I'm not saying the organisation is a good one, BUT the CEO of an organisation (even a nonprofit) this big making money shouldn't be a shocker. They have big responsabilities and stuff.
I really don't know, so you're probably right, my point was just that the argument "the CEO of this non profit earns a lot of money so don't donate to them" (which is somehow always raised on posts like this) makes absolutely no sense.
They are a non-profit, but they are also a huge organization : the CEO has responsabilities and work and skills similar to someone running a big company. If you want someone competent and up to the task you have to pay them accordingly.
Profit is made only after all expenses have already been paid. Salary/wages are an expense. Same concept with a non-profit Universities, the professors and administrators are not volunteers, they get paid, but the University is not allowed to keep the money after all expenses have been paid. Non-profits pay their employees, they are just not legally allowed to keep the profits they make after all their expenses have been paid off, they must either donate the profits or invest it back into the company to further their cause. I've heard this 20% argument before, but this is 20% to cancer research only. They donate to other areas related to breast cancer, such as informational prevention efforts, screenings, and breast cancer education. Most of their profits go to educating the public about breast cancer prevention and early detection, some to helping with treatments, some to research, and some to making breast cancer screenings more affordable or available.
How about nobody donate anything to anyone for 5 years, let all these organizations crumble, and see what pops up in their place? Surely society won't produce more corruption...
I've heard this 20% argument before, but this is 20% to "cancer research" only. They donate the rest to other areas related to breast cancer. Their profits go to educating the public about breast cancer prevention and early detection, some to helping with treatments, some to research, and some to making breast cancer screenings more affordable or available. They are employees not volunteers, They are legally bound to pay their employees, just as they are legally bound to not keep any profits. This argument tries to make the non-profit look bad by saying they only donate 20% of profits, but its 20% to cancer research. This argument is based off a misconception of their use of funds which shows that research takes 20.9%, while public health education takes 39.1%, health screening services takes 13%, 5.6% to treatment, 10% for fundraising and 11.3%for administrative costs. All of their profits do go to breast cancer efforts.
Comments