The Non-Profit Economy and Labor Rights
The Non-Profit Economy and Labor Rights
Considering The effect of Large concentrations of redistributed wealth exclusively dedicated to the non-profit, tax-exempt organizations
As I wrote in my last post, I have a unique perspective on the wealth redistribution industry because I am in a field shared with many non-profits but I did not add that my perspective is even more unique for being a fiscally sponsored individual, and it is likely true that the organizations I have approached have not dealt with this situation previously and so I am a trailblazer.
I realize that the language used in the Fiscal Sponsorship information is problematic in that it states that “Mackenzie Andersen is a sponsored artist with The Performance Zone Inc (dba The Field), a not-for-profit, tax-exempt, 501(c)(3) organization serving the performing arts community”
One could argue that a sponsored artist is an individual and question why my project serves the performing arts community. To the latter, there are many answers which I won’t go into but will observe that The Field’s website states “The Field works with artists and arts workers of all disciplines, backgrounds, and career stages to help them reach their goals.” I once came across information about how people should be paid on the Field so I feel that we are on the same team in that respect as it was in line with the rules of free enterprise.
To the former, it is arguable that S. E. Thomason v. Commissioner, 2 T.C. 441 (1943) as referenced by the Maine Community Foundation, concerns whom a donation benefits, which must be defined by the project. The Maine Community Foundation requires that one must have a board but a board can support a project that serves only one individual, consider, for instance, the current Republican Party.
If an organization creates a project for the benefit of one individual, it might not receive funding for that reason but it would not be denied the opportunity to ask for funding based on its project. The project determines whether the qualifications for funding are met or not. Why should it be different for a project conceived of by an individual? What is more grassroots than the individual? Is the grassroots of society to be disqualified from having viable visions concepts strategies or plans worthy of funding because they are the grassroots?
Karl Marx remains a major influence 141 years after his death and he was a dirt-poor individual, without a board.
Take a look at the latest news in the Ukraine War with Ukraine currently suffering from a shortage of armaments but not a shortage of strategy. Ukraine is like the grassroots fighting the war at the front of a much larger war. The shortage of arms has not prevented Ukraine from developing a winning strategy, any more than the lack of a board means one cannot conceive of a viable project strategy that benefits an indeterminate number of people, or a philosophical perspective that influences generations,
Russia’s Worst Day Ever Arrives
Four days before the dictatorship elects the same President
After my last post, I received a belated email response from a Foundation that is excluding me from applying for a grant for being an individual. The claim was repeated that the reason individuals are excluded is due to an IRS regulation and expanded upon with the claim that all foundations exclude individuals from applying - and by extension “companies”, as stated in the foundation’s previous correspondence. “Companies” means “free enterprise” as if a non-profit corporation is not a company.
I once again asked for the IRS rule that is the reason for discrimination against individuals and once again pointed out that the case law S. E. Thomason v. Commissioner, 2 T.C. 441 (1943) as referenced by the Maine Community Foundation does not support their claim.
S. E. Thomason v. Commissioner, 2 T.C. 441 (1943) has nothing to do with prohibiting fiscally sponsored individuals from submitting proposals for grants or receiving funding if the project benefits an indeterminate number of individuals, The case law has to do with whether a donation benefits an individual versus an indeterminate number of individuals, which a foundation cannot determine if it does not allow an individual to submit a grant application. S. E. Thomason v. Commissioner evolves around a donation tagged for one orphan in an orphanage. If it were given to the orphanage without specification to pay for an individual orphan it would have qualified as a tax-deductible contribution as it would be benefitting an indeterminate number of individuals but by specifying that it was for a specific orphan it did not qualify.
The case has nothing to do with who is allowed to propose a project for a grant.
If the entire field of foundations excludes individuals and free enterprises from presenting a project then the foundations should be able to identify the IRS rule that requires them to do so. Too often organizations think it is enough to make statements of fact to which they are not required to answer.
The amount of wealth controlled by the entire field of foundations is vast. It is being used by organizations to acquire land and property and if they are non-profits, they do not pay property taxes, unlike the free enterprise sector. and on top of that, they do not pay many of their workers.
To exclude individuals and free enterprises from applying is socially impactful when the non-profit sector operates by a different set of labor laws.
“Working for welfare” is a concept with a bad name since if one works for any form of pay, it is not welfare it is a job. Such concepts often include the concept of “volunteering” but if volunteering is mandated, it isn't volunteering. But you see where this is going, “volunteering” means to work for no pay for a non-profit organization.
As large foundations control massive amounts of wealth and redistribute the wealth to non-profit organizations only, it changes how labor laws are applied in society
If most land and property fall into the hands of non-profits, private industry has fewer tangible assets which limits the jobs that the free enterprise sector creates causing more to rely on welfare and then to be required to “work for welfare” by taking on a job in the non-profit sector that does not pay. What kind of a system is that?
There should be an option for volunteering in society but when laws are enacted making volunteering a requirement for benefits, that’s a fair labor laws concern.
If large foundations are united in the exclusion of individuals and tax-paying, labor-paying free enterprises from submitting a funding proposal, then they are encouraging a shift toward a non-profit-dominated economy and that changes everything we thought we knew about America.
If there is such a vast foundation of industry-wide exclusionary policy toward individuals and free-enterprises, it should be challenged. I am not familiar with laws governing foundations. I assume private foundations have a lot of latitude but the laws governing public and private foundations would differ. At least they should not be allowed to claim that it is an IRS policy that requires them to exclude individuals and free enterprises. At least if they make such claims, they should be required to state the law.
Since I have to move I am looking for a new community being that there is no support for my project in Boothbay and with Maine enacting laws like LD 2003 HP 1489, the future does not look bright for Maine.
New Hampshire does not have a centralized economy and always rates much higher than Maine in economic comparisons. Furthermore, 85% of businesses in New Hampshire are family-owned and they employ 65% of the workforce, Family-owned can be a lot of things but are unlikely to be publicly traded corporations which is what I want to avoid in my custodianship of the Andersen Design assets. I don’t know if I will find a path to New Hampshire but its system of government sounds like a better fit. Today it is just an idea. Everything depends on what opportunities materialize. I once read that God does not give one a challenge one cannot handle. I took that to heart, and this is indeed challenging. Innovative support is needed.
