3 ms·

This needs a hard disclaimer, as in the USA "non-profit" is simply a term used to define a tax bracket. The spirit of the term is grossly violated when Red Cros

This needs a hard disclaimer, as in the USA "non-profit" is simply a term used to define a tax bracket. The spirit of the term is grossly violated when Red Cross can be in any category with Harvard or the like--schools that expressly serve the rich (and allow the poor). In no meaningful way can a school who charges $100k+ for tuition--which is required in addition to "endowments" and other such huge checks they receive to help pay their wealthy administrators--be considered an actual non-profit organization. It is a tax ruse. To put it even simpler: if the wealth of my parents is a metric for how much they'll charge me to attend, clearly "profit" is important, and specifically scarcity, a prime driver of profit in capitalist society. It sounds like the definition of "non-profit" in EU is different than here in the USA.

whimsicalism 6y ago
> the USA "non-profit" is simply a term used to define a tax bracket This understates the importance of the distinction - non-profits don't have shareholders, don't return profit to owners, etc. They are very different. That does not mean that you can't create a non-profit for any terrible goal. You could form a non-profit for directing funds to Nazi organizations globally. But a non-profit is not aiming to make money for some owners and in an educational context, that is important. > if the wealth of my parents is a metric for how much they'll charge me to attend, clearly "profit" is important, and specifically scarcity This is facile. Is medicaid for-profit? If your family makes too much, you will be booted off and have to pay for your own healthcare. Indeed, any means-tested governmental program falls under your definition of operated for "profit" which is nonsense when those programs are redistributive (although perhaps not redistributive enough).

whimsicalism 6y ago

> the USA "non-profit" is simply a term used to define a tax bracket This understates the importance of the distinction - non-profits don't have shareholders, don't return profit to owners, etc. They are very different. That does not mean that you can't create a non-profit for any terrible goal. You could form a non-profit for directing funds to Nazi organizations globally. But a non-profit is not aiming to make money for some owners and in an educational context, that is important. > if the wealth of my parents is a metric for how much they'll charge me to attend, clearly "profit" is important, and specifically scarcity This is facile. Is medicaid for-profit? If your family makes too much, you will be booted off and have to pay for your own healthcare. Indeed, any means-tested governmental program falls under your definition of operated for "profit" which is nonsense when those programs are redistributive (although perhaps not redistributive enough).