|
|
Post by sandbar on Dec 29, 2009 1:28:28 GMT -5
Our school (private, Christian) was advised by our CPA to not sell anything (as a fundraiser) which would compete with a local business (i.e. candles, candy, etc.). It could be used to contest the non-profit status of the church. When non-profits do what Seed Savers has done (compete directly with for-profit businesses), they have a competitive advantage. And, I don't think that's fair. Their costs are artifically lowered by the reduction in their tax burden. BTW, non-profits are not entirely tax-free entities. Their employees must still pay income taxes. And, they may not qualify for exemption from property taxes (that's up to the local governing tax body), but they are generally exempt from corporate income taxes and most sales taxes. Lastly, and most importantly, Karen, where's my new keyboard?  |
|
|
|
Post by plantsnobin on Dec 29, 2009 8:41:50 GMT -5
Sorry about the keyboard, I could probably hunt one up around here somewhere. I don't mean to derail this thread either about non profits, but it is a sore subject with me right now. My daughter has a gymnastics business, and has a marial arts teacher, the parents kept asking her to put in a gym so they could work out while their kids took their classes. So, she borrowed money and got the equipment. Expensive equipment. Now, the school was adding on, and they put in a fancy new weight room and guess what? They are allowing the public to use it free. And hiring a 'trainer' to supervise it. We have protested but the superintendant pretty much does whatever he wants to do, always has. Their logic is that the taxpayers paid for the stuff, they should be able to use it. By that logic, people should be able to go into the kitchen and cook stuff, use the computers to surf the web, maybe grow some stuff in the greenhouse. Of course, they should be able to use the welding equipment, fix their car in the shop, etc. Why not? They paid for it. But then if we make a public stink about it, we would like like greedy witches, after all, it is improving the health of the population, right? Their is a local group who started a 'wellness initiative', we pretty much have to participate because it will be good for business. Their are 3 school staff who are members, they were talking about the school allowing the use, and they just could not see where I was coming from on the issue. You never can win with people who are used to grant writing. They live in a different world from people who have to work for a living, they are more worried with having to use this or that money for something stupid thing, because they got it, and they won't be able to get it again if they don't spend it on something, anything. Sorry, I am ranting. But it really ticks you off when your daughter is making huge payments on equipment, then a quasi-government entity comes along to unfairly compete. She stuck her neck out there to take the risk, all they did was raise property taxes.
|
|
|
|
Post by PatrickW on Dec 29, 2009 9:10:00 GMT -5
I must admit, I'm really fascinated with the argument of a non for profit. Of course I've heard the argument as made by big business, usually in opposition to things like welfare payments or other direct benefits, but not usually with tax benefits. What you say however certainly makes sense. The SSE is a real can of worms, isn't it!
For what it's worth, Holland doesn't have non for profit organizations, at least as far as the tax code goes. We have registered charities, but these must never take in more money than they give out, and donations are generally not tax deductible. They are generally not allowed to sell goods and services. I never thought about it before, but the reason we don't have them is probably exactly the same argument you are making about the SSE.
The closest thing we have to a non for profit organization is called a Stichting, sort of a combination of a foundation and a non for profit. The thing is you can declare up front you don't intend to make a profit, but the tax people still come in after the fact and look at the books. If you did in fact make an unintended profit, you still need to pay taxes on this.
|
|
|
|
Post by plantsnobin on Dec 29, 2009 9:30:14 GMT -5
I am all for the elimination of all non profits. Sounds harsh, but it is just too easy to abuse. Even when a cause seems worthy, it turns into something else. You know, childrens charities that end up spending 3 cents out of every dollar taken in, for stuff that actually helps the kids? In the US you can get non profit status for 'social clubs'. Seriously. Whatever a social club is. In the case of SSE, it seems that they should have lost non profit status when they started selling seeds, but that is not how it works here. Pretty sweet to be able to solicit donations, pay yourself and your family who knows what, and still be able to unfairly compete with others who have put their money where their heart is, and taken a financial risk to start their own seed company. Of course the downside is that those wealthy donors you were courting and putting on your board will eventually take over. But I bet it was sweet while it lasted. Like I said before, I respect what Kent did in the beginning. But....
|
|
|
|
Post by nuts on Dec 29, 2009 11:17:02 GMT -5
I think everyone is(or should be) free to start an economic activity on non profit or profit base(seed trading for exemple) In general the starting point is very different in the two cases. But can end up being very much alike. A non profit base is not a garantee against abuse(excessive wages for exemple). Even,the advantages concerning taxes are not as spectacular as some people imagine but that depends somewhat on where you live.And many authorities are very generous with profit organisations too. I don't think it's unfair that a 'non profit organisation' don't pay taxes on profit(=corporate income) The unfair thing is that it's much easier for non profit organisations to collect funds and that's because when you defend an ideal it's easier to have peoples sympathy than when your objectif is making money.And logically they will lose that sympathy when it derives from its ideal. Is that really unfair? Just my personal thoughts . |
|
|
|
Post by PatrickW on Dec 29, 2009 12:11:23 GMT -5
I think everyone is(or should be) free to start an economic activity on non profit or profit base(seed trading for exemple) In general the starting point is very different in the two cases. But can end up being very much alike. A non profit base is not a garantee against abuse(excessive wages for exemple). Even,the advantages concerning taxes are not as spectacular as some people imagine but that depends somewhat on where you live.And many authorities are very generous with profit organisations too. I don't think it's unfair that a 'non profit organisation' don't pay taxes on profit(=corporate income) The unfair thing is that it's much easier for non profit organisations to collect funds and that's because when you defend an ideal it's easier to have peoples sympathy than when your objectif is making money.And logically they will lose that sympathy when it derives from its ideal. Is that really unfair? Just my personal thoughts . Hi Nuts, Of course I don't have any idea what the tax rules are in France, but I guess they are closer to me here in Holland then they are in the US. In the US, a non for profit organization's advantage is a lot more than just not paying corporate tax. One of the most important advantages is people can donate money, and deduct it from their income for taxes. For example, in Holland if you earn €70,000 per year, a part of this is taxed at 50%. If you were to be allowed to deduct a donation of €5000 to a non for profit organization, that would mean the tax people would give you €2500 back. This means for example, if you really want to give away €5000, you could actually give away €10000 because the tax people would give you €5000 back. It can even go farther than this however. If you are a millionaire or a billionaire, and you die, normally whoever inherits this money would have to pay a lot of taxes on it. In some cases as much as 70-80%, I think. If however, you leave it to a non for profit organization, you may not have to pay any or all of this. Because the SSE is a non for profit organization, it is able to get a lot of untaxed and free money that otherwise would just have to be paid in tax. The SSE really gets a lot of money this way, and so when they offer seeds for sale, it really is very unfair to those people who are trying to start a seed company and pay for everything themselves. |
|
|
|
Post by nuts on Dec 29, 2009 14:59:34 GMT -5
Hi Patrick,
The tax rules about donation to non profit organisations are about the same over here.
As for heritage,I think you do not pay any taxes anyway,at least up to a few hundreds of thousends euros,not 100% sure about that.
I see your point,and I understand Karen is pissed off about her daughter.
I think that thinking about the the world in terms of fair trade is an illusion.
If you're a seed trader and you have Monsanto against you,the word 'fair' looses all of its sense.
I'd prefer a world without miljonairs,but they are there and they can give their money to whoever they want,no matter if it's a good guy or a bad guy.And the one who gets the money has an advantage over those who don't get it.And off course this is unfair.
But lets be optimistic,they want to give it to the good guys,to give them an advantage over the bad ones.If they give their money to sse,that's because they think they are better in some way then other traders.They may be right,they may be wrong.If they listen to sse,of course they will hear that they're the good ones.But if the millionair is smart he's going to gather more information about sse,and possibly come to the conclusion that it's not a good idea to give money to sse.
It has nothing to do with what's fair and what's unfair,it's about what's good and what's bad.
By the way,I live in France for 23 years,but I'm dutch
groeten uit Frankrijk
|
|
|
|
Post by silverseeds on Dec 29, 2009 15:20:02 GMT -5
I am all for the elimination of all non profits. Sounds harsh, but it is just too easy to abuse. Even when a cause seems worthy, it turns into something else. You know, childrens charities that end up spending 3 cents out of every dollar taken in, for stuff that actually helps the kids? In the US you can get non profit status for 'social clubs'. Seriously. Whatever a social club is. In the case of SSE, it seems that they should have lost non profit status when they started selling seeds, but that is not how it works here. Pretty sweet to be able to solicit donations, pay yourself and your family who knows what, and still be able to unfairly compete with others who have put their money where their heart is, and taken a financial risk to start their own seed company. Of course the downside is that those wealthy donors you were courting and putting on your board will eventually take over. But I bet it was sweet while it lasted. Like I said before, I respect what Kent did in the beginning. But.... Thats pretty much where my thinking is on this. and why I dont care to much about SSE at this point.... I do hope they continue to preserve, what they did well to save, but it seems the original "heart" is disappearing in the distance in the rear view mirror. I might even become a SSE member sometime to get access to the germplasm they have.... but Im am of the opinion that in loosing that heart they originally brought to it, that I could never share mine with them.... Its time for the next phase.... imo. with everything that implies.... great they saved a bunch of varieties.... NOW lets get them in peoples hands, in breeders hands, in gardeners hands, and in farmers hands..... we need a alternative to monsanto, and bio tech..... who cares about SSE.... it isnt really SSE anymore anyway... to much overhead to do what the original goal was, half as good as it could be..... |
|
|
|
Post by plantsnobin on Dec 29, 2009 15:55:30 GMT -5
I should have stated that my rant goes for the US, with the laws we have. I know nothing of how other countries tax laws are. It is just that the term non profit here can go for things that are very far from being non profit.
|
|
|
|
Post by PatrickW on Dec 29, 2009 16:07:06 GMT -5
By the way,I live in France for 23 years,but I'm dutch groeten uit Frankrijk Nuts: I have been living in Amsterdam for 21 years, but I'm American. baisers d'Amsterdam Whatever happens with the SSE, I suspect a lot of changes will take place over the coming years. I hope they find a way to keep the good and get rid of the bad! Nuts is right, rich people can do what they want with their money, let's make the best of it. Everyone else is right, the tax rules are unfair. Obama has at least 3 more years, lets hope he makes this a priority! |
|
|
|
Post by Alan on Dec 29, 2009 21:44:37 GMT -5
So many things I could say about SSE, but they have already been said, most of them in this very thread! People like us are now the "source" so to speak.  |
|
|
|
Post by sandbar on Dec 31, 2009 0:52:17 GMT -5
People like us are now the "source" so to speak. Alan, I couldn't agree more. I guess it feels to me like SSE is becoming an organization of "elitists" (maybe that's a little harsh, but I'm beginning to feel that way ...), and it is quickly dispensing with the "family" feeling. Does that make sense? In the early days, they were an awesome, grassroot efforts. I'm just afraid the to "corporatizing" (is that a word?  ) of SSE will disenfranchise many folks ... like me ... who will stop supporting it and then ... an unfortunate collapse. |
|
|
|
Post by nastarana on Jan 8, 2010 23:54:19 GMT -5
Does anyone know why Mr. DeVault resigned?
He should have been reading my posts during the "heated debate" last year. I warned him that Miss Amy wasn't going to like it if he drank out of the finger bowls, or didn't know which fork to use.
|
|
) of SSE will disenfranchise many folks ... like me ... who will stop supporting it and then ... an unfortunate collapse.