Ratty wrote:Bbadger, It does show on their taxes. Go to guidestar and browse your favorite charities. You get to see what they made and how they spent it. There are other sites that may have more info but this is the one I use.
BBadger wrote:Blah blah blah BM Org used to be an LLC and now isn't. Yadda yadda yadda BM Org can help this or that or whatever. We all knew that.
None of the articles really explain to me what this "non-profit" status fundamentally changes. What does this "non-profit" do for BM? Does it just mean that people can't buy stocks? Does it mean they don't have to pay sales tax? What does it actually mean? I really want to know.
Simon of the Playa wrote:from the Desk of Larry Harvey...
"Nomad writes, “The solution is simple: disclose all the financials. There is no good reason not to, unless that would disillusion the cult followers. Sorry to be the Toto that pulls the curtain”. The Burning Man Project will most certainly release this information. In fact, as has been pointed out elsewhere, it is required to do so law. It will also make the details of this transaction publicly available, including the salaries of the founders that it employs (I would never have consented to this move if I’d thought disclosing my salary would create a scandal). We will not do this now, but wait until later this year when the transition is complete. It must withstand inspection by California state attorney’s office, and there are still many complex operational details to work out.
trilobyte wrote:I don't think there will ever be a silencing of the critics. Once that info gets released, they'll move on to something else to be critical of.
theCryptofishist wrote:Ayup. I'm not sure why the event gets sliced under that lens. Do all similar "things" get that? Is it the burner "type" to be that suspicious? Is it that Larry Harvey broke some completely imagined social contract?
trilobyte wrote:You're absolutely welcome not to give a flying fuck.
I think the move makes sense. Looking at BMP's long-term mission, it does align with what's classed as a public benefit organization... and if organizing the business in such a way that means more money goes to programs, and tax incentives will exist for private or institutional donors that throw money its way... good. Great, in fact.
Could the entire tax code need a re-write? Sure. But I don't see that as something that Burning Man should be tasked with, any more than it should be something that you're tasked with. So, tax codes being what they are, it's good to see that Burning Man is evolving from its hastily-created-LLC roots, and taking steps to create the kind of organization that will outlive all of its founders and current participants.
BBadger wrote:I'm asking: why should I give a fuck? I want to know. Is this just a PR move? Is this giving BMOrg more tax flexibility? Is this just to divest Larry? This is what I want to know. These articles just preach about all the good that the BMOrg can "now" do as if the BMOrg wasn't already attempting to do that before the corporate status change. Why is it so much better now? What is it about this organization status change that the other status did not enable? It seems like a PR move to me because I haven't read any reasons why moving to a non-profit is so much more beneficial.
BBadger wrote:That explains a bit more. Thanks!
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests