Yes, I'm expending one of my 10 gift links of the month on this thing. I selected the quote in the title because that one guy said what I was thinking the whole time I was reading the article: Rich women need events to which they can wear expensive evening gowns. But I'm sending you over there so you can see some gowns (and lavishly set tables and fussily arrayed foods). I don't want you to miss that absolutely crazy photograph by Michelle Groskopft that I'll just excerpt a bit of so you can find it:
Rich women have needs, and arts associations need their money.
The other reason you should go there is to look at the numbers — how much is spent to put on the event and how much is netted. And read the comments, e.g., "This type of article is useful for showing the magnitude of the excess. The cost vs gain. This is about vanity, greed and self-promotion. The attendees don’t care about the art or the causes. If they did, they’d write checks and forgo the snow crab."
They may not care about "the art," but they care about art — the art of their own self-presentation. An audience is needed for that art — the hair, the makeup, the plastic surgery, the jewelry, the fingernails, the shoes, the gowns. Without all that would it even be worth amassing riches in the first place?
पोस्ट्स
९६ टिप्पण्या:
While not as wealthy as these ladies, I know and have known many women like them, including my mother and grandmothers. Fortunate to not have to work to support their own families, their charity work (not just giving money away -- actually volunteering to help those in need) and all of the planning committees, fundraising events, new member luncheons and award dinners that went with it gave their lives meaning and a busy social life, and set a good example for their children. Some of the ladies I've known through the charity circuit prefer to remain anonymous, others enjoy seeing their photos in the papers or a glossy magazine after a successful evening. Either way, they make a difference in the world.
The swankiest parties I ever attended were Cravath’s Christmas parties on the roof at 30 Rock in NYC. In retirement, my partying is much more modest. I’m springing 60 bucks for the New Year’s Eve bash at Jay Ungar and Molly Mason’s folkie retreat, the Ashokan Center. Dinner, dance and jam session. I’ve seen Jay and Molly a lot recently. They played the street fair in my little hometown. For those of you who don’t know, Jay and Molly did the music for Ken Burns’ “The Civil War.” The folkie crowd has severe, maniacal TDS. I will be sure not to mention Trump at the party.
That is a wild photo. A Nat Geo the-mummy-has-blond-hair. They wanted to vilify these people and succeeded with the visuals…
There are plenty of super wealthy who reject these things and just write the big fat checks but the article probably misses the ultimate flex of sitting on the boards. In Boston running the aquarium or the 4th of July celebration or the public garden. The guys who ‘love finance’ want to be on horizons, the teach a man to fish family charity. Way better posturing than the fancy dress…
Are these shindigs really supposed to be worse than the self congratulatory fancy events like the white house correspondents or the political lunches and dinners? I can’t notice- did they drag the Met Gala?
This post unleashed the comment bots. Deleted now. What triggered them? I'm guessing it was the list of things after "An audience is needed for that art."
All of the links seemed to point to India. Glad you kiboshed them.
"Rich women need events to which they can wear expensive evening gowns."
Blame goes to Cinderella.
This type of article is useful for showing the magnitude of the excess. The cost vs gain.
Actually, I was a bit surprised by how good the ROI seems to be on these. I think every one was better than 100% in net (not gross) return, and most of them got back several times as much as they put in. Without, I think, calculating in other donations from attendees throughout the year, although that wasn't entirely clear to me when I skimmed back through just now. And tying donors to the institution with stuff like galas seems to be an important objective too.
That said, I also wonder whether the galas have become important to donors not just because they like showing off their clothes, but because going to the symphony or the opera no longer gives attendees that occasion. Since the pandemic, the standard of dress has dropped significantly -- people basically don't dress for the opera at all anymore. I usually wear a suit and tie, myself, and this is now unusual. Someone in evening dress would feel out of place. But at a gala, one can still feel comfortable showing off an evening gown.
What other people choose to do with their money is entirely their own business, not mine. I am a poor slob, and I dress like one, but I don't find these extravagant events or the people who attend them the least bit offensive. Why shouldn't they do this if it makes them happy? I suspect that it does NOT make them happy, but of course that is not for me to say.
To each their own… Whatever reason people have to contribute to causes they deem worthy is harmless. People join religious or non-religious groups for a variety of reasons. Social connection is a big part of all of the joining.
Though I spent much of my career in suits, I try my darnedest to avoid wearing them now. Wearing black tie - forget about it! In fact, I only wear long pants to church, certain gatherings, and when it is a tad cold down here in the Florida panhandle.
Stepping in to point out that the Charlotte Symphony employs many very gifted artists and supports them and their families. This, in a time when the supply of musicians is greater than ever and their prospects for gainful employment more tenuous than most. (Talk to an orchestral musician about the global market for talent) If not for these people, there would be no Charlotte Symphony. The people in that orchestra have faced the prospect of no employment due to the tenuous financial situation of the CSO at least three times over the past three decades.
If these ladies are required to provide a living for these people and their families, I'm not going to mock them. This is what one reader with friends in this orchestra sees. How about the youth orchestra programs they support? Etc, etc, etc.
No good deed goes unpunished.
Much better that they spend money on "art" than funding NGOs that ruin indigenous cultures all over the world.
Rumpelstiltskin failed on that dress.
These "free" links never seem to work for me. Have to use an archive site to get access.
Reminds me of Cousin Itt ...
1. In the comments it’s suggested that the cost of these events are inflated (much like Kamala’s campaign costs). Caterers and decorators adding zeros to their bills. I wouldn’t mind - as long as we got rid of the charitable deduction.
2. Of course the artist (Troye Sivan) had to come in an ill fitting shirt. (This event is really beneath me - make sure you get my photo in the NYT.)
3. Everyone likes to dress up. Look at the success of the Queen’s Ball (bridgertonexperience.com) Or google dapper days and click on images - all the dressing up that happens at Disneyland and Disney World. And let’s not forget all the costumes at all the Comic-cons.
4. Enjoyed the article. Thanks.
The woman's hand in that picture looks far too arthritic to hold up those garish rings.
It was a strange one, though…
If they confined their status games to fancy fundraisers for the opera that wouldn't be AWFL.
Moscow audiences know when not to applaud, evidently still being musically aware.
That skeletal hand! Throughout history a sign of wealth was plumpness.
That’s right. We’re the accountants so we know they’re all gonna write the checks without the thing and yes the party tends to be a rounding error, the tiny sliver of pie on the chart…I worked at the big event caterer when I was a kid, Marilou was old but still the leader. She used to crow about how much the events return to the community in economic activity. As a high school student saving for private school it was nice to see the added digits to my savings account and still have a little roll of twentys to burn on fun…
…my yee-haws weren’t appreciated either 😕.
Those nouveau rubes in Charlotte showing off their money.
The NYT would never promote that sort of thing in NY, where the rich are discreet and sophisticated.
[sarc.]
Do they read their own paper?
My wife and I also had a night out "on the town" last night. We went to a local high school basketball game - even though we have no kids, or grandkids attending either school.
Those in attendance arrived in their Toyotas in jeans and hoodies to enjoy the performance of the women's and men's varsity teams while dining on hot dogs, chips and soda. It was a community event with parents and business owners networking throughout the evening.
A fine time was had by all - except for the visiting teams that got stomped.
Doesn't take long for this piece to morph from reporting to editorializing. The sub-head gives it away by the "seemingly dated" bit of snark. To whom? By what measure?
(can't get the free link to work and won't pay for NYT content. if, by happenstance, these questions are actually addressed in the subsequent article, a thousand apologies.)
The lavish event highlighted by the article cost about $3 million and netted about $3.5 million, so brought in a 117% profit.
The smaller highlighted event cost $162,000 and netted $180,909, or 112% profit.
Other events reported:
- Philharmonic gala cost about $600,000 and grossed more than $4 million (566% profit);
- Detroit Institute of Arts cost $700,000 and netted close to $1 million (143% profit);
- Museum of Fine Arts, Houston cost $400,000 and netted about $3.2 million (800% profit);
- El Museo del Barrio expects to spend $378,000 to net at least $972,000 (257%);
- LACMA “Art and Film Gala” cost $3 million and grossed $6 million (200% profit);
- Academy Museum Gala cost $3 million and grossed $11 million (367%).
All of these events raised substantial sums of money and greatly exceeded their costs, even where the costs were high.
Further, the issue is not just getting people to make charitable contributions - it is to have them make charitable contributions to your particular charity. The extravagant event serves to establish a bond between a donor and the particular charity that likely increases the chances that the donor will give to them again rather than put their money elsewhere.
You are assuming that the Charlotte Symphony is a "good thing" and that those musicians deserve a job as a musician. Perhaps schools should warn their music students how little demand there will be for their services if they try to go professional.
Same here.
Whole thing has a sort of Hunger Games vibe, doesn't it?
I never get through to the article. It always stops me and requires me to sign up. And that's just not going to happen.
The excess in the small section of photo you showed is enough, though. I live in a medium sized town on Florida's Gulf Coast that has a very wealthy population living alongside a very middle class and a very poor population. In this, we're like a small slice of any larger American metro area. But I will say that there seems to be an unending array of causes, arts, and philanthropical galas around here. So many that one would think we're living in Chicago, New York, or LA sometimes, not Sarasota. I'm not complaining. It's just something I've noticed. Many, if not most of the wealthy live here part time until they get real old, then stay here full time. And they give. Man...do they give. I'm not sure if it's out of generosity or guilt. Or for show. Or all of those things. They're very generous, they love to show it off, and yes- they're feeling a bit guilty about it as they drive past the lesser neighborhoods on the way to their next gala.
Really though. It's all good. It keeps our community humming. We're known for our arts- the array and depth of art talent here for such a small town. And frankly, we have these people to thank for it. I love our Symphony Orchestra. And I give a little to them. But it's a pittance and they would not survive if they had 1000 of me (which they probably do). They survive because of those who attend the galas all decked out in those things they used to wear in Philadelphia, or Washington DC when they lived up there.
In the meantime, unlike New York or Washington DC, I can see a pretty damned good Symphony Orchestra here, dressed in some casual slacks and a decent dress shirt, period. I might be sitting in a row next to a guy in jeans and a Tommy Bahama palm tree shirt on one side, and an older man and woman dressed to the nines on my other side: Black suit, nice dress (no gown).
It's Florida. Come as you are.
If the arts groups could get away with a name on a brass plaque, they'd do it.
I'm dead certain all these rich ladies given to old-fashioned Conspicuous Consumption are driven by an obsession; that when they die they will gain praise and admiration for being Exquisite Corpses.
"Ooh! She looks so good!"
Arthritic? Myself, I'd go with "skeletal".
Sorry, Tommyesq, but your math is all wrong. The first one is 17%, not 117% profit. Covering the cost is _not_ included in the profit equation. It's 3.5 - 3 = .5/3 = .17 (rounded up_
Maybe so, but Tom Wolfe noted in the 1980's the emaciated look sought by wealthy social elites (women), and called them "Social X-Rays".
And back in the 1930's parvenue Wallce Simpson, who got King Edward the Seventh to abdicate his throne, stressed : "You can't be too thin, or too rich."
I like pictures from the awards show better. The necklines take greater risks and the wearers are younger and better looking. Still, a dollar spent on a plunging neckline is better spent than a dollar spent on a school so it's all for the greater good.....I speed read the article. People pay good money to sit and dine at the same table as Alec Baldwin....I've never attained much worldly or social success. Articles like this confirm my opinion that I dodged a bullet. I always envy athletes on winning teams. No so much these people, but I suppose that the subtext of these galas. "We won!"
One gets the impression that these women dehydrate themselves to lose a few extra ounces.
I thought I saw Rick Moranis in one photo.
Some people really do love these events, and won't write checks without them. Who cares? Let them have the fun if it raises money for good causes. Each year our sons' former HS has a black tie gala, and each year they attended we would decline the event RSVP and write a check - because we like to stay home in our sweats on Saturday nights. But the attendees loved it - the women to show off a nice gown, and the men to compete with one another bidding ridiculous amounts in the live auction. If that is (part of) how you get an average financial aid award of 60% of tuition to attend one of the best schools in this city, it's fine with me.
His math looks right to me. His first one said it cost $3m and netted $3.5m, implying a gross take of $6.5m, and the ~117% is correct.
The one time the gross is listed, "Philharmonic gala cost about $600,000 and grossed more than $4 million (566% profit)", tommyesq has the correct calculation there, too.
That woman is what Tom Wolfe famously referred to in the Bonfire of the Vanities as a social X-ray. Best illustration ever, amirite? You can never be too rich or too thin.
"Rich women have needs" Other women don't? Wanting to look pretty and desirable seems fairly universal, even if unattainable. For non-trans women, anyway.
We're also talking about tax-deductible dollars for the most part, aren't we?
What percentage of attendees voted for Trump? My guess would be less than 1%. Gift link looks like just a normal link so it doesn't work.
Still and all, they have no business deducting anything but real charity from their taxes, and we should take a very sharp knife to the nonprofit industry. I worked in nonprofits for two decades. They’re almost universally frauds, except for direct service to kids and medical care. If you like art and need a purpose in life besides starving yourself and getting your name on the invitations, then it’s a hobby, not a donation. Buy some damn season tickets if you want to support the organization. They can use that money for their galas, and you can still starve yourself and show up, not force the middle class to support those in real poverty with payroll taxes.
Which are taxes.
Balfegor, what’s missing from the fundraising numbers is recorded elsewhere in their tax records: offices, retreats, donor servicing, salaries, general advertising and media stroking, “miscellaneous,” a very abused column, all other general business expenses, often wildly inflated, for running the nonprofit, but especially the inflated fees paid to professional fundraisers for their lists, which are accounted separately than the amount raised at any event. You can easily add at least 40% to the costs of these things and subtract 40% of the donated money just counting such things. Likely far more. Just the fundraiser lists cost from 10 to 20% of the final take.
Real charities (Children’s services and direct medical care) do the best. Arts come in second. But the vast majority of “nonprofits” are either rackets or ways to create more bennies for the perfectly capable of working underclass (voters) — by creating nonprofits that lobby to shift those bennies to payroll taxes paid overwhelmingly by middle and lower-income workers. And trust me, nonprofits have a million ways to lobby. Like holding galas to honor elected officials, paid for (with tax deductions plus special access) by people like this.
I have no problem with the rich's appetite for their own bread & circuses. Yes, some charities are lifestyle scams, but gala events feed culture in a way that spreads its access to others - and if you ever take a kid to the zoo or a museum or a concert, you'll see there's a real appetite for this. On the other side, I have someone in my extended family that is unhealthily obsessed with her appearance, has spent a small unaffordable fortune on getting 'work' done, and imagines herself a beauty influencer, even though she's well over 60. Countless photos of herself. To each, their own, even though I quickly run out of patience for it.
After much wheedling, I bought my wife a ludicrously expensive handbag called a "Birkin" for her 50th birthday. Now she eagerly anticipates any fancy-dress event like these that allows her to show it off to other women, to whom it is apparently a comparably enticing object of desire.
Sorry, guys. I was a nonprofit administrator for a long time and have filled out many tax forms. Most of the highest expenses are shunted off to other parts of the form. These numbers are bullshit.
Costs are part of expenses and not included in gross (profits or revenue) if I spend $100 on a dinner (cost of food and beverage) and I charge and receive $101, that’s a one percent profit or take. Not 201%
The Met Gala in NYC has become the East Coast's answer to the Oscars. Even AOC went there (Bernie Sanders didn't, so far as I know). It makes sense. The Metropolitan Museum has a large and popular fashion collection, doesn't it? Wouldn't they want up-to-the-minute looks at what famous designers are doing?
I'm not a math person, but I'd check out those numbers. Is getting back 100% of your expenses really getting a 100% profit?
"There are people who enjoy dressing up and going out for a special night."
That night is called Halloween.
It's good that some tribal customs survive economic pressures.
Maybe it's not so good if ancestral customs only survive when people are above and beyond economic pressures.
Yes, and that gala is a great example of the crooked accounting that goes into these things. The MET pays its top employees, on average, $1.5 million a year, and regularly adds another half million to each in bonuses. It’s hemorrhaging money and selling off art to stay open, but those bonuses keep rolling, and none of that is factored into gala net income. They are also permitted to claim to be nonprofit because they serve the public, but most museums are frequently closed to the public so they can rent out space for private events, thus violating their mission statement and justification for nonprofit status while competing with event spaces that must pay taxes.
The same is true of seemingly purely altruistic groups like the YMCA and YWCA. In a small town I lived in, the local gyms were put under great financial strain and some closed because the Ys built lavish “nonprofit” (yet still costly to join) gyms nearby. So the private gyms had to subsidize their nonprofit competition, and lost.
NYT puts the "Fed" in grass-Fed beef. Former copy editors hardest hit.
It is your business if you ever paid taxes, because your taxes needed to offset those not paid by nonprofits.
I worked some place that had a gala.
Unless you were a senior employee, you were treated like crap. The exempt employees were sought out to "work" the gala as coat check, gophers, etc., and be happy about it. The hourly employees had their regular week's hours cut so they wouldn't have to be paid overtime for working the gala. We were constantly being told what an exciting event this was going to be -- exciting for everyone but us. we were all just worker bees to the glitterati. And God forbid we talk to one of the glitterati! We wasted HOURS being trained on how to behave at the gala. "Be invisible."
While the net exceeded the cost, what was NOT factored into the cost was institute's time lost in setting up the gala. The actual work of the place couldn't be done for close to three days.
Uh, no. The finance guys and also really big fish like Gates use their nonprofits to push through more government spending, the vast majority of it destructive, if not just wasteful. They force the taxpayers to subsidize their tax deductions and their vision of social justice. See Robin Hood Foundation. See Gates’ $100 million to the Tampa schools, but only if matched by a $100 million rise in our property taxes (we didn’t get a seat at the table to decide how it was spent, let alone the galas). Then he abandoned the project.
This will be an unpopular opinion but I'm speaking from some experience here. My wife and I have given to various causes over the past decade. We have not held a single party nor made any demands for plaques on walls. No one apart from the heads of the organizations even know our names. Impact can be achieved without organizing any black tie dinners. These high society donors might be giving back, but they get a lot from it too in social accolades that they leverage for their own purposes, and based on my private conversations with people in target organizations, they are quite a handful to manage and waste a lot of time that charities would like to spend on doing their job.
Thank you for the free article. I'll take these people over the naked art show attendees, who would probably get gloved pat on the back from the NYT commentors.
Before she completely ruined her health with pills and quacks, my late step-monster co-chaired a symphony ball. She asked my struggling artist sister to do the poster and program on the cheap, but they didn't use her work after much back and forth. I never got the full story, but the other chair was apparently equally wobbly. I wonder how much of the ball's success came out of my dad's already depleted account.
I'm with Tina. We should stop taxing everything we currently tax and start taxing everything we don't. God save us from assholes with "good intentions".
"Without all that would it even be worth amassing riches in the first place?"
I was pondering on that the other day. I saw a quote from Warren Buffett, "If you don't find a way of making money while you sleep, you will have to work for the rest of your life". Which seems plausible, but then, when was the last time he took a vacation? He's not in this thing for the free time it affords him.
"Underrated comment" as the kids say.
Bryant said...
"What percentage of attendees voted for Trump? My guess would be less than 1%"
So that's what they mean when they were criticizing the 1%.
I get more of a Rapunzel vibe.
“Introducing Dame Ragnelle”
Me three.
Those plunging necklines are mostly to impress (and taunt) other women. Go over to the Daily Mail to see what I mean--it's T and A display , T and A all the way down.
It's a close analogy to men in locker rooms arguing about who has the biggest dick. Or the smallest.
For the lady in the picture, Racherl Zoe, I think it's more of a business operation.
Back when we volunteered at the theater, i liked to go to the operas, just to see if I was missing something. These would be attended by the cognoscenti, all dressed to the nines. I caught more than a few of them drifting off to sleep during the performances, but, the important part is that they had been seen by the people that matter, at the right event, in their finery.
Rachel
exciting for everyone but us. we were all just worker bees to the glitterati. And God forbid we talk to one of the glitterati! We wasted HOURS being trained on how to behave at the gala. "Be invisible."
I seem to remember a photo taken at one of these events during the covid hysteria. It was easy to spot the worker bees- they were the ones wearing masks.
Don't uh no me Tina...
Look, we're the accountants and I'm only reporting what we see and do. We see where the money goes, where and how they spend it, and how the charities use it. Sorry if it runs counter to your predetermined image of anyone with significant wealth...
Do please tell me about those tax deductions for rich people, though...always looking for a way to reduce the tax bill...just like everyone else...
Why is everything in Sarasota too large or too small? There’s the whimsical three-story sculpture, Unconditional Surrender, based on the WWII victory photo of a sailor kissing a nurse; the sculpture garden of world leaders as midgets; an enormous warehouse-sized minature diorama of the circus coming to town, and the giant, perhaps too realistic, imitation David sculpture. Up the road a piece, there are retired carnies who are actual giants and small people, and a sculpture of the boot of the world’s tallest man. There also used to be an amateur professional wrestling school and an imitation Globe Theater.
It’s the only place I ever lived where I liked the public art and culture. I hope it all survived the hurricanes.
Sorry, for the flippancy, rejham. I used to investigate (and run) nonprofits, and I’ve done plenty of fundraising events and filled out plenty of c-3, c-4, and PAC tax forms. What I know is that donor events and galas are reported in one way in the annual reports, to make donors happy, but on the tax forms, some of the most expensive parts of putting on an event are bundled separately, such as paying a fundraiser, buying donor lists, and employee labor for the event. I don’t trust the NYTimes reporting of net gain by event — neither did the many nonprofit workers who also questioned the income reported.
I know many wonderful wealthy people and don’t begrudge them their money. I was describing the specifically leftist phenomenon of recent decades of groups like Robin Hood and the Gates Foundation.
All you guys quibbling about percentage of profit - - everyone except Marcus has the equation wrong, and for his part I think he misunderstands Tommy.
Gross profit is defined as gross revenue minus cost of whatever it is you're selling, so by definition it can never exceed 100%. 100% profit mean you're selling something that you obtained for free.
I would call that doing a good deed, not an unpopular one.
And I admit I wasn’t clear about that. I now advise political action groups to not bother paying for and getting nonprofit status, for a number of reasons. Saves a lot of grief. A very functional TEA Party in Forsyth County, Ga, makes its budget raffling off a rifle of some sort every year at the fair. Every time an anti-gun lobbyist makes a scene, their donations skyrocket. Community banks, libraries, and VFWs offer meeting space for little or nothing — mostly to anyone, which is fair. Some people hold events in their large houses. You rarely need staff. That the rightist populists have accomplished so much with so little is amazing. Many used to burn thru cash and time, and hobble themselves with biased IRS oversight. That’s real populism.
Save donations for cancer research, children’s hospitals, or my favorite cause, free housing near hospitals for families with very sick and dying relatives.
The issue here is telling donors the cost of the gala was, say, 100k, but they raised 150K, so they raised 50K.
But that 100K excludes so many things, tax-wise, annual report, and accounting-wise. Traditionally, it excludes employee hours, all other office expenses, and fundraiser fees and lists, which are not broken down in the tax records nor usually reported to the donors by event. There goes the 50K. Or much more.
A very small minority of nonprofits do these sorts of breakdowns. Good for them.
Fair number of splashy charity bashes barely break even. It's the family trust endowments and estate gifts that keep charities from curtailing expensive parties planned by their fancy-pants rich ladies. With enough flattery, lots of patient humoring, hope is that eventually the rich ladies' husbands will leave a sizable post-mortem financial gift to the charitable institution. Hope is everlasting.
Re: Lazarus, most of them are net, not gross, so the return is on top of recouping 100% of expenses (it is odd that the author didn't try to present information consistently). That said, if LACMA grossed $6M on $3M expenses, that's only 100% return, not 200%.
On the gripping hand, Tina Trent, in a few comments, makes the point that the event costs may be understated, although most of the items she calls out seem like they're expenses that would be incurred even if the gala event weren't held (e.g. office expenses and staff salaries). Important for assessing the overall performance of the nonprofit, but not really allocable to a single event unless it's basically the only time they ever collect donations. But I guess you might allocate a percentage of salary and office expense based on time spent on preparing the event.
When women start dressing in thinness-hiding bulky outfits, that's when you know that they know they're too thin to be seen.
"Balfegor, what’s missing from the fundraising numbers is recorded elsewhere in their tax records"
Perhaps someday the Trump DOJ will decide to investigate the complicated transfer of money between the teachers union, the Democrat party, and Illinois Jabba the Gov.
In Chicago the multiple banks, corps, firms, and gov honchos go to the opera. All tax deductible. Me and me espousal go sometimes for the music. No tax break. WEEEL how am I going to pay for my green fees without social security!
By my calcs, if I put 11% of my earned income into an account at 8% annual interest average over 50 years. I would have 3.5 million dollars. If i can withdraw 4 pct per year and be stable until I die, I would have an annual income of $140,000 per year. But Social Security is only going to pay me $45,000 per year. So Roosevelt is a crook and gave my money away.
I had other income, because I knew Uncle was not going to care for me.
Josephbleau, Jabba the Gov is a virtually inexplicable, destructive phenomenon of metaphysical dimensions. Illinois has lost its collective marbles. He’s the Medusa of politics.
Rachel Zoe is 44. Famous stylist, pro-casual sex and pro-anorectic.
Actually, gross is all money brought in, and net is gross minus expenses. Your example is (I agree) a 1% profit, but it is a $101 gross.
Balfegor — actually, the amount of time and money spent on events frequently takes up most of the staff’s time and other resources, if the nonprofit is not a pure charity, which most aren’t anymore. I think we need to redefine nonprofits entirely. I’ve advised, run, and worked for many of them (I specialized in coalition-building among nonprofits) and I’d say half were money-making rackets and far too many of the rest were too political — in both directions — to merit the same tax rules as real service-provision charities.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा