Salary-Tax Proposal Should Be Written Off

To the Editor:

Pablo Eisenberg argues that the Internal Revenue Service should tax as excessive non-profit executive salaries above $250,000 or $300,000 (“I.R.S. Must Slam the Door on High Salaries,” Opinion, August 13). One would hope that the myriad of problems associated with this proposal will doom it to the trash heap, where it belongs.

Why is $350,000 excessive and $250,000 isn’t? Does the size of an organization matter? Why is a $500,000 salary in an organization with a $400-million budget excessive while a $250,000 salary in a $4-million organization is not excessive? Is an excessive salary in Kansas City the same as an excessive salary in New York? Do we really want the I.R.S. setting salaries in the non-profit sector?

Mr. Eisenberg also states that the “notions of caring, social commitment, public service, community improvement, and satisfaction in making society better” should be salary enough for non-profit professionals. It is that attitude that makes it difficult to attract and keep talented young professionals in the non-profit field.

In recent months, several young emerging leaders in Kansas City’s non-profit sector have left their jobs to take positions in the private sector. Did they suddenly become evil, money-grubbing villains who don’t care about the community? No. They decided that there is nothing wrong with receiving fair compensation for excellence and providing for their families. And they are right.

It is not wrong to pay people a competitive salary, and it is not in the long-term self-interest of charitable organizations to underpay their employees. Public trust in charitable organizations is undermined by the mismanagement of funds and poor performance that happens when non-profit organizations are unable to recruit and keep the most-talented employees.

The long-term self-interest of charitable organizations is to pay employees well, invest in their professional development, and build a work force to equal that of the private sector.

Steve Schutte
Midwest Bioethics Center
Kansas City, Mo.

* * *

To the Editor:

Let’s see if I understand this. Pablo Eisenberg has found a new role for the Internal Revenue Service: setting salary limits for non-profit-organization staff.

Citing scandals and news-media exposes, Mr. Eisenberg sees federal regulation as the panacea for whatever ills the non-profit world may have brought upon itself. The I.R.S. setting a ceiling on salaries and benefits? Oh please, just what we need: more government intrusion into the private workplace.

Since it is almost a financial impossibility to take a family of four to a National Football League or National Basketball Association game, how about an I.R.S. cap on all player salaries at a level commensurate with what their worth to society really is? Or what about the other side of the coin? Since teachers are grossly underpaid, how about an I.R.S. regulation mandating a minimum salary level for that profession, a level to which all school boards would have to adhere under penalty of heavy fines?

No. Despite what Mr. Eisenberg espouses, let the marketplace decide what is appropriate by its support, or lack thereof. What we don’t need is Big Brother regulating how much we may earn and taxing earnings beyond a specified sum at a ridiculously high level, be we for-profit or non-profit.

Mr. Eisenberg finally suggests that it should be in the non-profit world’s self-interest to embrace his suggestion of federal salary limits — that it would “help restore public confidence in the work and integrity of the non-profit world.”

I can see the promotional piece now: “Cure the Common Cold Society: We Pay a Living Wage Within I.R.S. Guidelines.” Sure gives me a new level of confidence.

Edgar A. Vovsi
Las Vegas, Nev.