Holy Plundering Pantsuit, Batman!
A Canadian affiliate of the Clinton Foundation that has raised millions from mining executives has spent far more on salaries and administrative costs than charitable programming in the two most recent years for which numbers are available, according to financial statements from the Canada Revenue Agency.
The Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership (Canada), a registered charity based in Vancouver, B.C., devoted $737,441 -- amounting to 78 per cent of its expenditures -- to management and administration in 2014. The amount includes spending on office supplies and expenses, salaries and professional and consulting fees.
That same year, according to the return filed to the Canada Revenue Agency and published online, the organization devoted $205,419 to charitable programs, accounting for 22 per cent of its expenditures.
A similar ratio -- 72 per cent to management and administration costs and 28 per cent to charitable programs -- is in the 2013 return.
I had managed to avoid the taint of NNW since oct 19.
Send me one million dollars.
I'll take $120,000 in salary, $80,000 in expenses and personally disburse the remaining $800,000 to, oh, my local hospital.
Still a better deal than these "foundations"!
Every multi-millionaire (aka "dead broke") sports star and Rap Star has his own "Charitable Foundation" for the purpose of evading taxes and creating a money laundering operation. Very little ... to ZERO ... money actually get distributed to "Charity". It is a total SCAM ... which is synonymous for the name "Clinton"
"The Canadian charity said it would be more accurate to look at the aggregate numbers for the period from 2010 to 2014, because its work involves projects whose funding is spread out over time.
"Those overall numbers show that spending on charitable programs and gifts to other charities was 84 per cent, whereas 14 per cent was spent on management and administration and two per cent on fundraising, the charity said — calculations verified by The Canadian Press."
They're doing better than the Clinton "Foundation" aka influence peddling scheme, which retains 90% of their "contributions," aka bribes for "administration." BTW they also pay women far less than men.
Shamrock: They're doing better than the Clinton "Foundation" aka influence peddling scheme, which retains 90% of their "contributions
Close. About 88% goes towards charitable programs based on audited financial statements.
https://www.charitywatch.org/ratings-and-metrics/bill-hillary-chelsea-clinton-foundation/478
Why, it is none other than Zachriel - the [b]Official ApologistTM [/b] for the Clinton Campaign!
So which excuse will it be today? [i]Carelessness[/i] or [i]Negligence[/i]?
Hmm... that's the end of my experiment with tags then.
I thought the Canadian Revenue Agency, aka IRS in a mountie hat, had guidlines on how much a charity could spend on admininstration?
Beyond that it was denied charity status and had to pay tax as a regular corporation or the owners/chief beneficiaries had to declare it as personnal income!
denis: I thought the Canadian Revenue Agency, aka IRS in a mountie hat, had guidlines on how much a charity could spend on admininstration?
It's a complicated formula, but has more to do with assets than with income. A foundation may have large donations in some years, but not other years, while fixed costs remain the same. This could result in a particular year have a very high ratio of costs/donations.
"A registered charity must continue to devote its resources (funds, personnel, and property) to its charitable purposes and activities even though the amount for its disbursement quota may be calculated as nil."
http://www.canadiancharitylaw.ca/blog/how_much_should_canadian_charity_spend_on_overhead
Keep your eye on the pea. Charity watch uses audited financial documents as a source of information before performing its own adjusted proprietary calculations. The source audited documents do not necessarily say the same thing. In addition, retained contributions and what a charity spends on programs are not the same thing. It is entirely possible to retain 90% of contributions while at the same time paying out 88% of cash expenses to programs.
Since nobody else has done it yet, here are the "Quick View" figures from CRA:
Year % on Programs % on Administration % Other
---- ------------- -------------------- -------
2014 22 78 0
2013 28 72 0
2012 90 10 0
2011 91 9 0
2010 38 4 51 = $4.4 million sent to William J Clinton foundation (funneled out of Canada)
foundation founded in 2007, quick views of years 2007; 2008; 2009 not on the CRA site, though full returns on (I'm not going to spend hours doing the math.)
OK! William J oops I mean Zach what was with the 4.4 mill. in 2010?
You sound quite knowledgeable ... as though you might be a Financial Planner or Accounting professional. If you are ... then would you agree that it is feasible for the Clinton Foundation (and others) to "cook the books" to give the illusion that they Foundation is meeting all the Charitable Standards ? My layman's take suggests that with a little re-organization, re-categorizing of assets and expenses ... these Foundations can successfully LIE in their Tax Filings.
and BTW ... I find it personally INSULTING to the whole concept "Charity" that the Clinton Foundation can get-away with paying their own daughter nearly $ 1 million dollars per year for her "work" at the Foundation (+ travel, bonuses, benefits, expenses) ... even though she has virtually NO ... ZERO ... work EXPERIENCE. NO RESUME ... NADA. Other than being born to Hillary and Web Hubbel. This fact alone PROVES that the Clinton Foundation is a Charity alright ... providing Charity to CHELSEA CLINTON !!!
I don't give a CRAP how much $$$$$$ the Clintons want to shower on their only daughter. They just shouldn't be able to write it off on their TAXES. To AVOID paying the TAXES they want to keep raising on ME ! and my poor children (poor, only by Clinton standards).
"what was with the 4.4 mill. in 2010?".... clearly a gift in a Brief Case
What makes folks think that CASH is an acceptable/effective method of avoiding Audit. Yes! corrupt organizations (Organised Crime) hid transactions using cash..
The Clinton funding of "Black lives Matter" would be in CASH (untraceable). The Brief Case full of cash is a common method to avoid criminal/civil responsibility
The Clinton's are defendants in multiple civil lawsuits (The result of selling influence)
The Clinton's are simple criminals that deal in billions...CASH in Euro's
kenji: If you are ... then would you agree that it is feasible for the Clinton Foundation (and others) to "cook the books" to give the illusion that they Foundation is meeting all the Charitable Standards?
Sure, it's possible, but that's the purpose of independent audits, which are done yearly for the Clinton Foundation.
kenji: and BTW ... I find it personally INSULTING to the whole concept "Charity" that the Clinton Foundation can get-away with paying their own daughter nearly $ 1 million dollars per year for her "work" at the Foundation
Where is that number from?
By the way, someone's star power can easily generation that sort of money. For instance, George Clooney and James Earl Jones receive several hundred thousand dollars to appear for your fundraiser.
http://www.celebritytalent.net/sampletalent/2239/james-earl-jones/
Not bad for a day's work — if you can get it.
But according to our Media Elites, Trump's casinos are the problem ....
Hum wonder if any of those charities that got the pittance were cloaked Clinton Charities? The wheels of the bus go round and round, they should be closed down and their assets seized.
Earth to Zachriel. You'll have to do better than that to make troll around here. Our standards are much higher. Were you hoping nobody would bother to check? Than again it did take ten seconds of analysis.
Did I mention, that possibly unlike other websites you visit, we can actually read here and understand long division?
Here's your "88%," to be precise, "A charity's Program Percentage" which is:
"(T)he percentage of its cash budget it spends on Programs relative to Overhead (Fundraising & Management & General Expenses)."
Sure that's exactly the same thing as "about 88% goes towards charitable programs based on audited financial statements," right?
No it isn't, not even close. Or is it a foundation? Or does it live in the grey area? Yes, of legality.
Just because you don't (want to) understand math, common sense or statistics doesn't mean you can sell that bilge here.
Here's more from your "evidence:" Salaries for this "charity:"
Eric Braverman Past CEO $ 532,361 --
Bruce R. Lindsey Chairman of the Board $ 395,460 --
Mark Gunton CEO, Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership $ 313,992
Not including Chelsea et al of course, or "amenities" to Bill & Hillary no doubt. BTW no opinion is offered on the efficacy of this "charity."
You must try harder before repeating disinformation Zachriel. Please don't quote the Atlantic article, it is unsubstantiated drivel.
http://thefederalist.com/2015/04/27/in-2013-the-clinton-foundation-only-spent-10-percent-of-its-budget-on-charitable-grants/
https://shadowproof.com/2014/07/09/chelsea-clinton-makes-900000-for-doing-almost-nothing/
Shamrock: "A charity's Program Percentage" which is: '(T)he percentage of its cash budget it spends on Programs relative to Overhead (Fundraising & Management & General Expenses).'"
From the citation, the program percentage is "the percentage of its cash budget it spends on programs out of its total cash expenses for the year analyzed." Based on that, they determined a program percentage of 88%.
https://www.charitywatch.org/ratings-and-metrics/bill-hillary-chelsea-clinton-foundation/478
Other than that, you didn't actually raise an argument, other than waving your hands furiously.
Shamrock: Please don't quote the Atlantic article, it is unsubstantiated drivel.
We cited the independent charity rater, Charity Watch. As for the Federalist, the 10% figure only refers to expenditures to outside charity agencies, not money that is spent directly on charitable activities. When you look at the total charitable spending it is 88%.
Nicholas: https://shadowproof.com/2014/07/09/chelsea-clinton-makes-900000-for-doing-almost-nothing/
That isn't a salary from the Clinton Foundation, but largely from a corporation. There's no doubt that her parents' fame and power is the reason she is so well connected. However, that doesn't necessarily reflect on her as a person. Did you have a larger point?
Shamrock, it's even uglier than that. If you look at Note 9 Functional Expenses in the 2014 Annual Report here which is the year the 88% figure is pulled from by Charity Watch, you'll find that only $33.7-million of $248.2-million went to direct program expenses. $95.9-million went to salaries and benefits. It's absurd that they can claim these salaries that occur within the programs wholly as part of the program cost. Charity Watches 12%/88% figure is almost completely reversed. Just over 13% of expenses go to direct program expenses. The rest is all overhead of which salaries take up over 36%.
You wanted the truth. You got it.
Steve E: $95.9-million went to salaries and benefits. It's absurd that they can claim these salaries that occur within the programs wholly as part of the program cost.
It's hardly absurd for a charity to spend money to training rural farmers in Africa, to provide advisers for environmental projects such as reforestation, and to provide pediatric treatment. The breakdown can be found on form 990.
Milk is rich in calcium.
Steve E: $95.9-million went to salaries and benefits. It's absurd that they can claim these salaries that occur within the programs wholly as part of the program cost.
It's hardly absurd for a charity to spend money to training rural farmers in Africa, to provide advisers for environmental projects such as reforestation, and to provide pediatric treatment. The breakdown can be found on form 990.
Power and Fame? Horse feathers. It is the jingling pocket that makes MSM thrive.
"We purchase some overpriced ads from you and she gets some credibility! Wink Wink"
How did a Clinton apologist get lost in traffic?
The reporting is what is absurd. I think people making donations would like to know the who and what costs.
I referred to your statistic, which just because it isn't a lie or a damned lie, doesn't excuse the intellectually lazy &/or dishonest conclusion you drew.
You must be willfully ignorant to not understand the difference between variable expenses after overhead, and net cash transfers to charities.
Others have described the difference. Thank you Steve E. Try to get over it and your faulty assumptions that only fixed expenses count. Hint: when you don't actually do anything but keep the money, it's not hard to have low fixed expenses. That doesn't make it a charity. You'll get no gold stars here.
Oh right, no reading comprehension or math skills. Excuse me for your ignorance that net of overhead expenses are not the same as charitable outlays.
Your 10% complaint is also fallacious. The actual analysis puts it at 13.5%. Excuse me but nowhere near a charity. Disagreeing and re-stating a stat by omission doesn't change that at all.
Hoping nobody digs into your lies, damn lies or statistics and accepts your conclusions doesn't fly with those who actually think about issues, rather than searching for stat to justify opinion.
Keep trying, you'll make troll soon.
I doubt Zachreil has bothered to read form 990, but I did and it conforms with your argument, not his. For instance $65m from the main contributors, but a third spent outside the US. It just get uglier the deeper one goes into it. It's quite humourous to watch the trolls twist and swing about with their drive by stats and smears.
Shamrock: I referred to your statistic, which just because it isn't a lie or a damned lie, doesn't excuse the intellectually lazy &/or dishonest conclusion you drew.
It's not our statistics, but that of Charity Watch, an independent charity rating organization.
Shamrock: You must be willfully ignorant to not understand the difference between variable expenses after overhead, and net cash transfers to charities.
Yes, we understand the difference, and apparently, so does Charity Watch, who having analyzed the Foundation, finding a program percentage of 88%.
https://www.charitywatch.org/ratings-and-metrics/bill-hillary-chelsea-clinton-foundation/478
Shamrock: I doubt Zachreil has bothered to read form 990, but I did and it conforms with your argument, not his.
Looking at 2013, 76% of salaries were for program service expenses.
The infamous Global Slush Fund.
Curious me decided to pop around the Canadian website and read about peanut farmers in Haiti. Still curious, I did an additional search only to discover that the US Dept. of Agriculture has dumped tons of nuts into Haiti with expected results - lousy.
p.s. Glad you have Zachriel here. He roams the blogosphere in search of attention. Most blog sites have 'deleted' him.
Yes folks Ali is still talking and waiting for the stranger to get up.. The fight has been stopped.
We will await the judges decision. Ali is smiling and covered in sweat. The stranger is exhausted.
Yes here it is! Ali is the unanimous winner. The crowd is going wild.
Ali's right hand hook took out the lefty. What a night!
JJM- Instead of '[ ]', try ''. It works.
Whaaa??...., ok, 'try less than, greater than'
It would actually be better if Giustra's operation spent 100% of its money on salaries because then the money would all stay in Canada. Even 22% of it leaking away to Haiti and Peru is still a substantial loss.
Of course there is a genuine tax issue here, as this looks like a pretty bogus charity. I do get that.
Expenses equals payments to and direct support of charities. Got it. Thanks.
No, Charity Watch doesn't "find" what you say they do. I guess you aren't just willfully ignorant. I guess you believe in the big lie, so keep repeating it.
Go ahead google it, assuming you can read which doesn't seem apparent, at least not coherently.
Program services. For your information, program services are included in all charities, so what's your point? With program services included, in Canada, total expenses cannot generally be more than 65% of revenues, similar to the US.
$95m to salaries and benefits for charity workers. Ah, comedy.
Perhaps they've made another "error:"
"Clinton Charities Refile 6 Years Of Tax Returns To Amend Errors."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/clinton-foundation-tax-forms_us_564ae72be4b08cda348a6239
Time to go back to your fake moon landing conspiracy studies- just bob and weave between invalid points.
After starting and running a still on going business forty years ago I can assure you there are unlimited ways to milk the golden goose,despite all the accountants and auditors.
I was honest( almost) but the stuff I saw from others would make your hair curl. Ponzi schemes get audited and audited but they last for years before collapsing. So much for bullsh_t audits.
Shamrock: Charity Watch doesn't "find" what you say they do.
It's right there: "Program Percentage: 88%". They also give the Foundation an "A".
Nicholas: After starting and running a still on going business forty years ago I can assure you there are unlimited ways to milk the golden goose,despite all the accountants and auditors.
Sure. But just saying so doesn't make it so.
Chapter one in the troll training manual, keep repeating the same discredited lie, again, and again, reposting to seem wise, always parroting self-serving disinformation, aka the Hillary gambit.
http://thefederalist.com/2015/04/27/in-2013-the-clinton-foundation-only-spent-10-percent-of-its-budget-on-charitable-grants/
I understand Democrats give Hillary an A too. I also understand she's failing the course with real people.
No last word for you troll in training.
Shamrock: keep repeating the same discredited lie, again, and again
He says as he repeats the same discredited claim.
Shamrock: http://thefederalist.com/2015/04/27/in-2013-the-clinton-foundation-only-spent-10-percent-of-its-budget-on-charitable-grants/
Z: As for the Federalist, the 10% figure only refers to expenditures to outside charity agencies, not money that is spent directly on charitable activities. When you look at the total charitable spending it is 88%.
Shamrock: keep repeating the same discredited lie, again, and again
He says as he repeats the same discredited claim.
Shamrock: http://thefederalist.com/2015/04/27/in-2013-the-clinton-foundation-only-spent-10-percent-of-its-budget-on-charitable-grants/
Z: As for the Federalist, the 10% figure only refers to expenditures to outside charity agencies, not money that is spent directly on charitable activities.
Shamrock: I understand Democrats give Hillary an A too.
Not sure where that comes from, but a lot of Democrats have expressed dissatisfaction with Clinton.
Now you want to elucidate. Thanks for falling for that one, tit (troll in training), I put it out there just for you.
Stay thirsty troll, stay thirsty.