4 ms·

> Personally, I dislike IKEA for registering as a non-profit, when they're very clearly not. They're clearly not a charity. But there are TONS of tax-sheltered

> Personally, I dislike IKEA for registering as a non-profit, when they're very clearly not. They're clearly not a charity. But there are TONS of tax-sheltered businesses that aren't charities. To me, it's morally equivalent to eg churches that use tax-free money to buy and operate super nice concert venues. Or any other non-profit that uses pre-tax money to pay salaries. IMO, Ikea > Churches. > or talk to anyone who's ever received a DARPA / NSF / etc. grant Y Combinator recently published an article about how to bootstrap a biotech startup on a small seed round, and they included an example company. Step Zero was "get NSF/NIH grants and hire a student/post-doc at a university". Incidentally also the Step Zero for lots of tech companies in the 80s, 90s, and even today.

hello_moto 6y ago
IKEA > (Mega) churches. There are smaller churches that would benefit from the Govt policies.
- bloomingeek 6y ago
  Thank you, and absolutely correct. Also, thanks for differing Mega churches from small churches.
- throwawaygh 6y ago
  It's less about the size of the church and more about the % of the church's untaxed revenue that is spent on salaries and mostly-single-use worship space. Plenty of small churches spend almost all of their revenue on pastoral salary and workship space. It's fine, to each their own, but treating that sort of tithing the same way we treat donations to actual charities seems weird. Both Ikea and non-charitable $ spent by churches should be taxes. TBH though, it's not 1800. we should stop (not) taxing based on institution type and start (not) taxing based on where the dollars are going. This would solve lots of problems in the non-profit world (including IKEA and churches).
  - michaelmior 6y ago
    > we should stop (not) taxing based on institution type and start (not) taxing based on where the dollars are going While I don't necessarily disagree, this seems like it would create a large administrative burden and a strong incentive for businesses to simply lie (or creatively disguise) where there money going. This seems easier than fraudulently registering a for-profit business as a non-profit. Although I suppose it's hard to say whether the current or your proposed approach would result in tax breaks really happening where we want them.
mattkrause 6y ago
That's not particularly nefarious. The NIH and NSF have two funding programs, the Small Business Innovation Research and Small Business Technology Transfer programs, that specifically fund startups/spin-outs from their research programs. More here: https://www.sbir.gov/ https://www.sbir.gov/ Some DARPA programs also have similar commercialization milestones: our PMs were pushing people to think about FDA approval and manufacturing.
- throwawaygh 6y ago
  > That's not particularly nefarious. Completely agreed! I didn't mean to give that impression at all. I was simply giving a specific recent example demonstrating GP's statement that "especially when said innovation is often possible only because of extensive public investment in research, supply chain stability, etc.".

hello_moto 6y ago

IKEA > (Mega) churches. There are smaller churches that would benefit from the Govt policies.

bloomingeek 6y ago
Thank you, and absolutely correct. Also, thanks for differing Mega churches from small churches.
throwawaygh 6y ago
It's less about the size of the church and more about the % of the church's untaxed revenue that is spent on salaries and mostly-single-use worship space. Plenty of small churches spend almost all of their revenue on pastoral salary and workship space. It's fine, to each their own, but treating that sort of tithing the same way we treat donations to actual charities seems weird. Both Ikea and non-charitable $ spent by churches should be taxes. TBH though, it's not 1800. we should stop (not) taxing based on institution type and start (not) taxing based on where the dollars are going. This would solve lots of problems in the non-profit world (including IKEA and churches).
- michaelmior 6y ago
  > we should stop (not) taxing based on institution type and start (not) taxing based on where the dollars are going While I don't necessarily disagree, this seems like it would create a large administrative burden and a strong incentive for businesses to simply lie (or creatively disguise) where there money going. This seems easier than fraudulently registering a for-profit business as a non-profit. Although I suppose it's hard to say whether the current or your proposed approach would result in tax breaks really happening where we want them.

mattkrause 6y ago

That's not particularly nefarious. The NIH and NSF have two funding programs, the Small Business Innovation Research and Small Business Technology Transfer programs, that specifically fund startups/spin-outs from their research programs. More here: https://www.sbir.gov/ https://www.sbir.gov/ Some DARPA programs also have similar commercialization milestones: our PMs were pushing people to think about FDA approval and manufacturing.

throwawaygh 6y ago
> That's not particularly nefarious. Completely agreed! I didn't mean to give that impression at all. I was simply giving a specific recent example demonstrating GP's statement that "especially when said innovation is often possible only because of extensive public investment in research, supply chain stability, etc.".