posted on January 7, 2001 10:03:46 PM new
The Goodwill pricing gurus in our area have lost their minds. I saw a DKNY top with 2 tags on it. One tag was from the American Cancer Society Thirft, $8.00. The other was the Goodwill tag, $19.99.
I see items with Ross tags attached that are priced lower than the attached Goodwill tags. And on occasion a retail store tag that is lower than the Goodwill tag.
Now my question is this. Do they think the buying public are complete idiots? Why would they leave the tags attached from other stores, including retail shops that are lower than the price they mark on the item?
My other pet peeve is the items that have obvious flaws like holes, rips, pilling, etc.. Do they really believe that anyone would pay $20 - $40 for these items. I don't care if it has an Armani label, if it has a two inch hole in it, I wouldn't give them 50 cents for it.
[ edited by outoftheblue on Jan 7, 2001 10:06 PM ]
posted on January 7, 2001 10:10:25 PM new
Well, at our local Salvation Army - I've had associates from one particular store who has told me that their manager goes through everything and keeps all good stuff for herself. This is the same manager who drives a new Cadillac. Sorry, it doesn't fly when I see $30 tags on old, stained, torn dresses from Wal-Mart. I know who's REALLY getting the money in that store.
posted on January 8, 2001 01:35:16 AM new
I work as a city bus driver and recall more recently an employee from the local Goodwil, stating he made $53.00 a week. This was for a 40 hour work week. That's $1.33 an hour before taxes.
posted on January 8, 2001 05:42:29 AM new
IMO, Goodwill, Salvation Army, or any other "thrift" store that works as a 501C3 (non-profit charity), should be treated just as you would any other charity.
If you donate money, time, items, to your favorite charity because it is for a cause that you believe in. You've researched the financial records of that charity, etc..... and see that the money or product goes exactly where you think it goes... That's great. But that is the same criteria you should use for any/all non-profit organization.
If you don't like the way a non-profit organization is being run......... don't donate to it! This includes buying from them. Yes, donate=puchase as well. Just as when you purchase those raffle tickets or that candy bar for $1.00 or M&M's for $2.... your purchase is a donation and any of you've paid above value for the item it is tax deductable for you as well.. so any excess money is a donation.
You've gotta decide how your money is going to be spent, if you choose to patronize these stores. If you don't like the policies or the actions of the representatives of the charity than you should not continue to donate money, items, or time to the charity. Find someplace else to spend your money.
1) if you think the employees of the thrift store are taking all the good stuff first........ and you're thinking about donating?? Find some 'local' charities in your area and see if any are holding yardsales.
2) Don't want to deal with the big guy thrift stores..? Many communities have church thrift stores.. contact the churches in your community to find out if/where they are located. Typically the $ from these places goes directly back into the community.
There's tons of other suggestions and lots of ideas. The big guys aren't the only answers.... and playing by their preset rules is not the mean for all.
posted on January 8, 2001 06:16:18 AM new
outoftheblue ~ 10% can not be the norm. If it is, than I'd say we're in sad shape. But I do know one thing, not all 501C3's are like that. There are those out there, that operate with 85-100% of the money reaching those who it was intended for. Also, with many, there are regional/local affiliates .. rather than just the 'national' one that many people see. In cases, such as these.. typically the regional/local affiliate 'keep' 80-90% of the money collected/donated for local people... and the remaining 10-20% goes to the national level to help fund that.
So, as you can see, not all work on that statistic of 10% going to those who need it.
Now I know somebody's going to dismiss this with "Oh, they just SAY that", but here's a site with annual reports from thousands of charities, including Goodwill. Please note that these reports are filed with the Feds. Having worked for a law firm that oversaw more annual reports than I care to count, I can attest to their accuracy. These are not fairy tales.
Internationally, 84%-95% of revenues go directly to the programs Goodwill supports.
But that's really beside the point. As is the case every single time a thread like this starts, all this moral outrage about higher thrift store prices affecting the "needy" is a red herring. That issue is never, ever raised until loooong after everybody's commiserated about how you can't get a good buy at the thift store anymore. Then somebody points out the actual purpose of thrift stores is fundraising, not providing deep-discount inventory to ebay sellers, which results in feathers being ruffled and sanctimonious fingers being pointed toward the suffering poor who are supposedly being victimized by the charity.
All this is a smokescreen for the REAL outrage being expressed for the REAL "victims": sellers who can no longer walk into a thrift store, buy an item for a quarter, and sell it on ebay for $20. Do you actually care whether merchandise sits on the thrift store shelves? Are you seriously concerned about the charity's revenues? Please. It is to laugh.
posted on January 8, 2001 07:15:18 AM new
I am not against the thrift stores makeiing money, after all they are a business. However, you must realize they get their goods free..nothing wrong with that, the donator gets a tax write off..but do you know how much of a write off? When my mother passed away I gave all her stuff to Goodwill. At tax time I was given a sheet which showed the standard deductions allowed, this is what Goodwill gives the gov't and they in turn allow you to deduct. Shoes .50, coats 5.00 furniture max. of $25.00! Now fair is fair..one pair of boots that I donated still had the price tag on them, mom paid $125.00 for them and since they were boots I could only deduct $1.00 any idea how much they sold them for? and that is just a sample, come on people fair is fair..
posted on January 8, 2001 07:53:49 AM newHartCottageQuilts:
Yes, there are people out there trying to make ends meet by buying items to re-sell on eBay. Perhaps, for some it's just a past time/hobby.
For some, this is their only source of income. They are not Rich! They are not Middle Class! They are low-income, hard working people! Some of them have disabilities..and do not ask for ANY handouts! Just because they shop at the thrift stores to re-sell, does not mean they are Rich or Middle Class or SELFISH people!
Some cannot give money..but they give of their time/etc. I know people that are Rich and Middle Class, that do all they can to help with these charities. They shop there too! Does that mean they only care about themselves? ~ NO!
I believe in giving to these organizations. I also believe the charities are not perfect. There is much improvement needed.
You can go to your site and look at those figures and believe it, if you choose. Ever hear,"Looks good on paper"?
People on this thread were only stating their true feelings.
Do you actually care whether merchandise sits on the thrift store shelves? Are you seriously concerned about the charity's revenues? Please.It is to laugh.
I'll be happy to answer that......Yes, I do care!!! I know there are many that DO CARE!!!
I'm sorry for you, if you think this is laughable.
posted on January 8, 2001 07:54:06 AM new
I guess I have been lucky so far with our local Salv. Army. Prices are pretty darn good on the things I usually buy, although I've noticed weird pricing on clothing items. Like clothes from Target priced very high, while a true designer piece marked quite low. Some of the things they keep up at the counter are purely junk, and the items that I can turn around and sell for $50 are almost always under $3.00. I have bought some of my best ebay sellers at the salv. army--lots of old chenille spreads, pottery, old radios, etc. The Goodwill here is okay on pricing, although they mostly have clothes and I don't sell many clothes. My fave place to ebay shop is our flea market, but it only runs through the summer. Prices are awesome there.
posted on January 8, 2001 08:05:41 AM new
HCQ, thanks for posting that link. I had often wondered how much the higher ups of the charity that I am a member of, get paid. Now I see, that even though the charity makes more money than Goodwill, the President, Vice-President, etc (on the national level) get zero. It has restored my faith that not all charitable bigwigs get major bucks for doing who knows what.
---------
People need to remember, that GoodWill, etc, are not there for you....... they're there for themselves. They're out to make money .. they are a business even if it is non-profit, just as you are a for-profit business. Your money goes into your pockets to pay your bills. The money they make goes into their pockets to pay their bills and to pay for their projects. There's no difference between you and them.. except tax standing.
posted on January 8, 2001 09:37:21 AM new
I did not hear anyone say thrift stores are supposed to support home businesses for low-income disabled entrepreneurs.
It was just a statement that, shopping there has helped them.
posted on January 8, 2001 10:27:06 AM new
I'm not in the habit of shopping thrifts. The few times I've visited local ones there seemed to be a lot of people, many of whom seemed likely to have very low incomes, shopping for cheap clothing. Mostly junk, often overpriced (often good trashbin candidates), in other areas.
Thift stores have every right and reason to charge whatever the traffic will bear, but to ask more is self defeating. Their turnover should be very rapid. "Boutique prices?" If the stuff is moving at such prices, good for them. If not, it's mismanagement. It's not a strong area for attracting good managers, so mismanagement is likely to be pretty common.
posted on January 8, 2001 10:41:45 AM new
BUFFALOWOMAN: This is a bit off the track of the thread, but since you brought it up, that IRS list is a =suggested= donation value list, not an absolute requirement. If you have evidence that your garments, shoes, etc., are worth far more (and an attached price tag on an unworn pair of boots would certainly qualify), you may deduct that as fair value.
You can also use a reasonable percentage of cost of a similar new garment. I've done this for years, with no problems. I don't save every receipt for inexpensive clothing, but if it is in good shape I will deduct about 15-25% of its approximate new value when I donate it. My tax preparer agrees that this is fine.
He also recommends that for any possible questionable items (and a $125 pair of boots might qualify as "questionable" to the IRS), you take a snapshot as evidence of the extra value, price tag, high quality, etc. A banged-up pair of used boots might only be worth $2 as a donation, but it would be clear from a photo that your brand-new pair with a price tag still attached is worth far more.
If you are disposing of an entire estate (which I have also done), you might attach a letter with your return explaining this...which also explains the unusually high number of donated items that year, and the high value attached. Explanatory letters frequently dissuade the IRS from even bothering you with a phone call.
If your decisions are reasonable and you have good records, the IRS may check you out, but they will not send you to jail.
posted on January 8, 2001 03:03:06 PM new
Sonsie, I never thought of taking pictures etc..however i found out about this at a tax audit. We had taken 3 truck loads to the Goodwill and had it all itimized. At the audit, the auditor went straight down the list and only allowed the exact amount on the sheet the Goodwill had provided for pricing each item. Example, they allowed .50 for shoes, I had donated 9 pair of heels so the audito allowed a deduction for $4.50. The price sheet was provided to the IRS from Goodwill, I asked for a copy so I would have a guideline for future reference but they wouldn't let me have one.
[ edited by Buffalowoman on Jan 8, 2001 03:07 PM ]
posted on January 8, 2001 06:34:15 PM new
I worked at a State Mental Hospital which used to run its own Sheltered Workshop for clients who lived in boarding homes, etc., in the community. I feel I must point out to those who are offended by the lower than minimum wage paid to these people that the facility or charity CANNOT pay minimum or more to workers without jeopardizing their benefits. A client who can hold a job paying minimum wage is not eligible for Disability, or Medicaid, and would be required to pay for their housing costs as well. In effect, they would fall between the cracks, un-medicated and unable to cope with the cost of living totally independently, until they once again hit the skids and qualify for assistance.
Unfortunately, our state decided to get out of the sheltered workshop business, opting instead to "place" these people in jobs out in the community. 3 out of about 100 actually got jobs, which were to be subsidized by the state with half of their wage and a few hundred hours of an attending "job coach", a person hired through the local mental health services provider to attend work with the client to help them learn and perform the job. It did not work, and now at least 100 people are not working at all, not earning a little extra spending money for luxuries they might want, and unable to find and keep "regular" jobs.
Even private sheltered workshops in the area refuse to hire these mentally ill people. They are not as easily trained and are less stable than mentally retarded workers already in those slots.
posted on January 8, 2001 07:01:56 PM new
joyz412e ~ So you're saying it's better to be on the dole, taking from the tax payers, than for this person to work, earning a living, paying taxes, at the minimum level, set forth by society? Oh yes, let's not forget to throw in "if we pay them more they'll lose their SSI". That's the big lie. Heaven forbid that they should paid for the work they do, earning a wage that would allow them the dignity of being self relient. Unfortunately, your viewpoint only covers the mentally ill as disabled.
Of the physically disabled, who you seem to be forgetting about, the blind are most hurt by this attitude. There's a 70% unemployment rate among the blind, because of attitudes such as yours ~ sit back, collect your check, and we'll take care of you. They want the same self respect of holding down a job, a job they can be proud of, as anybody else. Saddly, the expectation of people is that the best that the blind can do, is sheltered workshops. Would you care to tell that to the blind lawyers, computer programmers, engineers, teachers, social workers, auto mechanics, shop keepers etc...... who have said "No Thank You!" to sheltered workshops ...... and got up out of the safety net/hammock of SSI, to stand on their own two feet, and become productive, tax-paying citizens.
If you ask almost any organization OF the disabled, whether they support sheltered sweatshops, they would reply with a resounding NO.
**Please note: there is a HUGE difference between organizations OF the disabled versus FOR the disabled. OF the disabled means that the organization is run BY the disabled and all decisions are based from their viewpoint and they act as advocates. FOR the disabled means that able bodied persons are doing for the disabled because they believe the disabled person is not fit to do for themselves. Philosophical chasm between these types of organizations is vast and irreconciable.**
edited to add:
I wanted to add simple math into this equation.
Min. Wage =$5.25/hr
times 40 hours/week
________________________
$210/week before taxes
times 52 weeks in the year
_________________________
$10,920 per year before taxes
If you're on Social Security the most you could earn during the year 2001 before they start taking deductions from your benefits is: $10,680
The difference is only $240!
Gee, all the disabled has to do is take 1.5 weeks off during the year ... or perhaps, not work 40 hours per week.... oh.. maybe 35 hours per week...and the end result would be the same:
They could be paid min. wage and not lose their benefits. They are not paid min. wage because by LAW they don't have to be.. and those who run/own sheltered sweatshops lobby intensively to make sure that government does not change that!
[ edited by rosiebud on Jan 8, 2001 07:13 PM ]
posted on January 8, 2001 07:04:54 PM new
BUFFALOWOMAN: I don't know how long ago you ran into this auditor, but my tax guy gave me a copy of the suggested donation values about two years ago or less, and the values are a lot higher than what you mentioned. This isn't any big secret--or shouldn't be. How else are we going to avoid an audit, if we have no idea of what the IRS will accept?
Anyway, if you'd like a copy of what the list I got (which is a lot more generous), just drop me an email at [email protected]. I'll be happy to photocopy it and mail it to you.
BTW, I think you got stuck with a real pill of an auditor. By the book, I guess! That's why I've taken photos and otherwise documented anything out of the ordinary in terms of donations...just so that if I run into the same guy, I can PROVE my stuff is worth more than average. (I would also send my tax guy in my place, as he is a lot more authoritative than I would dare be, and a lot more knowledgeable about what is allowed and what isn't).
posted on January 8, 2001 07:38:13 PM new
rosiebud - Are YOU mentally ill? Blind? or just rabid? My post was from the position of MY own experience with real people. Is your experience the only valid viewpoint?
My best friend has a qualifying MI diagnosis, and loses her SSI if she earns more than $200 in a month...MONTH. She wants to work, so she finds jobs, good jobs, and can work for 3-6 months or so before she is fired or quits with the stress her life has been. When she applies for benefits afterword, she must wait months to qualify...NO INCOME AT ALL. Her children also must wait, and suffer. Don't tell me people just need to take a week off in a year.
So, you are saying that ONLY physical disabilities are valid? Are you saying that one should have pride and stay off the dole, even if they or their children suffer, because they only deserve to live minimally as society has set forth? Is this your "compassionate conservatism"?
posted on January 8, 2001 08:20:45 PM new
joyz412e ~ does it count if my son has CP and my husband has retinitis pigmentosa (ie: he's blind)?
So YES, I am rabid when I personally know people who are blind and working in sheltered workshops (not my husband). I am rabid when it's a possibility for my son and I know that some greedy sweatshop owners are constantly lobbying Congress to make SURE that their workers NEVER get paid min wage just so THEY (the owners) can get some BIG bucks from taking advantage of the work that is being done by the disabled.
All disabilities are valid.. mine happens to be from the physical viewpoint.. yours is from the mental.
I think your friend would be better off... along with alot of other people, if they'd sit down and do some reading. This is one of the excellent resources:
Do you know what the biggest falicy of your first post is?
A client who can hold a job paying minimum wage is not eligible for Disability, or Medicaid, and would be required to pay for their housing costs as well. In effect, they would fall between the cracks, un-medicated and unable to cope with the cost of living totally independently, until they once again hit the skids and qualify for assistance.
As I stated before, this is a lie, and one of the biggest lies that have been told to ALL disabled sweatshop workers.. and here's why:
Continuation Of Medicaid Eligibility--Medicaid may continue for SSI recipients who are blind or disabled and earn over the SSI limits if they cannot afford similar medical care and depend on Medicaid in order to work.
So where exactly is it better for your friend to sit in a sheltered workshop and collect the pitance that she is being offered? Let's see, she's not going to fall between the cracks. She's not going to be un-medicated as she'd be able to depend on Medicaid. You say she has two kids? If she's making 10K a year from min. wage, and she's a family of three.. she should be able to obtain food stamps so she won't starve. (Surely that's much better than her sitting and maybe collecting 2-3K/ year?!) AND, even better:
Students With Disabilities --Tuition, books and other expenses related to getting an education may not be counted as income for recipients who go to school or are in a training program.
She could probably become a student and get a career, rather than one of those jobs that seems to be contributing to the stress in her life (ie: a contributing factor to her MI perhaps?).
I will repeat, sheltered workshops are not the answer and the lies and falicies that upper management uses to keep paying people a lower wage are getting very old after all these decades. Unfortunately, people keep falling for the lies, because it's so much easier for everyone involved....... except those who are getting the short end of the stick (ie: those people who only make $2-3/hour, if not less)
Are you saying that one should have pride and stay off the dole, even if they or their children suffer, because they only deserve to live minimally as society has set forth?
Personally I think they should live on MORE than what society has set forth as "minimum", however since that is not the debate and it's hard enough to get them mimimum, maybe we should stick to that part.. don't you think?
You explain to me how it's benefitial for someone to live on the income from a sheltered workshop. You stated $200/month, right? You lay out the facts and figures. Please don't disclude the newfound information concerning Social Security and exactly what they cover (ie: medical) Don't forget to take into consideration, with a higher income they then, possibly become/remain eligible for foodstamps or other assistance.
I really want to know, how the existance in a sheltered workshop, paying less than minimum wage, is better than working a job that pays at least minimum wage.
With that, I bid you a good night and I look forward to your response in that area.
edited for UUB
[ edited by rosiebud on Jan 8, 2001 08:49 PM ]
posted on January 8, 2001 11:25:48 PM new
In my other life, I have regular dealings with a sheltered workshop in my town. It is just about universally supported by citizens, parents, and the local government...and by businesses like myself that use its services.
This workshop employs what appear to be fairly severely mentally retarded and multiply-handicapped persons who I am virtually certain could NOT get a real job in the real world. They do simple, repetitive tasks, and they do them well and with genuine enthusiasm, and I am delighted to pay them a competitive rate to do this type of work.
I also know several fairly severely physically handicapped persons who are employed in the Real World doing high-level work, and getting paid commensurately.
Finally, several local businesses (and branches of national companies) around here hire mentally handicapped workers who are real gems. I know they are getting paid what other workers in similar jobs get paid, and doing the same work.
The point of this rather long-winded story is that IMO there are sheltered workshops for a reason...and there are compassionate (and smart) employers who hire handicapped persons who can do the job...and there are some folks who simply cannot work full-time or even a regular part-time job for whatever reason. That's why we have an array of programs and options! Sheltered workshops are not necessarily BAD, and full-time employment in regular jobs is not an option for some handicapped persons.
I don't look at SSI or sheltered workshops or government programs as some sort of horrible embarrassing degradation. For some people, they are the only option. For others, they are unnecessary. Why should one group be applauded, and the other group blamed for a situation over which they have little or no control?
posted on January 9, 2001 04:36:22 AM new
"And how do folks like pumpkinhead, with $75 week disposable income for clothing, go about classifying themselves as members of the "needy"?
After two days with an ear infection, I come back to find myself classified as being needy! I dont ever recall saying that. Geez. Talk about reading something that isnt there........Whatever.
To sum it up in a nutshell my point was this: How can the GW go and charge retail prices for 2nd hand clothing? Plain and simple. Enough said, I have to go back to my real job today after having the last two weeks off.......Drat
I don't look at SSI or sheltered workshops or government programs as some sort of horrible embarrassing degradation.
I don't either, as long as:
I am delighted to pay them a competitive rate to do this type of work.
applied ALL the time. I am happy that there appears to be sheltered workshops in your area that payes min wage or higher. However it appears to be the exception than the rule. I do not consider $2-3/hr to be a competitive rate .. do you?
posted on January 9, 2001 05:10:48 AM new
If anyone is from Southern Cal. I know a GREAT local church that has a thrift store which I donate all items to these days. Once a week they take a huge truckload of unsold items to Mexico and distribute it to the needy on the streets. Nothing is wasted.
I love those guys.
posted on January 9, 2001 06:12:06 AM new
I noticed the question a while back regarding how much funds actually make it down the ladder to those who need it. I previously did some computer work for and became close friends with the regional Executive Director of one of agencies which has been mentioned once in this thread. This is not Goodwill nor Salvation Army. This is a well known national agency which does research into a particular type of disease. This agency frequently has donation campaigns.
In doing a lot of work for this agency I found out how disgusted this director was with the agency's handling of funds. She would run 2 major fundraisers per year and the national office would use the lists of people who dontated on her fundraisers and run 3 more campaigns yearly directly to the same donors of which her region got absolutely no money. Of the money she was able to raise within the region, the local area was allowed to keep 15% of the funds. She told me that another 15% of it went to the actualy research and the remainder went to the salaries of the state and national offices.
She was a master of finance though. She knew all of their loopholes and how to keep money within the region to assist those who really needed it. If asked, she would inform people who were directly donating funds or writing wills how to word the donation or bequeath in such a way that it could not be used anywhere but within the area they specified. The average person would never know how to do it nor would the state or national offices make it public knowledge.
It really opened my eyes to what I once thought was an extremely helpful organization.
posted on January 9, 2001 09:03:39 AM new
ROSIEBUD: I actually don't know what these people are paid. I know that I pay a little less (but not much less) for their services than I would pay to a "real" business doing the same thing. And, as I said in my earlier message, it's my impression that these folks could not hold a job in the real world under normal circumstances. If they ARE being paid somewhat less than minimum wage, I don't think I would argue about it. It's not called a "sheltered" workshop for nothing!
These are people who would ordinarily be institutionalized or living at home with [aging] parents, with nothing resembling a real life. The ones who can advance into real jobs do so. The ones who can't, still have work to do that they love--and their families are delighted about, and their clients as well.
As I said before, there is a range of options for a reason. A person who is blind but otherwise eminently employable is probably going to have a harder time finding high-end employment, but it should not be impossible. He or she is NOT a candidate for a sheltered workshop, absent some other pretty complex and serious problems. The folks I work with locally simply cannot work in the real world. There is no comparison between them and a blind or wheelchair-bound person of normal intelligence with a good education and decent skills.
posted on January 9, 2001 09:52:38 AM new
sonsie: And this has to do with paying them a reasonable wage... ? I'm sorry, I believe I missed it. You say you do not know what they are paid. Would you care to find out? I would be interested in knowing exactly, what type of work they are doing..... and how much they are being paid. I would also be interested in knowing how much you paid the company for their services -v- how much the workers got paid.
Please review your definition of "sheltered workshop":
A workplace that provides a supportive environment where physically or mentally challenged persons can acquire job skills and vocational experience
or
a workshop that offers low-skill jobs to members of the physically or developmentally disabled population
That's the definition that's found over at "dictionary.com"
That's what it means....... not "pay them less than we would pay a 16 year old at McDonalds"... or "we'll talk about human rights and workshops in other countries and ignore the fact that we pay our mentally/physically handicapped less than a living wage, here in our own country".
edited to add:
There is no comparison between them and a blind or wheelchair-bound person of normal intelligence with a good education and decent skills.
That is a defining factor in who's employeed in a sheltered workshop... and I would agree with your statement, if it weren't for one thing... Do you know how difficult it is for a physically (blind, Wheelchair bound, CP, etc) handicapped person to get a good education? I'm not talking Harvard, I'm talking the SAME education that you, I, or any other "normal" person can obtain. Sometimes the most obvious things can be the hardest things.
[ edited by rosiebud on Jan 9, 2001 10:15 AM ]
posted on January 9, 2001 10:25:27 AM new
OK, having read all the posts in this thread I think I am missing something here.
Those of you who are upset that a so-called "thrift" store would sell, say, a used sweater for $29.99... Are you upset because (a) you consider yourselves among the poor and needy and can't afford to pay that much, (b) your sense of social justice is outraged because you know there are poor and needy people out there who can't afford to pay that much, or (c) you were planning on selling that sweater on eBay for $29.99 yourself, and how dare somebody charge you that amount.
I suspect the answer is (c), but I could be wrong....
Regards,
Barry
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
