I wonder if that is because the author is a founding member of digital nomad community/agency, honestly I have no idea exactly what it does because the website is super vauge, so to question the lifestyle is to question his livelihood.
Not nomad related but the name does conjure those images!
Your hook, “Super Global is a nonprofit tech advisory service for social impact organizations.”, makes me feel like you think I’m stupid and is personally a turn off.
You’re an IT consultant that specializes in the charity industry. Everything else is just buzzword bingo.
Your non-profit status is meaningless to anyone who understands corporate structures and social impact organization seems to be a new-age word for charity.
The charity industry is big business and people make a lot of money in it. While I really do appreciate their positive impact, the virtue signalling is tiresome.
If your hook works for you, great, don’t change a thing. But to me it’s cringe worthy and might not be helping you. Sometimes being more direct is better.
Care to clue the rest of us in?
For example, let’s say I have and s-Corp and it provides me with, let’s say, 100k of salary and my pass through income (profit) of 25k.
I could alternatively have created a nonprofit giving myself a 100k salary and bonus myself 25k - what would have been profit. In this way, I’d end up with 125k and the company ends up with no profit.
The details are different but the results are nearly the same.
One major difference is that the founder of a nonprofit can’t sell the organization.
Again though, the reality is that they can be given a do-nothing role in the company and receive what could be understood as compensation for the exchange.
Sadly, many nonprofits are set up for the benefit of their founders and cronies, thus nonprofits aren’t always as virtuous as you would be led to believe.
Also, I should note, incase anyone is unfamiliar, nonprofit != charity. A charity is a special type of non-profit.
> I set up my non-profit school-- and then I hire a profitable management company to run the school for me. The examples of this dodge are nearly endless, but let's consider a classic. There's the White Hat management company that was being dragged into court way back in 2011. This particular type of arrangement was known as a "sweeps contract,' in which the school turns over close to all of its public tax dollars and the company operates the school with that money-- and keeps whatever they don't spend. The White Hat story is particularly impressive, because the court decided that White Hat got to keep all of the materials and resources that it bought with the public tax dollars.
> Or consider North Carolina businessman Baker Mitchell, who set up some non-profit charter schools and promptly had them buy and lease everything-- from desks to computers to teacher training to the buildings and the land-- from companies belonging to Baker Mitchell. ...
So saying you are a non profit is a good way to fool some people. The rest know that a non profit still pays salaries in any capacity they'd like.