that is absolutely disgusting...

This is what the left stands for...

"But at what point does the government take away your non-profit status? I'd think reporting over $1 billion in profits would be a pretty big red flag."

It was over $1 billion in revenue, not profits. Profits were $112 million. But your point still stands; when will the government pull it's non-profit status?

112M profit on 1B? Not a bad percentage. If only the Big Bad Oil Companies could turn 11%, maybe I'd buy up their stocks. But since they provide products that increase CO2, that must be what the progressives are upset about. Couldn't be obscene profits.

Lots of NPO's operate in the black, or else they'd go under. I am no fan of abortion or PP in general. This isn't the way to make your argument. I would guess that there are plenty of Catholic and Protestant religious organizations that turn an annual black figure of greater than 100 mill, and that doesn't make them any more saintly or evil than PP.

Here is the obscene profit made by big oil last year:

http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor/invsub/results/statemnt.aspx?Symbol=XOM

10%, for those that can't read a financial statement.

Where are the demands for a windfall profits tax on the obscene profits (that's Jimmy Carter's description of big oil profits in 1979) of Big Abortion?

Roy
Post #5 is not meant to dispute your point #3. Oil companies rarely make these kinds of profits, and when they do it's deemed obscene.

Non-profit status simply means they don't do dividends. There's no way to invest in a non-profit and make money. Supposedly.

Donna

Good point. The best way to zero out profits in a non profit is to pay very high salaries and accept very high expenses.

These tactics are an obvious tax dodge, and to be fair, PP is not the only non profit to exploit this part of the IRS Code.

The best way to zero out profits in a non profit is to pay very high salaries and accept very high expenses.

IIRC, there's a legal distinction between "Non-Profit" and "Not-for-Profit"... and it seems like that at least one could maintain that status by simply paying profits out as bonuses to the employees.. but I'm not a tax lawyer or tax accountant.

...received record taxpayer funding of $305.3 million.

While I would love to see PP go out of business, I guess the most practical thing to do would be to reduce government funding by the same $112 million profit.

If you look at the actual PP Final Report, here, you'll see that they spent $588mil on medical services, while their income on medical services was $356mil. They are losing money on their primary activity. When your primary activity loses more money than it brings in, you're a non-profit. Or one of George Bush's business ventures.

Are you truly this stupid, Cassy? Or are you just faking it to make this blog look bad?

"I tend not to date liberals, for a reason. Politics is so important to what I do and I follow it so much. I can't respect a guy who's liberal all that much because it makes me question his intelligence."

I question the intelligence of someone who posts about the non-profit status of an organization without having a clue as to, you know, what a non-profit is.

Moron

Cassy is clearly not a product of planned parenthood.

Cassy, your accounting acumen is astounding. Maybe someone, more patient than I, can explain to you all that is wrong with your "calculations" - term used loosely.

Non-profits and not-for-profits are the same thing, just different terms.

Not many of you went to college did you? Even a freshman accounting student would understand this better than you or poor, stupid, Michelle.

It's no wonder the right wing blogs are so reviled by Republicans and educated people alike.

What's the resolution on that video during the ultrasound? ...I counted about 4 pixels.

Cassy, have you figured out yet that you are a simpleton? Profits and revenue aren't the same thing, as any half-bright eighth-grader could tell you.

Par for the course at Wizbang, though.

Umm... Income != Profits. You subtract opex (operating expenses) from your income to determine profit.
Their actual profit above and beyond opex was 112 million.

Reason # 42 to not date conservative women.

Cassy..I'm a liberal guy.

I'd pay for our date, especially if I was the one who asked you out.

Now, however, I'm having second thoughts. Your inability to read numbers correctly scares me into thinking you'd accidently order the whole menu, thinking it's just one meal.

You know, it's funny how things get defined by you folks on the right. Acting for profit is the highest calling, unless you make your money educating about STDs, providing information on pregnancy, and providing abortions. Taxpayer funding shouldn't be used to fund things that take lives, unless it's a weapon system or war.

You know the funniest thing about this post? The article you link to specifically mentions income in the title, which you morph into profit. But it's my intelligence that's in question because I lean left? That there's some mighy fine projectin', there darlin'. Mighty fine.

This is an April Fool's post, right?

No? You're actually telling me someone could be this stupid and cross the street in one piece?

i generally don't frequent ignorant right-wing sites, and after the cricle jerk of profound ignorance found in the first few comments, i see the intelligence showed up shortly thereafter.... sweet. yes, i am another one o' them there left-leaners that Cassy won't date.... thankfully.

i generally don't frequent ignorant right-wing sites, and after the cricle jerk of profound ignorance found in the first few comments, i see the intelligence showed up shortly thereafter.... sweet. yes, i am another one o' them there left-leaners that Cassy won't date.... thankfully.

It's a good thing you don't often frequent
right wing sites it could rub off on you.
You might learn how to spell.

It would be interesting to see the referring page and IP addresses of posts 11-22.
I am guessing it is a shorter list than 11...

As the old saw goes, you know you're over the target when you start taking flak.

As the old saw goes, you know you're over the target when you start taking flak.

And here's another old saw: "Income is not profits."

Just sayin'.

It's a good thing you don't often frequent right wing sites it could rub off on you. You might learn how to spell.

Not to mention punctuate.

That was sarcasm, dear.

Donna

Good point. The best way to zero out profits in a non profit is to pay very high salaries and accept very high expenses.

These tactics are an obvious tax dodge, and to be fair, PP is not the only non profit to exploit this part of the IRS Code.

Uhm, I'm guessing you mean the Internal Revenue Code, not the "IRS Code."

But if you were at all familiar with that "part" of the code, you'd know that a nonprofit need not "zero out profits" at all. It makes no difference whether an organization makes a profit, or the size of that profit. The general requirement is that the assets of the organization be used to further its exempt purpose.

As the old saw goes, you know you're over the target when you start taking flak.

I guess that means that PP is over the target.

"It was over $1 billion in revenue, not profits. Profits were $112 million. But your point still stands; when will the government pull it's non-profit status?"

You're right, Brian. That still is the actual point, calling the organization for labeling itself "Non-Profit".

Planned Parenthood Annual Report: More Abortions,
More Profits

"Sedlak says Planned Parenthood continues to take in significant income from federal, state and local governments. Combined, tax dollars accounted for a record $265.2 million -- nearly 33 percent of its $810 million total income the supposedly non-profit group made.

In fact, PPFA continues to make a profit, Sedlak explained.

"For the 18th year in a row, Planned Parenthood turned a net profit. This year's $35.2 million brings its total profits over the 18 years to $538 million," he indicated.

Meanwhile, private donations dropped for the second time in three years.

"Contributions and bequests dropped 17 percent to $191 million, and the income of its national headquarters dropped by 19.8 percent," according to Sedlak

Though the number of abortions at Planned Parenthood is on the rise, the number of facilities it operates declined from 866 to 849 in the last year. Some 89 facilities have closed since its heyday in 1995.

"This report shows the public is increasingly rejecting Planned Parenthood's radical agenda, but apparently our elected officials haven't gotten the message," Sedlak explained.

"Now is the time for Americans to expand the growing efforts to close Planned Parenthood clinics and to put pressure on politicians to stop the obscene amount of taxpayer money that is being funneled to the nation's largest abortion chain," he concluded."

Planned Parenthood: More Abortions, Fewer Clinics

'Money is money'

"Planned Parenthood's bottom line is still solid. The organization posted its 18th straight year of record total income ($810 million) and ended the period with a net profit of $35.2 million."

Here's the deal:

There's absolutely nothing, anywhere, that says that non-profits can't make money. Even great big stinking gobs of it.

The only thing non-profits have to do, is have something other than profit as their primary reason for existence.

"The only thing non-profits have to do, is have something other than profit as their primary reason for existence."

That's a "deal", alright. As long as it says on paper what your primary reason is, no-one can question the profits. There's no need to investigate how much of the taxpayer's money was listed as "revenue", either.

That's a "deal", alright. As long as it says on paper what your primary reason is, no-one can question the profits. There's no need to investigate how much of the taxpayer's money was listed as "revenue", either.

Oh my word, can anybody really be this stupid after having the facts pointed out so many times?

No dear, it isn't just a matter of what "it says on paper," it's a matter of what you actually do as an organization. Your activities must further an exempt purpose. How much money you put toward those activities is irrelevant.

Exemption Requirements, IRS

Clear enough?

As long as it says on paper what your primary reason is, no-one can question the profits. There's no need to investigate how much of the taxpayer's money was listed as "revenue", either.

Actually, yes. You're exactly right, both times.

You can question whether they're actually pursuing their stated purpose. But how much money they raise, and how much of that money is left after their costs are deducted, is completely irrelevant.

Just as how that money was raised, or how much of it came from taxpayer-funded sources - as long as all of that money was raised legally.

That's how it is.

Oh my word, can anybody really be this stupid after having the facts pointed out so many times?

Oh, yeah!

Anybody can point out facts by the book, you rude, pathetic bozo! But what an organization says and what they actually do are many times two different things!

You can question whether they're actually pursuing their stated purpose. But how much money they raise, and how much of that money is left after their costs are deducted, is completely irrelevant.

Just as how that money was raised, or how much of it came from taxpayer-funded sources - as long as all of that money was raised legally.

That's how it is.

Uh huh. Please tell me more:

Law Suit Aims to Expose Planned Parenthood's 'Extensive, Organized Fraud'

"Former Planned Parenthood executive reports that Planned Parenthood's illegal practices cost taxpayers more than $180 million.

LOS ANGELES, CA (LifeSiteNews) - A fired executive of Planned Parenthood filed a lawsuit against the nine California affiliates of the group for over-billing the government more than $180 million, it was revealed Saturday.

P. Victor Gonzalez, former vice president of finance and administration of Planned Parenthood's Los Angeles affiliate, filed his 2005 suit under the False Claims Act. Gonzalez claims that he was fired after voicing concerns about "illegal accounting, billing and donations practices."

That's how it is, you MORONS. Why do bother coming here?

P.S. My apologies to jim, because he was trying to be civil. zuzu, however, is still a rude, pathetic bozo.

Well, LAM, I can't speak for anyone else, but I come here to make fun of ignorant twits like you.

Your entertaining, but again, incorrect assessment has nothing to do with whether a nonprofit organization may make a profit. Nor does a False Claims Act claim alleging overbilling practices directly bear on the question of whether an organization is engaging in exempt activities.