I was in the non-profit shop of a local charity. They accept donations of used computers then resell them to the public. The profit goes to charity. I asked for their oldest machine. It had an AMD chip from the 16h family. Thus, a spychip.
So their oldest machine was still too new for me. I asked why don’t you have anything older? They said the general public would not accept anything older, and so the shop also does not accept anything older. When machines are rejected, they go to a factory that destroys them and recovers the raw metals.
It’s sad to see that pre-spychip machines are being destroyed and that even 2nd-hand customers are being limited to anti-consumer spychip hardware.
Nonsense. By law, they /must/ break even.
That’s only partially true. If the sales activity is unrelated to the mission, then the sales must support something else that supports the mission. If the mission is environmental, or privacy, or pro-consumer, or human rights (autonomy specifically), or free software, then your claim falls apart. They can even lose money in an activity that promotes their mission as long as their other activities offset the loss.
It’s one in the same. I would shop there if they had what I wanted. But I won’t shop there when they don’t have what I’m after – as they are only targeting the mainstream masses. They had to turn me away because I was not in the mainstream masses they are targeting. For the same reason (targeting mainstream masses), they quit selling machines with linux.
Exactly. It’s bizarre that you can realize this while simultaneously rely on them behaving like a Microcenter or Amazon.
They aren’t required to break even. There is no law prohibiting or preventing them from losing money.
I don’t think you know what you are talking about with non-profits. I used to have one for my reddit socials group. I founded it and was the president/ceo for about 8 years. I can tell you right now, you can definately run it as a for profit. In fact, there is a specific dollar amount you can profit off it. Every year when I submitted financial documents to the state I had to show generally (high level only, not specific) every dollar that came in or out, but they didn’t care about where it came from or where it went to. The only real question was if I had over exactly $1 million in profit. Obviously I never did, but if I did there would simply be a slightly different set of rules on what I would have to do with it or how to declare it. If I had a non-profit that sold computers and grossed $999,999 per year, then paid myself or banked everything left over, then I am still a perfectly legal non-profit and don’t need to report any details on my finances other than general numbers.
And as far as financials related to the mission? Literally nothing stopping me from spending it on whatever I feel like. If my mission is slinging used computers to help kids with cancer- i can buy a fucking yacht with all my computer sales money under the non-profit then donate $1 to st.judes. This is why millionares and billionaires love to found their own charity and wash money through it. The rules are so gray.
Want to know the most common bullshit with non-profits if you still don’t believe me? Look up Equine Therapy non-profits. It is how you make your horse(s), stable, and pasture all sheltered as a non-profit. Then once a year you have some nondescript, unverified, person ride one of your horses and count it as your charity event to justify the existence. I know so many people who own horses who do this bullshit to help cover the cost of owning them. And most of these people aren’t even that rich, just well off. And again, totally legal.
None of this obviates my thesis. A profit limit of $999,999 in your country reflects a buffer for ops. That’s has no material relevance here. Nor does it support the other Cloudflare user who claimed the charity activity of selling old machines is not viable. To claim that it’s not possible to sell old machines (even at a loss) and yet sustain, this makes it hard to believe you really know how non-profits work – assuming that is your stance. Otherwise, what’s your point?
Indeed it is well known that non-profits have countless angles for abuse. People like Peter Thiel and other right-wing pricks notoriously abuse the non-profit charity structure. That’s mostly irrelevant but to the extent that it’s relevant it actually supports my thesis nonetheless. An abuser who funds a yacht from charity work obviously has enough slack money to sell some old machines, or even pay someone to take them.