Where does the Occupy Wall Street money go?

A 501 (c ) (3) organization with $500,000 is hardly a “big money corporation” with an army of corporate tax attorneys and accountants at their disposal trying to avoid paying or minimize corporate income taxes on its profits. A 501 (c ) (3) doesn’t have any profits. It’s not at all the same thing. But, I do think that anyone who donates money to support the Occupy Wall Street movement certainly has the right to know what exactly the money is being used for. If they are going to accept money then I think they really do need to set up a 501 (c ) (3) so there can be a proper account of the money. They don’t really have much of a choice than to do it. The IRS has a separate status for business than they do for charities and non-profits, that’s just the way it work. Occupy Wall Street isn’t a business.

They suck a lot of lozenges.

@lillycoyote How does that work with the OWS people that want churches to start paying taxes? If one nonprofit should pay taxes, why should another nonprofit not pay taxes?

Admittedly I don’t see a lot of protesters wanting churches to pay taxes, but I have seen more than one.

I heard part of a report about this today on my local public radio station while I was out running errands; not sure if it was part of an NPR broadcast or not.

I gather that the Occupiers have to pay some fees for site use, rent port-a-potties and other common facilities, and other things, and I think they are sharing food and other resources.

The report I heard sounded like it was describing how a bureaucracy was springing up already within the movement, or at least within individual local instances of the movement, including or especially concerning decisions about money. I think (and I’m not sure because, as usual, I came in somewhere in the middle) the speaker was a leader in one of the California “Occupy” groups. He was describing the hoops they had to go through to transfer some of their received donations to another group that had less; it might have been L.A. to Oakland. The reporter was commenting on the irony of how complex systems for financial accountability and roadblocks to use of funds have come into place so quickly within this movement.

But (because I didn’t hear the beginning) I’m not 100% sure this is what it was about at all. I’ve just been checking this afternoon’s programming for the period while I was out, and I didn’t find the story.

@WestRiverrat I was just responding to your question and now you’re changing the subject to “Should not profits pay taxes?” I was just stating that I thought that having accumulating donations of $500,000 and forming a 501 (c ) (3) isn’t at all the same as becoming “a big money corporation trying to avoid taxes.”

Then why would some of the OWS people call the Catholic church a big money corporation avoiding taxes as a nonprofit?

I know forming a 501© (3) isn’t becoming a big corporation. Making revenues of half a million dollars in 5 weeks does make you a big money corporation, nonprofit or not.

@WestRiverrat Things: 1. Could you point me to a link where I can read what OWS said about the Catholic Church, the comments you’re talking about? I haven’t heard about that and I can’t find any information on it. 2. I still disagree that $500,000 makes OWS or anyone a “big money corporation;” that’s really small change when compared to the revenues of most large, or even medium size corporations. That’s the kind of revenue a small business owner might be able to generate.

@WestRiverrat The problem is not with all churches. It is with those churches that engage in activities contrary to the limitations by which charitable organizations must abide in order to retain their tax-exempt status, yet retain that status all the same.