you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 12 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Now I wonder, because both 999k and 100k are six figure sums, and one of them I find much more reasonable than the other.

But yeah, running a non-profit often takes money instead of earning you money, and if they have spare money to pay salary to the CEO, maybe they're all right

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    That’s not what being a non profit means… they are allowed to make a “profit,” and pay for their liabilities. They just must reinvest them back into the business.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago

    I'm not sure that not having anyone on salary is part of that deal. Or if you were referring to the part where I said about salary being negative, that's from experience, a couple of directors of a non-profit I know had to donate their salary and add on top of it when times were rough (in that organisation it was pretty often). Large non-profits probably don't have that issue

  • source
  • parent