Posts tagged ‘Forbes’

July 7, 2016

Should You Worry about Election-Year Tax Plans?

As Americans, we should be generally concerned with who our next President will be. The outcome has both personal and professional implications for you, even if you’re one of my international readers.

Presidential Seal by Jason Seliskar via FlickrWho will be best for the future of the nation and the world? Who will voters elect?:

Whether you’re a nonprofit manager, fundraising professional, and/or donor, you should also be concerned about which of the candidates will be best for the charity sector. Government policies, particularly tax policies, can have a significant impact on charitable giving.

If new government policies lead to greater economic growth, nonprofit organizations will likely benefit. Giving USA has shown that charitable giving consistently correlates to roughly two percent of Gross Domestic Product. So, if the nation experiences more robust economic growth, we can expect more robust philanthropic growth. The converse is also true.

If new government policies lead to greater personal income, nonprofit organizations will likely benefit as Giving USA has revealed that giving also consistently correlates to approximately two percent of personal income.

So, which Presidential candidate is best? Well, that’s a simple question with a complex answer. Evaluating the potential impact of each plan will never generate a consensus among economists. Furthermore, it’s doubtful that any of the plans will be adopted as presented. Congress will still have its say. And Speaker of the House Paul Ryan has introduced his own tax proposal.

While I will not tell you which candidate will be best for the country and the nonprofit sector — I don’t happen to own a crystal ball — I will provide you with a few key, relevant highlights of each plan. I hope you’ll then take the time to learn a bit more about each candidate and his/her proposals so that you can make an informed choice this November and be prepared when change arrives.

I also encourage you to visit the seemingly non-partisan website I Side With to take a quiz that will match your answers with the positions the candidates have taken on a variety of issues. At the conclusion of the quiz, you’ll be told how your positions align with those of each of the candidates. The results might surprise you. If you’re one of my international readers, I still encourage you to take the quiz to see how our presidential candidates align with your values so you’ll know who to root for.

Now, let’s take a brief look at some of the highlights from the various tax proposals:

read more »

Advertisements
December 21, 2015

Breaking News: Charitable Giving Incentives Made Permanent!

The US Congress has approved and President Barack Obama has signed the so-called Tax Extenders package that not only includes a number of charitable giving incentives, such as the IRA Charitable Rollover, it has made those incentives permanent.

An article in Forbes, prior to passage of the legislation, nicely outlines the measure’s major provisions including the key charitable giving incentives:

  • deduction allowed for charitable contribution of real property for conservation purposes,
  • taxpayers over age 70 1/2 may make donations directly from an IRA and will not be taxed on the amounts (up to $100,000),
  • a shareholder in an S corporation will be required to reduce his basis in the S corporation’s stock under Section 1366 only for his share of the basis of property contributed by the S corporation; not the fair market value.

This is a tremendous moment for the nonprofit sector. Not only have these important giving incentives been renewed, they have been made permanent!

We all owe thanks to the staff and volunteers of the Association of Fundraising Professionals, particularly General Counsel Jason Lee. AFP has taken the lead in fighting to get these giving incentives and making them permanent.

Santorum and MJR

Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) and Michael J. Rosen on Capitol Hill.

For more than a decade, I’ve worked with my AFP colleagues, first as a member of the US Government Relations Committee, then founding Board Member of the AFP Political Action Committee, and then as Board Chairman of the AFP PAC.

Our efforts date back to assisting with the drafting of the CARE Act with then-Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA). The bill was co-sponsored by then-Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT). Despite the bipartisan effort, the CARE Act failed to pass. However, certain charitable giving incentives that were part of the CARE Act were adopted, on a year-to-year basis, including the IRA Charitable Rollover. It took a decade but, finally, the incentives are now permanent!

I’m proud to have been able to play a significant role on this issue. I’ve enjoyed working with other passionate volunteers and staff.

We also need to take this opportunity to thank The Charitable Giving Coalition and its member organizations along with every individual who has worked for this legislation.

Let’s take a much deserved victory lap! Let’s do an end-zone dance! Let’s toast this achievement! Then, let’s get back to work. There’s much to be done to promote the giving incentives.

To help you promote the IRA Charitable Rollover, The Council on Foundations has put together an excellent free, downloadable toolkit that includes:

  • Talking points, a fact sheet, and web content;
  • An event presentation;
  • Tools that explain which available options might best serve donors;
  • Donor and professional advisor advertisements.

You can download the Council’s “Charitable IRA Worksheet” for donors by clicking here. You can find the full toolkit by clicking here.

read more »

December 8, 2015

Special Report: You Read about It Here First

[Publisher’s Note: “Special Reports” are posted from time-to-time as a benefit for subscribers and frequent visitors to this blog. “Special Reports” are not widely promoted. To be notified of all new posts, including “Special Reports,” please take a moment to subscribe in the right-hand column. New subscribers will also receive a free e-book from researcher Dr. Russell James.]

 

At Michael Rosen Says…, I strive to introduce you to exceptional people with something valuable to offer fundraising professionals and nonprofit managers. I also endeavor to share useful tips and provocative opinions with you. From time-to-time, other media outlets take notice. Here are two recent examples:

Isabelle Clérié, Country Director, EGI in Haiti

I introduced you to Isabelle Clérié, a young fundraising professional. At the time, Isabelle was working in the U.S. She has since returned to her native Haiti where she is now Country Director for EGI, an NGO working to combat poverty by assisting and training emerging entrepreneurs.

Isabelle Clérié, Country Director, EGI in Haiti

Isabelle Clérié, Country Director, EGI in Haiti

Isabelle wrote a guest blog post which I published nearly four years ago: “Haiti: A Young Professional’s Compelling Lessons for All Nonprofits.”

The post focused on relief efforts following the 2010 earthquake in Haiti. In addition to providing some interesting insights into the relief efforts, Isabelle shares some valuable tips that can make any charity more effective.

Now, Forbes has discovered Isabelle and has highlighted her work in Haiti in a recent report: “Three Social Entrepreneurs Driving Growth And Change In Haiti.”

I congratulate Isabelle on the much-deserved public recognition she has received, and I applaud EGI for making a difference in Haiti.

I encourage you to read Isabelle’s post and the article in Forbes.

#GivingTuesday

My regular readers know that while I like the idea of #GivingTuesday, I have not been impressed with the results. In fact, I actually have some serious concerns about the occasion.

Recently, The Chronicle of Philanthropy interviewed me for the article “Giving Tuesday? More Like Gimmick Tuesday, Some Small Nonprofits Say.” This gave me the opportunity to once again share my thoughts on the subject. You can download the article and read what I had to say.

read more »

December 13, 2013

No Evidence of #GivingTuesday Success

I admit it. The news headlines about the second annual #GivingTuesday have been exuberant:

“Giving Tuesday Shows Robust Results”The Chronicle of Philanthropy 

“Growth in Online Giving Tuesday Numbers ‘Inspiring’”USA Today 

“Giving Tuesday Smashes Records, Spurs 90% Donation Spike”The Huffington Post 

#GivingTuesday 2013 Infographic by #GivingTuesdayThe good folks at #GivingTuesday even put together an infographic illustrating the day’s success. I’m sharing it in this post. 

There’s only one problem with all of the enthusiasm: There is not a single shred of hard evidence that #GivingTuesday is good for the entire nonprofit sector.

Fortunately, Forbes contributor Tom Watson is one member of the media not afraid to ask the big question: “Inside The #GivingTuesday Numbers: Will American Philanthropy Grow?” 

I share Watson’s healthy skepticism. Like him, I am not yet convinced that #GivingTuesday is a positive force for philanthropy although I certainly hope it is. While #GivingTuesday might have been effective for some individual charities, I wonder if it has been good for the entire nonprofit sector.

The fact that many more charities got involved with #GivingTuesday, compared with last year, does not necessarily mean anything. The fact that millions of people used social media to talk about #GivingTuesday does not necessarily mean anything. The fact that millions of dollars were raised on #GivingTuesday is equally meaningless, by itself.

Here are some questions about #GivingTuesday that the nonprofit sector should answer before rushing to congratulate itself:

read more »

October 11, 2013

The Power of Eye Contact: A Myth?

[Publisher’s Note: Michael J. Rosen, CFRE will be interviewed by CausePlanet in a free webinar about his award-winning book, Donor-Centered Planned Gift Marketing. Learn more and register for the October 17 program by clicking HERE. If you need a speaker or trainer, contact Rosen today.]

.

We all have heard that it’s not just what you say, but how you say it that matters. Now, new research sheds some surprising light on the subject. 

In the past, researchers have proven that body language is important. We’ve been told to stand-up straight. Don’t slouch while sitting. Don’t point. Shake hands firmly. Look people straight in the eyes, assuming it’s culturally appropriate given the context.

However, a new article by Susan Adams, in Forbes, comes with a surprising headline: “The Power of Eye Contact — It’s a Myth.” The article begins:

Most of us think that when we want to make a point, we should look the other person in the eye. Spouses, bosses, car salesmen, politicians, all use a direct gaze when they’re trying to convince an audience of many or one that their position is the most valid. Now it turns out that they should probably cast their glance in a different direction.”

Adams continues:

In a new paper just published in the journal Psychological Science, Minson and Chen tested the proposition that eye contact can win over people who disagree with the speaker. In two different studies (conducted at the University of Freiburg where Chen was doing her post-doctoral work), their data show that people respond more favorably to opposing arguments when the speaker looks at an angle to the recipient or focuses his eyes on his counterpart’s mouth instead of his eyes.”

Based on the Forbes article and even the study abstract itself, one might believe that development professionals should minimize eye contact with prospective donors when meeting face-to-face, at least during the ask. After all, the researchers state:

These findings suggest that efforts at increasing eye contact may be counterproductive across a variety of persuasion contexts.”

In other words, if you’re trying to persuade someone to make a donation, increasing eye contact can actually hurt your effort, the research suggests.

Eye on Money by peasap via FlickrThe study is certainly provocative given that it runs counter to conventional wisdom and other studies on the subject of eye contact. However, should we take the study seriously? When in situations where we are trying to persuade someone, should we do as Adams suggests and just let our “eyes wander”?

Well, before you automatically accept the research findings, consider these issues:

● The research samples were small involving just 20 students in the first study and 42 in the second.

● The research sample was culturally biased as it only involved college students.

● The research sample was age biased as it only involved college-age students.

● The research only involved the actions of the message recipients, not the messenger. In other words, the researchers considered where the message recipients were looking and not where the messenger was looking.

● The researchers instructed the study participants on where they could look, thereby possibly introducing bias.

● The research involved test subjects “interacting” with videotaped presenters rather than live speakers.

For me to break from conventional wisdom normally requires compelling evidence. While the Minson and Chen research is interesting and provocative, I find it sufficiently problematic to warrant further research.

On the other hand, I won’t completely discount the research findings.

read more »

%d bloggers like this: