4 ms·

Unless the staff operating the public service receive no compensation at all, then there is profit involved.

by ENOTTY 8y ago

jtr1 8y ago
This seems like a fundamental misunderstanding of the definition of profit.
- adrianN 8y ago
  A salary is an expense for the company providing it, but the person receiving it profits from it.
  - AlexandrB 8y ago
    I'd like you to try to claim your salary as corporate "profit" on your next tax return. Tell me how that goes.
    - adrianN 8y ago
      "Profit" is a word with several meanings, not all of which are related to tax returns. For example I profit from my education without being able to declare it as corporate profit on my tax return.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
bootlooped 8y ago
If you go down that road, then you would also have to conclude that all prisons are for-profit prisons, since the guards are always paid employees. I think that's misinterpreting or misrepresenting the way "profit" is being used in this sense though.
- chrisseaton 8y ago
  > you would also have to conclude that all prisons are for-profit prisons Maybe there's an interesting thing to say here - some people people are against for-profit prisons because they think they encourage imprisoning more people as it creates more profit. But if you have a non-profit, government-run prison in your local area, you may still be encouraged to imprison more people as it creates more profit for the local suppliers to the prison. So yeah it doesn't matter if the final user is for-profit if you think there is a risk that profit is driving something you don't want.
  - AlexandrB 8y ago
    > So yeah it doesn't matter if the final user is for-profit if you think there is a risk that profit is driving something you don't want. This is a gross simplification that erases the very real differences between the incentives of a government vs. a for-profit company. Not only is the government accountable to its electorate, but a government that wants to save money can take a much broader approach - for example by funding access to mental health services - to keep people out of prison. Prisoners are expensive to keep locked up! In the final analysis, all prisons are non-profit. None of them generate any value. They're all funded with taxpayer money that could be spent elsewhere. It's just that in the case of private prisons that money goes to a company that has no interest in saving the government money by reducing the prison population. Sure they'll try to run the prison efficiently, so they can pocket the difference, but they want as many prisoners as possible to get a bigger check from Uncle Sam.
- PurpleBoxDragon 8y ago
  Is that really an unreasonable conclusion? Even if we ended all private prisons, you could potentially still have unions representing prison workers who would have some of the same lobbying concerns that private prisons possess (lobbying for harsher laws for profit motive, the difference being union member's paycheck and job instead of the companies bottom line). There is also a third group, which is the for-profit companies who are providing services, for a profit, to state owned prisons. These also have the same concerns, as they make more money the more prisoners incarcerated. Now the three groups aren't equal, but they do exist on the same scale. For profit prisons are, IMO, the worst while the other two groups are of debatable ranking depending upon the size of the relevant organizations.
jMyles 8y ago
The conflation of compensation and profit is so toxic - I just don't understand this idealogy. I mean, I prefer to envision a world in which state-sponsored armies (not necessarily navies) are deprecated entirely, or at least relegated to non-standing status (much like the US constitution originally prescribed). But even holding this somewhat anarchist view, I can still make a distinction between the incentive stuctures of a for-profit model and mere compensation. If you're so sure-footed about view point, walk us through the deconstruction that makes these things indistinguishable in your mind.
- gnopgnip 8y ago
  In many ways that is how the US operates now. We spend money so that factories that make military equipment are available, staff is available and trained to use the equipment all in case of, and as a deterrent to a more serious conflict. The canonical example is that the US purchases hundreds of tanks a year even though there is no real current military need. There are at least a thousand on hand mostly sitting in storage while relatively few are used for training.
logfromblammo 8y ago
You may be confusing the legal terms "nonprofit" and "not-for-profit". In a "nonprofit", the paid staff cannot be paid contingent on the fundraising efforts of the organization. The nonprofit organization has a separate legal existence from the totality of its membership. A "not-for-profit" is identical to the totality of its membership, and may pay its staff or members out of general funds. Nonprofits are 501(c)(3) tax-exempted, not-for-profits are probably 501(c)(7) tax-exempted. For example, a religious organization might be organized as nonprofit. It has a high priest, several underpriests, and some knights on its payroll. These are all paid predefined salaries and wages. They get paid the same regardless of whether the temple collects a lot of tithes, or none at all. If a nonprofit could not hire paid staff, it would likely have insufficient volunteers to accomplish its stated purposes. A performing marching band might be organized as a not-for-profit. They go out and sell candy bars stamped with bars of musical notation to raise funds. They can spend the proceeds of the fundraising on themselves, or their staff, but it has to be in furtherance of the organization's stated purpose. They can hire a band director, arranger, and transportation coordinator, and book hotel rooms for themselves. If they raise more funds, they can spend it on themselves, and also give their staff bonuses. But they can't just distribute excess cash; that would be profit. They could buy touring buses and instruments and uniforms that are more expensive and worth more at resale, which would be suspiciously similar to profit, but the rules for "not-for-profit" are more lax than for "nonprofit".
- anticensor 8y ago
  Trade organisations and political parties are not-for-profit too, they just have different financing rules than member societies.

Unless the staff operating the public service receive no compensation at all, then there is profit involved.

by ENOTTY 8y ago

Unless the staff operating the public service receive no compensation at all, then there is profit involved.

jtr1 8y ago

This seems like a fundamental misunderstanding of the definition of profit.

adrianN 8y ago
A salary is an expense for the company providing it, but the person receiving it profits from it.
- AlexandrB 8y ago
  I'd like you to try to claim your salary as corporate "profit" on your next tax return. Tell me how that goes.
  - adrianN 8y ago
    "Profit" is a word with several meanings, not all of which are related to tax returns. For example I profit from my education without being able to declare it as corporate profit on my tax return.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

bootlooped 8y ago

If you go down that road, then you would also have to conclude that all prisons are for-profit prisons, since the guards are always paid employees. I think that's misinterpreting or misrepresenting the way "profit" is being used in this sense though.

chrisseaton 8y ago
> you would also have to conclude that all prisons are for-profit prisons Maybe there's an interesting thing to say here - some people people are against for-profit prisons because they think they encourage imprisoning more people as it creates more profit. But if you have a non-profit, government-run prison in your local area, you may still be encouraged to imprison more people as it creates more profit for the local suppliers to the prison. So yeah it doesn't matter if the final user is for-profit if you think there is a risk that profit is driving something you don't want.
- AlexandrB 8y ago
  > So yeah it doesn't matter if the final user is for-profit if you think there is a risk that profit is driving something you don't want. This is a gross simplification that erases the very real differences between the incentives of a government vs. a for-profit company. Not only is the government accountable to its electorate, but a government that wants to save money can take a much broader approach - for example by funding access to mental health services - to keep people out of prison. Prisoners are expensive to keep locked up! In the final analysis, all prisons are non-profit. None of them generate any value. They're all funded with taxpayer money that could be spent elsewhere. It's just that in the case of private prisons that money goes to a company that has no interest in saving the government money by reducing the prison population. Sure they'll try to run the prison efficiently, so they can pocket the difference, but they want as many prisoners as possible to get a bigger check from Uncle Sam.
PurpleBoxDragon 8y ago
Is that really an unreasonable conclusion? Even if we ended all private prisons, you could potentially still have unions representing prison workers who would have some of the same lobbying concerns that private prisons possess (lobbying for harsher laws for profit motive, the difference being union member's paycheck and job instead of the companies bottom line). There is also a third group, which is the for-profit companies who are providing services, for a profit, to state owned prisons. These also have the same concerns, as they make more money the more prisoners incarcerated. Now the three groups aren't equal, but they do exist on the same scale. For profit prisons are, IMO, the worst while the other two groups are of debatable ranking depending upon the size of the relevant organizations.

jMyles 8y ago

The conflation of compensation and profit is so toxic - I just don't understand this idealogy. I mean, I prefer to envision a world in which state-sponsored armies (not necessarily navies) are deprecated entirely, or at least relegated to non-standing status (much like the US constitution originally prescribed). But even holding this somewhat anarchist view, I can still make a distinction between the incentive stuctures of a for-profit model and mere compensation. If you're so sure-footed about view point, walk us through the deconstruction that makes these things indistinguishable in your mind.

gnopgnip 8y ago
In many ways that is how the US operates now. We spend money so that factories that make military equipment are available, staff is available and trained to use the equipment all in case of, and as a deterrent to a more serious conflict. The canonical example is that the US purchases hundreds of tanks a year even though there is no real current military need. There are at least a thousand on hand mostly sitting in storage while relatively few are used for training.

logfromblammo 8y ago

You may be confusing the legal terms "nonprofit" and "not-for-profit". In a "nonprofit", the paid staff cannot be paid contingent on the fundraising efforts of the organization. The nonprofit organization has a separate legal existence from the totality of its membership. A "not-for-profit" is identical to the totality of its membership, and may pay its staff or members out of general funds. Nonprofits are 501(c)(3) tax-exempted, not-for-profits are probably 501(c)(7) tax-exempted. For example, a religious organization might be organized as nonprofit. It has a high priest, several underpriests, and some knights on its payroll. These are all paid predefined salaries and wages. They get paid the same regardless of whether the temple collects a lot of tithes, or none at all. If a nonprofit could not hire paid staff, it would likely have insufficient volunteers to accomplish its stated purposes. A performing marching band might be organized as a not-for-profit. They go out and sell candy bars stamped with bars of musical notation to raise funds. They can spend the proceeds of the fundraising on themselves, or their staff, but it has to be in furtherance of the organization's stated purpose. They can hire a band director, arranger, and transportation coordinator, and book hotel rooms for themselves. If they raise more funds, they can spend it on themselves, and also give their staff bonuses. But they can't just distribute excess cash; that would be profit. They could buy touring buses and instruments and uniforms that are more expensive and worth more at resale, which would be suspiciously similar to profit, but the rules for "not-for-profit" are more lax than for "nonprofit".

anticensor 8y ago
Trade organisations and political parties are not-for-profit too, they just have different financing rules than member societies.