I’m surprised that having more members let’s you offer better tax deductions (and that they don’t even need to be Danish taxpayers!), what’s up with that?
This is a very non-EA opinion, but personally I quite like this on, for lack of a better word, aesthetics grounds: Charities should be accountable to someone, in the same way as companies are to shareholders, and politicians are to electorates. Membership models are a good way of achieving that. I am a little sad that my local EA group is not organized in the same way.
I’m not expressing an opinion on that. The post makes a clear claim that their legal status re tax deductibility will change if more EU citizens sign up. This surprises me and I want to understand it better. I agree there are other benefits to having more members, I’m not disputing that
I’m surprised that having more members let’s you offer better tax deductions (and that they don’t even need to be Danish taxpayers!), what’s up with that?
It’s a requirement from the Tax authorities that all charities in Denmark need to have at least 300 members to be eligible for tax deductions.
It’s not that we receive “better” tax deductions. We just simply can’t offer deductions unless we reach the 300 benchmark.
This is a very non-EA opinion, but personally I quite like this on, for lack of a better word, aesthetics grounds: Charities should be accountable to someone, in the same way as companies are to shareholders, and politicians are to electorates. Membership models are a good way of achieving that. I am a little sad that my local EA group is not organized in the same way.
I’m not expressing an opinion on that. The post makes a clear claim that their legal status re tax deductibility will change if more EU citizens sign up. This surprises me and I want to understand it better. I agree there are other benefits to having more members, I’m not disputing that