View Full Version : Wounded Warrior a "legal scam"
They are anti gun we know, but this damning article in Veterans Today exposes something far worse it appears. I did a small charity event for them myself a few years ago.
Wounded Warriors Project A Legal Scam
As we are coming to find out, wounded Vets are big money. Considering I’m 146% disabled, I’m trying to figure out how to tap into this. The only thing I can see is to start my own 501(c)(3) and start cooking the books with a big $300 K a year salary for my work.
Member and eagled-eyed scrutinizer Bruce spotted this heartbreaking article. Just when we thought it was safe to come out of the woods after the last news of the Big Six VSOs padding their bank accounts on the backs of all our disabled, along comes this article and investigation revealing nothing is sacred among thieves.
If you were thinking about donating to the Wounded Warrior Project, think twice. It would behoove you to get in your car and drive cross-country to deliver the funds to the charity you hope to help. More money would end up in their hands than entrusting it to the WWP for disbursement. The Beatles song Tax Man comes to mind- Here’s one for you, nineteen for me. Here’s what I received. It’s ugly.
Cont:
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/12/08/wounded-warriors-project-a-legal-scam/
Cagemonkey
12-24-14, 07:54
Such a pity. Seems nothing is sacred. Exploiting people either for money or an Agenda. Disgusting. Heard their also anti-gun too.
Its a sad day when this seems to be common place with charities.
Kinda strange how profitable the nonprofits are.
Three hundred grand a year to run a 150 million a year company sounds like a reasonable salary to me. You have to remember these guys have legal, accounting and business backgrounds. $300K may be a fraction of what he made in the private sector. No charitable organization exist without expenses. Some do better than others.
Old news - the article is a year old. Also, this situation has been discussed here before, but probably good to bring it up again.
Averageman
12-24-14, 09:21
Old news - the article is a year old. Also, this situation has been discussed here before, but probably good to bring it up again.
Yeah, this is the season when a lot of people open their wallets to help, it's a damn sham it's a scam.
I did forward this to some folks I know in the hopes that they will either find another way to help with money or volunteer at the VA.
I've donated to this foundation a few times:
http://www.navysealfoundation.org/financials-and-accountability/
.92 of every dollar goes to support services for SEALs and their families. You can also determine how your donation is used
I hate to break the bad news to everyone, but the majority of charities are the same. Not trying to offer excuses for WWP or the other middle man money handlers, but this is something that is NOT WWP specific. The United Way, UNICEF, WWP and many others are nothing more than money handlers. Middle men that take their cut of the funds and then pass a % along to the end users. Heck sometimes the $$ goes through numerous middle men before it gets to the people who need it. 99% of the time you are better off donating directly to a charity that does the work.
I hate to break the bad news to everyone, but the majority of charities are the same. Not trying to offer excuses for WWP or the other middle man money handlers, but this is something that is NOT WWP specific. The United Way, UNICEF, WWP and many others are nothing more than money handlers. Middle men that take their cut of the funds and then pass a % along to the end users. Heck sometimes the $$ goes through numerous middle men before it gets to the people who need it. 99% of the time you are better off donating directly to a charity that does the work.
Agreed. This type of inefficiency/ thievery exists globally. Our US aid $ does more to line the pockets of scumbags than help the needy.
Fredrick Forsyth has been a critic of this for years:
http://www.express.co.uk/comment/columnists/frederick-forsyth/532331/Frederick-Forsyth-foreign-aid-jihadis-EU-immigration
The 911/Red Cross debacle made me skeptical of the true intentions of many so called charities.
Unfortunately too many people make donations without properly vetting the charities. Donations are often just a feel good gesture or a tax write off.
I'm always torn between the Sally Struthers weepy appeals and my suspicious nature (which has served me well so far). I give to a nominally religious outfit that hopefully helps little kids in a crap country and the Salvation Army. Essentially a "pin the tail on the donkey" and hope approach. I guess the only way to really know the results is to adopt a puppy.
EOD Memorial (http://www.eodwarriorfoundation.org/)
I spent 2 yrs at the EOD School and watched few hundred kids enter a dangerous job, so they get my money.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oT9UIUJL1jE
One of the best is Fisher House: http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=7585#.VJsANxPYQA
95% of expenses are used for programs.
Outlander Systems
12-24-14, 16:29
http://www.woundedwarriorproject.org/mission/executive-staff.aspx
CGIC
Chief Grifters In-Charge
Three hundred grand a year to run a 150 million a year company sounds like a reasonable salary to me. You have to remember these guys have legal, accounting and business backgrounds. $300K may be a fraction of what he made in the private sector. No charitable organization exist without expenses. Some do better than others.
Case in point...
I've donated to this foundation a few times:
http://www.navysealfoundation.org/financials-and-accountability/
.92 of every dollar goes to support services for SEALs and their families. You can also determine how your donation is used
$0.92 of every dollar sounds good but if it's a large charitable organization like WWP that brings in $150mil a year that's still $9.6mil every year in 'administrative' fees.
One of the best is Fisher House: http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=7585#.VJsANxPYQA
95% of expenses are used for programs.
Nearly $2.5mil still went to pay the people who run it in 2013 alone. This isn't news people. It's also not a secret since all non-profit's financials are public record & readily available. I was looking a WWP a few years ago & several million went to paying the staff. The top guy made over half a mil of that as I recall.
Let's not list site of the money they actually raise that could have just as easily gone to some other charity or cause too. Cost of doing business.
What bothers me is when entities like Susan G Komen foundation sue other organizations who are trying to raise money for the same cause over some vague logo or verbiage similarities. Now THAT is despicable.
wildcard600
12-25-14, 01:56
look at the percentage of money that gets to the people in need rather than the amount that goes to admin. WWP averages 38% according to the link. if others are in the 90% range, i think the choice is clear IMO.
Nearly $2.5mil still went to pay the people who run it in 2013 alone.
What is your point? Don't you think the people that work there should be paid?
Again I will say that 95% of all expenses go to those in need and is one of the best charity returns in the country.
What is your point? Don't you think the people that work there should be paid?
Again I will say that 95% of all expenses go to those in need and is one of the best charity returns in the country.
I don't recall saying they should work for free. Quite the opposite in fact. Just adding some dollar amount figures to the 'better' options some are suggesting while being outraged over $330k.
wildcard600
12-25-14, 15:57
I don't recall saying they should work for free. Quite the opposite in fact. Just adding some dollar amount figures to the 'better' options some are suggesting while being outraged over $330k.
who is outraged ?? i dont think anyone in this thread has mentioned it besides you and one other poster. i believe the author of the article mentioned it as an illustration that while WWP can only manage a pathetic 38% rate of money going to actual charity, the people running it can sure seem to figure out a way to get decent paychecks.
Bottom line is you need to vet any charity you give to. If you want your money to walk far in aiding those less fortunate, I'd give to the Mennonite Central Committee. (that is a plug :) )
I think the reason I get offended at salaries above, let's say 150ish, is that the CEO's often project themselves as selfless servants and don't go out of their way to disclose salaries or other administrative costs.
Libby Dole was cranking down over 1.5 as Executive Director of the Red Cross, I felt that was outrageous, others disagreed, because 'look what she brings in' - we differ in our perspectives on that.
I think the reason I get offended at salaries above, let's say 150ish,.......................
If that is the case, here is some outrage for you: http://www.charitywatch.org/hottopics/Top25.html
You do realize, don't you, that in this day and age, 150 is not uncommon well below the CEO level at large corporations? And not uncommon even in our federal gov't.
That said, I think a better measure of the efficiency of a charity is the % of expenses that go toward the cause they raise the money for, the higher the better.
Exactly.
You want someone's mad skillz and get them to quit running a corporation... managing the company, producing profit, increasing shareholder value and getting paid for it.... you better bring to the table competitive compensation.
If you want to operate in the "volunteer", "donate my time", or "don't pay me a fair wage because I love this cause" candidates that is fine, your choice.
Perhaps you can do just as well, perhaps not.
Your choice. It is still a free country in that respect.
If that is the case, here is some outrage for you: http://www.charitywatch.org/hottopics/Top25.html
You do realize, don't you, that in this day and age, 150 is not uncommon well below the CEO level at large corporations? And not uncommon even in our federal gov't.
That said, I think a better measure of the efficiency of a charity is the % of expenses that go toward the cause they raise the money for, the higher the better.
Yes, I do realize that 150 is not that much, I just like folks to be honest and forthright. The CEO of McDonalds isn't being all pious asking me for money to help kids or others in need, the CEO's I'm talking about often do just that. To me there is a difference, I understand some don't feel the same as I do, that's okay with me.
I do agree that the % of money going to actual work on the ground is the best indicator - it should be the first thing checked, next I check admin salaries. If they are too high (in my opinion) I move on.
I'm pretty serious about putting the money I give to good work.
Nightvisionary
12-27-14, 12:58
I've donated to this foundation a few times:
http://www.navysealfoundation.org/financials-and-accountability/
.92 of every dollar goes to support services for SEALs and their families. You can also determine how your donation is used
I prefer to just buy their books and movies.:cool:
if you are doing it for vets tie the pay to the scale of what they make so higher ups could make officer level money etc.....
skywalkrNCSU
12-27-14, 14:07
These large charities are enormous businesses, they are managing a LOT of money and in order to hire and retain talented people you have to pay them well. No one would bat an eye at the CEO of a for profit company the size of TWWP making 7 figures yet because it is a charity we bitch about $300k? Their jobs are not easier than those on the for profit side of things and they are already taking a pay cut as is. Why is it that we want to harp on these people even further to take more pay cuts? They already make a good deal less as is, should they be working for free and living in poverty because their job is in a sector that tries to help others?
There are enormous issues in the non profit sector finding and retaining talent. This leads to poorer use of funds and constant turnover which costs more money than paying good people a proper salary in the first place. They should try to be efficient with their resources but it blows my mind that people bitch and moan about a very modest salary for the amount of reponsibility that these non profit leaders have.
These large charities are enormous businesses, they are managing a LOT of money and in order to hire and retain talented people you have to pay them well. No one would bat an eye at the CEO of a for profit company the size of TWWP making 7 figures yet because it is a charity we bitch about $300k? Their jobs are not easier than those on the for profit side of things and they are already taking a pay cut as is. Why is it that we want to harp on these people even further to take more pay cuts? They already make a good deal less as is, should they be working for free and living in poverty because their job is in a sector that tries to help others?
There are enormous issues in the non profit sector finding and retaining talent. This leads to poorer use of funds and constant turnover which costs more money than paying good people a proper salary in the first place. They should try to be efficient with their resources but it blows my mind that people bitch and moan about a very modest salary for the amount of reponsibility that these non profit leaders have.
In general CEO's are overvalued. Sure someone has to be in charge, but for every CEO with 'vision' there are dozens who ascended to 'CEO Heaven' by sticking to someone's rear like a remora fish. How many companies actual close shop because the CEO leaves? Point is he just isn't as important to long term success or failure as many would like you to believe. Competent people are not that freaking rare.
In most cases truly competent mid-level people generate the ideas and bring them to the CEO's attention. If the CEO deigns to use them, the CEO generally gets the credit.
It's really laughable, when a CEO takes responsibility for what a company has done, listens to their employees and treats them like valued members of the company, resulting in good performance, they end up on the cover of Time or Forbes magazine because what they've done is out of the norm.
What was Eisenhower making when he was CEO of the Allied Forces that took Europe back?
Sure you need to pay someone enough money to live well, and the CEO should earn more than the workers, but in reality things are out of kilter when the CEO makes hundreds of times what the workers make.
If you start a charitable organization and depend on the largesse of others to make the charity function, I think you need to also walk the talk.
Once again, it's a free country, our views differ.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.