Rock had the ability to keep a good thing going in a positive direction. Agreements were made and I believe they have been lived up to. Dave may see it differently now and is trying to give it another go. I am far from an authority on it, but I am attempting to stir the pot in the opposite direction. (not that you were merely trying to stir the pot):)
SGT Rock
11-11-2007, 18:00
Oh. Why did he give it up, only to start a nearly identical site that appears to want to compete w/WB?
He gave it up because he had other things going on in his life that made running a website well not something he felt he could live up to. He decided it was in the best interests of the site to selflessly give it away even with the time and money he had invested into it. Troll and I have been doing it since about December 2002. Dave had a certain idea about what WhiteBlaze should be when he created it, and we promised to keep it like that. That was of course when it only cost about $30 a month to run the site - troll and I split making payments in the beginning. The site has gotten a heck of a lot bigger since then and takes considerably more money to run - so funding the site means we have to do some things to get the money. Dave is concerned the site may lose some of the ideals he wanted in it - so he is starting the other site to give folks that alternative. The interesting thing about that, at least from my POV, is one of the main things he wanted us to continue was keeping speech as free as possible even if that meant it was sometimes offensive.
wrongway_08
11-11-2007, 18:13
Great job on the site guys! It takes a lot of work and time to keep things going smooth on this board.....THANKS :sun
Wasn't trying to answer for you, SGT., but thanks for filling out the details. Thanks for all that you fellas (dixi included:sun) do to make this site what it is. I'm proud to be a member. Thanks and here's to you on Veteran's Day.:cool:
SGT Rock
11-11-2007, 18:16
Wasn't trying to answer for you, SGT., but thanks for filling out the details. Thanks for all that you fellas (dixi included:sun) do to make this site what it is. I'm proud to be a member. Thanks and here's to you on Veteran's Day.:cool:
It's quite alright Ed. Thanks.
Rain Man
11-11-2007, 18:44
As a nonprofit professional, I have a mild professional curiousity as to why you were advised not to incorporate as a 501 (c) 3. I'm guessing the answer is what was mentioned above, that the hassle of doing the paperwork was not worth the little bit of tax you pay on incoming money.
Could've been that WhiteBlaze was losing money (I strongly suspect), and not going 501(c)(3) allowed the owners to deduct losses and at least get some benefit from personally keeping it afloat financially?
NOT that I have any idea what ATTroll and SGT Rock did or did not do, but I do know that it's not as simple as non-profit or for-profit as most folks think.
And yes, the paperwork hassle and other restrictions sometimes just aren't worth the benefit of being 501(c)(3).
Rain:sunMan
.
I have been quite pleased with this site, and hope it continues to operate long into the future, there is some fantastic information on this site mixed in with some humor, which I enjoy(for the most part).
Becoming and official non-profit, from what I understand, is a long process, and is quite complicated. Someone I was talking to the other day says it now takes upwards of two years to be certified by the U.S Government.
Kirby
LMAO.
The level of ridiculous statements about being and/or becoming a non-profit is hilarious. It is apparent that most of you have no idea what you are talking about. I am a practicing tax attorney and have counseled numerous non-profits, so I think that I can speak with a little certainty.
I would suspect from what I've read that the primary factor behind the profit or non-profit questions may have been disclosure. As far as paperwork goes, either way you have to file a tax return, eh?
He gave it up because he had other things going on in his life that made running a website well not something he felt he could live up to. ..............
I'm not surprised by his decision, which is similar to why I'm not doing the Trail Days website anymore. A better person came along and will do a much better job. But unlike what's happening with this new forum, I won't be starting an alternate Trail Days site in a year or so.
But I am surprised that Sgt. Rock and ATTroll don't keep a few dollars for themselves. In fact, I recommend that both of you go along with the for-profit status and pay yourselves a minimal, token fee for maintaining this excellent site. I'm aware of the time needed for site maintenance, and if you profit a bit either through advertisements or "subscriptions," I don't think too many people here would complain.
As an example, I charge the Town of Damascus (http://www.damascus.org/) for one hour of my time each month, although I spend a good bit more than this on the site. It makes me happy, they're getting a deal, so it's a mutual benefit. I strongly recommend that the site maintainers for Whiteblaze at least profit enough to buy a few Boston Lagers. That is, unless they're independently wealthy, in which case they can loan me a few bucks.
One thing for the owners to think about here (and maybe they have): What is your exit strategy? At some point in the future, you will want to move on. Finding someone to support the site the way you do and for no money will be difficult at best. Perhaps a little good old American commercialization would be a good thing for the long-term health of WB.
SGT Rock
11-11-2007, 20:52
We are waiting for the Internet bubble to come back. Then we will sell the site for a few hundred million, wait for bubble to burst and the site to fold. Then open it again as philanthropists.
Skidsteer
11-11-2007, 20:53
One thing for the owners to think about here (and maybe they have): What is your exit strategy? At some point in the future, you will want to move on. Finding someone to support the site the way you do and for no money will be difficult at best. Perhaps a little good old American commercialization would be a good thing for the long-term health of WB.
Considering what they have to deal with, I'm pretty sure they've thought much about exit strategies.
Over and over again.
dixicritter
11-11-2007, 21:19
Considering what they have to deal with, I'm pretty sure they've thought much about exit strategies.
Over and over again.
LOL... Thanks for the giggle.
We are waiting for the Internet bubble to come back. Then we will sell the site for a few hundred million, wait for bubble to burst and the site to fold. Then open it again as philanthropists.
You mean the hiking Internet bubble... :D
Uncle Silly
11-11-2007, 23:40
You mean the hiking Internet bubble... :D
Nah. He said "come back". That one hasn't gotten here the first time yet. :)
Nah. He said "come back". That one hasn't gotten here the first time yet. :)
seems to me there are quite a few Internet hikers :)
Uncle Silly
11-12-2007, 00:45
seems to me there are quite a few Internet hikers :)
sure but how many are offering startup capital and looking to invest in hiking-related IPOs?
there were quite a few computers on the Internet in 1993 but that didn't make it a bubble.
(note, if you are offering startup capital, send me a PM!)
Nightwalker
02-28-2009, 19:23
You won't see something like a thru-hike by one of us paid for with user donations.
Darned shame, that...
Rockhound
02-28-2009, 19:32
Perhaps WB should be for profit. I could not imagine having to put up with smart azzes like me for no money. And I'm one of the tamer ones. Anyway, keep up the good work.:D
buff_jeff
02-28-2009, 20:51
Hikers have to have the most latent anger of any other cross-section of society. Whiteblaze reaffirms this angry hiker theory daily.
you have much to learn, young padiwan. try a political forum. or the popo forums.
buff_jeff
02-28-2009, 21:06
you have much to learn, young padiwan. try a political forum. or the popo forums.
Yeah, I've been to some pretty volatile forums...much more so than here.
I was just joking, but it is funny how angry we can all come across on here at times. :D
Alligator
02-28-2009, 21:13
Yeah, I've been to some pretty volatile forums...much more so than here.
I was just joking, but it is funny how angry we can all come across on here at times. :DIt's all the shoe problems.
and here i thought it was the hiking belts making their underdrawers all ride up. you know, during all the hiking. out of doors.
and here i thought it was the hiking belts making their underdrawers all ride up. you know, during all the hiking. out of doors.
Wait a minute. Members here actually hike?! :eek:
what!? where'd you hear that?
what!? where'd you hear that?
Oh, OK, WHEEWWW, I thought you were implying there was an actual hiking agenda here. Sorry, simple misunderstanding. Just scared me for a moment. :o
Alligator
02-28-2009, 21:27
and here i thought it was the hiking belts making their underdrawers all ride up. you know, during all the hiking. out of doors.Well I can't take a belt when I'm out of Dewars, but if I'm lucky I'll have some Jamesons to tickle my drawers loose.
good grief! are you serious? who wants to carry all that crap?!
Well I can't take a belt when I'm out of Dewars, but if I'm lucky I'll have some Jamesons to tickle my drawers loose.
down with unnerpants!!
(i blame it on the fruity fire water)
generoll
02-28-2009, 21:48
if they are making anything off thgis site then good for them. many hospitals are non-profit, but that doesn't mean they are free. no margin, no mission is the phrase that they use.
Bare Bear
03-01-2009, 19:32
I would bet that a profitable hiker web site is as profitable as a hiker hostel. I always get a laugh out of those who think they are going to start a B&B on the AT and make a fortune catering to hikers!
God Bless em all and give a donation when you can.
4eyedbuzzard
03-01-2009, 19:38
...I always get a laugh out of those who think they are going to start a B&B on the AT and make a fortune catering to hikers!...
Yeah, everybody knows the BIG money is in T shirts and "data books".:rolleyes:
bulldog49
03-03-2009, 17:00
I did not read through this whole thread so my apologies if someone has already posted this, but what exactly is wrong if this site is for profit? It takes a lot of work and expense to maintain a site like this and if the folks who run it make something from it, then good for them.
I think technically it is a 'for profit' site. It just isn't making a profit.
Maybe someday. It certainly deserves it more than alot of other businesses.
The world just needs to figure out what to do with cheap but well meaning bastards like myself.
wrongway_08
03-03-2009, 17:25
I would see no problem with them making money on this site, they put a ton of work into this site and put up with a lot of crap from smart-ass-A-holes like me.
Only bad thing is the amount of money the site would loose due to being taxed. I would think they would have to make 50% more profit just to have the same income for the site........ in other words, you cheap bastards that can afford to pay but choos not to.... start pay'n!!! :)
Anyways, Screw this guy who is bad mouthn these fine people here on WB and thanks to the mods for the hard work they do.
wilderness monk
03-03-2009, 17:54
I agree Fatman. it's the website and the people whom I visit in the forum that I donate to the site. I think it's just childish that someone that has a beef with WhiteBlaze has to start a new forum page and try to get his subscriber from this site. I do wish him well and hope to continue to meet and greet new members here at the WhiteBlaze.
The Weasel
03-03-2009, 17:58
The difference between "profit" corporations/LLCs and "nonprofit" makes a big difference in terms of who the owners are. Profit corporations are owned by shareholders - Troll and Rock, I think, here - who elect the directors and officers and they run the business, and shares can be sold to others unless there is a restriction on sales. Not-for-profit entities are owned by the "members", defined in the articles of incorporation, who may be very restrictive or very broad, and their ownership can't usually be sold to someone else. The "members" elect directors and officers. When a profit corporation is closed, its assets after paying bills go to the shareholders; when a non-profit is closed, they are divided among members. These things can matter when a company is large.
wrongway_08
03-03-2009, 18:00
:DHmmmm, so I have money comming my way......:D
The Weasel
03-03-2009, 18:04
:DHmmmm, so I have money comming my way......:D
Probably not from here, you don't.
R
There will be a way someday maybe. It is a very good site, with good intentions.
It does alot of good, and in the future, perhaps even more good may come of it.
Maybe some profit along the way also. Wouldn't hurt. Best wishes.
Lot of crap out on the Internet, but my favourite sites are...
Wikipedia
White Blaze
Hiking HQ
TLB Forum
some chess sites, like Opening Explorer, and Chess Lab
There will be a way someday maybe. It is a very good site, with good intentions.
It does alot of good, and in the future, perhaps even more good may come of it.
Maybe some profit along the way also. Wouldn't hurt. Best wishes.
Lot of crap out on the Internet, but my favourite sites are...
Wikipedia
White Blaze
Hiking HQ
TLB Forum
some chess sites, like Opening Explorer, and Chess Lab
No Myspace?????:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::ee k::eek::eek::eek:
Never been to Myspace. Sounds creepy.
The Weasel;793780 When a profit corporation is closed, its assets after paying bills go to the shareholders; when a non-profit is closed, they are divided among members.
For a non profit?
You sure about that?
On another note, there is absolutely no reason that a non-profit cant pay the people running it a decent salary. The guys at LNT got that figurred out.
wb isn't for profit, it is for prophets :eek:
superman
03-03-2009, 19:06
Um...why should I care what form of business WB is. It's their business...not mine. It's not like they ask much of us. It's worth donating, to me, just to get the ability to correct my mistakes in my posts. Given what a pain in the butt you people are some times they sure don't get enough to compensate for it.:)
wrongway_08
03-03-2009, 20:09
Given what a pain in the butt you people are some times they sure don't get enough to compensate for it.:)
Amen to that!! Some of these people on here..... cause more crap to fly then a ceiling fan! :D:D:D .....
the goat
03-03-2009, 21:56
On another note, there is absolutely no reason that a non-profit cant pay the people running it a decent salary. The guys at LNT got that figurred out.
hear! hear!
moderators should get a little scratch too!:D
The Weasel
03-03-2009, 23:00
For a non profit?
You sure about that?
On another note, there is absolutely no reason that a non-profit cant pay the people running it a decent salary. The guys at LNT got that figurred out.
Yes, I'm sure.
As for salaries, many non-profits pay decent, and more, salaries. Organizations such as United Way, Blue Cross and Blue Shield, Boy (and Girl) Scout Councils and thousands of other large non-profit corporations - including many churches, by the way - pay good to excellent salaries. So do the Gates Foundation, Red Cross and Goodwill. Others don't have much money and pay poor or even no salaries.
TW
berninbush
03-11-2009, 11:08
and Goodwill.
TWHa ha, that's a generalization! I work for Goodwill... Let's just say that pay scale depends a lot on the affiliate you work for.
Not that I'm complaining or anything. I like my job and I'm thankful to be employed, and I'd call my salary decent.
But yes, nonprofits who can afford to do so, can and should and do pay their workers decently well. To quote the Bible, "The worker is worth his keep." You may get excellent work from a volunteer, but you probably won't from a poorly paid employee. It's a question of motive and human nature.
I would second the earlier question about "members" getting to keep what's left over when a nonprofit dissolves. That might be true for some "membership" organizations... I'm not as familiar with those... but when a true nonprofit charity dissolves, its assets MUST be given to other nonprofit charitable organizations. Nothing can go to the individuals who found or manage the organization. The boards of such organizations are not elected by members... they are established when the organization is founded, and are then self-perpetuating, electing their own successors.
The Weasel
03-11-2009, 11:25
Ha ha, that's a generalization! I work for Goodwill... Let's just say that pay scale depends a lot on the affiliate you work for.
Not that I'm complaining or anything. I like my job and I'm thankful to be employed, and I'd call my salary decent.
But yes, nonprofits who can afford to do so, can and should and do pay their workers decently well. To quote the Bible, "The worker is worth his keep." You may get excellent work from a volunteer, but you probably won't from a poorly paid employee. It's a question of motive and human nature.
I would second the earlier question about "members" getting to keep what's left over when a nonprofit dissolves. That might be true for some "membership" organizations... I'm not as familiar with those... but when a true nonprofit charity dissolves, its assets MUST be given to other nonprofit charitable organizations. Nothing can go to the individuals who found or manage the organization. The boards of such organizations are not elected by members... they are established when the organization is founded, and are then self-perpetuating, electing their own successors.
Good post, bro...A couple of comments.
"Non profit" corporations pay, essentially, the same way as "profit" organizations. Some pay their senior officers very, very well, occasionally even obscenely well. Some pay lower level emnployees well, or badly. The law does not require or forbid good or bad pay, as long as it is above minimum wage. I'm glad you're paid adequately; I think Goodwill is one of the 'fair' nonprofits, as are most of them.
As for ownership, while different state laws vary, and rules for election of boards vary, often the original formation documents (articles of incorporation and by laws) will decide who votes, and how. Ownership is similarly determined by state laws, but ultimate ownership of a non-profit corporation generally rests with its members. Different attributes of that may be handled in a variety of ways, so you're not wrong, either.
Weasy
berninbush
03-11-2009, 12:51
I'm a "sis," actually. ;)
On the salaries, I agree. I would just add that "obscenely" high salaries are in the eye of the beholder. For example, a few years back there was a lot of media outrage when it was revealed that the president of the Red Cross was being paid something like $400,000 a year. Understandably, donors who make a lot less than that can get upset at how their money is being used. However, you have to consider that that person (and any person really qualified to run an organization that size) makes several times as much in the corporate world. They're already taking a big pay cut because of their desire to "do good." It would be difficult or impossible to find a truly qualified individual willing to do such a demanding job for what most people think of as a "reasonable" salary. You get what you pay for.
You said "ultimate ownership of a non-profit corporation generally rests with its members." That may be true when you're talking about membership organizations (like professional societies and clubs), but you're ignoring the whole realm of nonprofits that HAVE no members. I work for one, am on the board of another, and am helping another new organization that's thinking about incorporating as a 501 (c) 3. The "standard" format for the articles of incorporation has a section where you say whether or not your organization has members. If it doesn't, then the governing body is the self-perpetuating board of directors (at least four of whom sign the articles of incorporation, and then they elect their own successors). And I'm positive that it's profoundly illegal for those board members to take the assets of the organization if it dissolves-- those have to be handed over to another nonprofit.
(I know you're a lawyer and I'm not questioning your legal expertise in general, but I do have a masters degree in Nonprofit Management so I'm just a little more specialized in this area.)
As for implications for Whiteblaze... it could incorporate as a nonprofit and then donations would be tax-deductible, but it would probably create a lot of unnecessary paperwork headaches for the owners, whether they were a membership organization or not. There's nothing improper with asking for donations, as it is, just so people know it's not deductible-- any more than it would be improper to charge a "subscription fee" to enjoy the services Whiteblaze provides. The only difference is, it's optional so that you can enjoy a significant part of the site for free.
The Weasel
03-11-2009, 15:19
I'm a "sis," actually. ;)
(I know you're a lawyer and I'm not questioning your legal expertise in general, but I do have a masters degree in Nonprofit Management so I'm just a little more specialized in this area.)
As for implications for Whiteblaze... it could incorporate as a nonprofit and then donations would be tax-deductible, but it would probably create a lot of unnecessary paperwork headaches for the owners, whether they were a membership organization or not. There's nothing improper with asking for donations, as it is, just so people know it's not deductible-- any more than it would be improper to charge a "subscription fee" to enjoy the services Whiteblaze provides. The only difference is, it's optional so that you can enjoy a significant part of the site for free.
B --
You can be a 'bro' in spirit.
As I said, things differ from state to state and how papers are drawn up. You don't offend me, and you're right as to some nonprofits.
Incorporating as a nonprofit, however, is a state-law matter, as a form of organizing. That does NOT make contributions to the nonprofit "tax deductible." THAT can only come after filing with the IRS (and approval) as a 501(c) organization (that's a Internal Revenue Code section). It's a lot of work, and I'm pretty sure that WB's owners understand that it may not be worth the effort.
Weasy
berninbush
03-11-2009, 15:47
Yeah, it's a two-step process... state incorporation and then IRS recognition. I think it's not as complicated/ scary as some people make out, but still, not really worth it to WhiteBlaze.
Of course, I may change my mind about the level of complication after I go through it with this organization I'm helping! ha ha.
DaSchwartz
03-11-2009, 16:32
Something calling itself "non-profit" means nothing. You can pay yourself a rather nice salary running a "non-profit" organization. Countless thousands do just that. And it's all legal.
I doubt if whiteblaze gets enough donations to even worry about the non-profit status, just easier to report the income and then itemize the deductions like cost of running the server and donating to AT causes. So the net income is zero.
superman
03-11-2009, 17:37
It's more important for you to remember when to re-new your donating status than to sort through the finances of White Blaze. Enquiring minds want to know why so many don't donate to WB when they know they should.:)
Yes, I'm sure.
Huh.
I had understood that when a non profit dissolved its net assets would often need to be transferred to another organization doing similar work.
It seems odd to me that if Weary's MATL were to fold, or if the Nature Conservancy were to close up shop, the billions of dollars in assets (in the later example) would be divided among its membership.
Very odd, indeed.
Edit:
Never mind. Berninbush got it right. No need for me to pile on.
berninbush
03-14-2009, 01:12
Something calling itself "non-profit" means nothing. You can pay yourself a rather nice salary running a "non-profit" organization. Countless thousands do just that. And it's all legal. It's not quite that simple, actually. The law is written precisely to keep individuals from setting up a nonprofit just to benefit themselves. A nonprofit must be governed by a *volunteer* board of directors that receives no pay and has ultimate governance of the organization (including hiring and firing all the paid employees). This is supposed to keep people from disguising a sole proprietorship as a nonprofit to avoid paying taxes. To get around it, you would have to get three or four of your best friends to be your board and set the salary you want... even then, if the salary is too outrageous or you aren't serving a legitimate charitable purpose, you're likely to get in trouble with the IRS.
I doubt if whiteblaze gets enough donations to even worry about the non-profit status, just easier to report the income and then itemize the deductions like cost of running the server and donating to AT causes. So the net income is zero.Yep. Plus, if they incorporated as a nonprofit they'd have to be run by a volunteer board composed of several people under standard bylaws... which would certainly make things more complicated. Not worth it.
Good post, bro...A couple of comments.
"Non profit" corporations pay, essentially, the same way as "profit" organizations. Some pay their senior officers very, very well, occasionally even obscenely well. Some pay lower level emnployees well, or badly. The law does not require or forbid good or bad pay, as long as it is above minimum wage. I'm glad you're paid adequately; I think Goodwill is one of the 'fair' nonprofits, as are most of them.
As for ownership, while different state laws vary, and rules for election of boards vary, often the original formation documents (articles of incorporation and by laws) will decide who votes, and how. Ownership is similarly determined by state laws, but ultimate ownership of a non-profit corporation generally rests with its members. Different attributes of that may be handled in a variety of ways, so you're not wrong, either.
Weasy
All true. But working for non profits offer some psychic benefits also. At least I can attest that working to manage non profits as a volunteer provide such benefits, so I assume the same holds for the paid staff.
As I grow older I find increasing satisfaction in knowing that land and trails I've helped create will remain long after I'm gone. I'm not sure about the existence of an after life, but at least for a while after I switch to a different domain, people may still enjoy things I've helped achieve back here on earth.
Weary, director, Maine Appalachian Trail Land Trust; chair, Conservation Committee, Phippsburg Land Trust
www.matlt.com
rainmaker
03-14-2009, 22:43
Weary,
That is a legacy or "afterlife" worth all the endless hours of meetings, politicking, and writing letters and articles. Good job.
Huh.
I had understood that when a non profit dissolved its net assets would often need to be transferred to another organization doing similar work.
It seems odd to me that if Weary's MATL were to fold, or if the Nature Conservancy were to close up shop, the billions of dollars in assets (in the later example) would be divided among its membership.
Very odd, indeed.
Edit:
Never mind. Berninbush got it right. No need for me to pile on.
Just to keep the record straight. If the Maine Appalachian Trail Land Trust goes out of business, all of its assets, including land and any remaining money must be transferred to another non profit land trust.
Members get nothing, other than the satisfaction of having protected the summit ridge of Mount Abrams, one of the great mountains of eastern United States.
Abrams, which is also known as Abraham, is connected to the Appalachian Trail via a short side trail.
We raised the $600,000 needed for the acquisitions with the help of ATC, the State of Maine, and several hundred mostly small individual donors.
We paid off the mortgage we had to take out to keep the mountain from being sold to developers at the last minute, when a retired teacher sent us two hand written checks totalling $100,000. He asked to remain anonymous. But said he wanted to do something because he and his late wife had so enjoyed Maine on a hike here three decades earlier.
I found it an interesting feeling to be faced with a $100,000 mortgage as the contributions begin to dry up. I'll be eternally grateful to that retired professor. And to all the others who contributed, both before and since.
Weary
www.matlt.org
DaSchwartz
03-15-2009, 12:41
It's not quite that simple, actually.
It's easy enough to get 3 or 4 family members to be your "board". Going non-profit also can mean the elimination of having to pay taxes such as property tax and income taxes.
Very interesting site
http://managementhelp.org/strt_org/strt_np/strt_np.htm
You can pay yourself a good salary from a non-profit. Of course, spending 90 percent of the proceeds to pay your directly is going to get lots of attention.
They do something here in SC with the larger charities and put out a Scrooge List of charities that give little back. Most of those bad charities pretend to be firefighting and law enforcement charities. They put the list on the web each year around Christmas.
Now slightly off stopic...
Another thing about charity, and I'm sure everyone has run across this on the AT, is people who solicit funds for a charity for hiking but use most of those funds for their own expenses on the trial then send what's left over to charity. Basically raising funds for their own vacation and escape from society.
That's also legal and it sickens me.
le loupe
03-15-2009, 13:00
All true. But working for non profits offer some psychic benefits also.
Yes-but what were the psychic benefits?
Can you hear women's thoughts? can you move things with your mind? Tell us more...
sliderule
03-15-2009, 16:05
It's easy enough to get 3 or 4 family members to be your "board".
The IRS takes a very dim view of "related" directors.
Yes-but what were the psychic benefits?
Can you hear women's thoughts? can you move things with your mind? Tell us more...
Sure. I've found that by choosing the letters on my computer key board very carefully I can get at least one or two people hundreds miles away, go to their keyboards, open sites I recommend such as www.matlt.org, and send a few bucks to help provide buffers to a trail threatened with nearby development.
You can't imagine how great that makes me feel. It's not tangible, but it is far more valuable to my psyche, my sense of well being, than a few extra income dollars would be.
Weary
berninbush
03-16-2009, 10:34
Of course, spending 90 percent of the proceeds to pay your directly is going to get lots of attention.Yep, the IRS might not catch on right away (or they might) but sooner or later that's gonna get you in big, big trouble. Especially if you're not actually using your time for a charitable purpose.
They do something here in SC with the larger charities and put out a Scrooge List of charities that give little back. Most of those bad charities pretend to be firefighting and law enforcement charities.Good for them (the people who put together the list). A reputable charity will publish an annual report telling you what percentage of their income goes to their mission, as opposed to overhead expenses (like management salaries). Generally, nonprofits that spend more than 20 or 30% on overhead are frowned upon. Less than 10% is good. The Better Business Bureau, www.guidestar.org, Charity Navigator, and others issue reports on nonprofits to help inform giving.
I hate those "law enforcement" charity scams too. One of them always used to call my old boss at my last job because he'd given to them in the past. He finally got smart and stopped. They were soooo obnoxious and pushy, and I have serious doubts about how the money was being used (although I never researched).
Sure. I've found that by choosing the letters on my computer key board very carefully I can get at least one or two people hundreds miles away, go to their keyboards No biggie. Lots of us have that power, and just by choosing our words can make another person not only post a reply but raise their blood pressure AND make them slather at the mouth. :D
The Weasel
03-16-2009, 12:04
Yep, the IRS might not catch on right away (or they might) but sooner or later that's gonna get you in big, big trouble. Especially if you're not actually using your time for a charitable purpose.
Good for them (the people who put together the list). A reputable charity will publish an annual report telling you what percentage of their income goes to their mission, as opposed to overhead expenses (like management salaries). Generally, nonprofits that spend more than 20 or 30% on overhead are frowned upon. Less than 10% is good. The Better Business Bureau, www.guidestar.org (http://www.guidestar.org), Charity Navigator, and others issue reports on nonprofits to help inform giving.
***
Actually, you're not totally correct: Someone raising money for charity is perfectly entitled to charge against those receipts expenses that are related to the cost of the fundraising and of performing the effort. The IRS, even if aware, would find it as difficult to challenge "Hiker Harry" for his 90% expenses in a hike-a-thon for the Save The Raisins Foundation as would a challenge to the Girl Scouts deducting the cost of cookies they sell. While some of us like the Girl Scouts better (Samoas! MMMMM!), this is a free (mostly) country, and neither one should get a hassle.
Nor do I agree with the "shame the Charity" by characterizing some as "better" for low administrative costs. There is no relationship between the value of a group and the administrative costs they incur: I'll use Girl (or Boy) Scouting as another example: If you contribute to either, a high proportion will go to physical plant and "council" employees who are, regardless of how characterized, "administrative" in character. But those items "leverage" massively into volunteer efforts.
Is it tacky for "Hiker Harry" to use a pretext? Of course it is. Is it bad? Well, maybe. Illegal? Probably not.
Weasy
sliderule
03-16-2009, 20:26
Actually, you're not totally correct: Someone raising money for charity is perfectly entitled to charge against those receipts expenses that are related to the cost of the fundraising and of performing the effort.
The IRS seems to like the word "reasonable." In the case of charities, they seem to place "reasonable" in the same sentence with "expenses" on a reasonably frequent basis. If the Girl Scouts paid $2.85 for a $3.00 box of cookies, the IRS would (in theory) need to find out which scout's uncle owns the bakery.
Along those lines, can you spell "excess benefit transaction?"
I thought so. So much for freedom, eh?
berninbush
03-22-2009, 19:33
Weasel that's not what I said. The IRS won't necessarily descend upon a charity that has high administrative costs. It's just that people giving donations are urged to be wary of "charities" that are mostly administration with little program.
In the world of grant writing (which is my job), "program" expenses are anything directly related to your mission. So a lot of Girl Scout employees and physical plant can be considered as program costs, if the employees are interacting with the girls (say, visiting schools to recruit them for new troops) or providing guidance to troop leaders, and if the physical plant is being used for troop activities (like the Girl Scout camps) or to prepare for troop activities (like a work room where boxes of cookies are sorted). "Administrative" expenses would be things like the accountant and the accountant's office space. For this purpose, the definition of "program cost" is very broad and generous.
What I said about the IRS catching on was referring to a person who gets his three best friends to set up a "nonprofit board" and pay him a big salary for doing something with no legitimate charitable purpose (running what amounts to a for-profit business, or doing no work at all). THAT is not an "administrative expense," it's outright fraud, and it is indeed illegal.
Whether non profit status makes sense depends in part on what you are trying to do. I've helped found two non profits and am active in three or four others. If your mission is to raise a lot of money to buy a mountain top, or to otherwise preserve expensive land you have to be a non profit or no one will give you any money.
Therefore our town land trust and the Maine Appalachian Trail Land Trust are both non profits. The process was pretty simple. Just a matter of filling out a batch of forms. We hired a lawyer to help, just to make it easier. But we could have done it our selves.
I had nothing to do with founding MATC. I was six years old when that happened. But it has been a non profit for quite a while. MATC doesn't buy much land, but it does spend more than $200,000 a year on trail crews, ridge runners, caretakers, etc.
Again without non profit status it would be difficult to raise that kind of money on an annual basis.
Creating a web site like White Blaze is different. It doesn't require lots of thousand dollar contributions to survive. At least I don't think so. I've never tried.
White Blaze seems to do quite well on a smattering of $10 - $30 contributions, and some some advertising income.
A third category is illustrated by the Sierra Club, which is heavily into politics. Non profits are forbidden from doing heavy political lobbying. The Sierra Club decided constant debate with IRS wasn't worth the the hassle, and gave up its non profit status -- or did so a few years ago. I think that is still true, but I haven't checked recently.
Weary
SGT Rock
03-22-2009, 22:49
Creating a web site like White Blaze is different. It doesn't require lots of thousand dollar contributions to survive. At least I don't think so. I've never tried.
White Blaze seems to do quite well on a smattering of $10 - $30 contributions, and some some advertising income.
-Weary
It doesn't take that much to get started. About $6 a month, $10 for a domain, and about $300 in software for what we started with. It get more expensive as you get lots of members and use lots of bandwith - and then start adding features that also cost extra.
But you are right - we make due on a few contributions and some ads. Nothing big. I guess it would be different if we also added salary to the costs and paid ourselves and the admins for what they do for us.
mweinstone
03-23-2009, 08:16
love is whiteblaze.net.sarge is whiteblaze.net.hal,open the pod doors.in over one million attempts , the hal 9000 has never failed to create lox and bagles and creamchease and capers and onions and never again shall this thread be given to rear its ugly head in morbid throws of goof. xoxoxoxooxmatty
sliderule
03-23-2009, 10:21
A third category is illustrated by the Sierra Club, which is heavily into politics. Non profits are forbidden from doing heavy political lobbying. The Sierra Club decided constant debate with IRS wasn't worth the the hassle, and gave up its non profit status -- or did so a few years ago. I think that is still true, but I haven't checked recently.
Weary
Sierra Club formed The Sierra Club Foundation to operate in a tax-exempt status to support Sierra Club's missions (such as education and litigation) not involving political lobbying.
http://www.sierraclub.org/foundation/