4 ms·
The hike idea of a “nonprofit” is dumb and ripe with abuse. Nonprofits still have to pay payroll, the phone bill etc. Why have someone deciding that they don’
by gumby 3y ago
The hike idea of a “nonprofit” is dumb and ripe with abuse.
Nonprofits still have to pay payroll, the phone bill etc. Why have someone deciding that they don’t have to pay taxes? They can certainly just show a loss for year after year.
- Almondsetat 3y agoBecause a non profit cannot keep the profits (duh), thus all the extra money has to go back into the economy. Since every purchase has VAT they are effectively already paying a tax on their profits and shouldn't be further taxed
- pessimizer 3y agoThe point is that they can make sure that they don't have any extra money by giving themselves raises, or overspending with friendly vendors.
- gumby 3y agoWhey shouldn’t they be further taxed? And if they lose money, as most do, they won’t owe any tax anyway. The special category doesn’t add anything to a legit charity but does help out fraudsters.
- Almondsetat 3y agoDo I need to repeat verbatim my reply to you?
- gumby 3y agoYou simply asserted that they "shouldn't be further taxed" and my question was why you think so. Repeating your comment verbatim would not answer my question.
- Almondsetat 3y ago>You simply asserted that they "shouldn't be further taxed" That assertion sits in the same sentence that provides the justification
- jfengel 3y agoThe idea is that we want more of what nonprofits do. No taxes is an incentive. A nonprofit that turns a profit is presumably putting it to work eventually, such as adding a new wing. It's not as if they can do stock buybacks because there isn't any. There are many ways this structure is abused but the idea isn't absurd.
- lupire 3y agoI want more of what businesses do. Why are nonprofits special?
- AnthonyMouse 3y agoBusiness expenses are tax deductible too. Businesses essentially only pay income tax on net profit.
- hibikir 3y agoA lot of ideas aren't absurd until they meet reality. The arguments that defend an idea don't really matter in the long run, if we can later see that the outcomes they provide aren't good. I look at one of our local private universities: A non profit with a huge endowment. Their prices keep going up, and then discount enough to make sure the student's price is as heavy as they could possibly bear. They put that money into real estate investment, but they don't actually do anything with the land: It's just always worth more to them than it is to other parties, because they don't pay property taxes. So for them the cost of speculation is the lowest there is. Land speculation is far worse than redevelopment into useful things, but instead, we are rewarding it. So I look at the actual outcomes of the non-profit status, and I don't see how in the world they are good for the area around the university: We are lowering our tax base for the privilege of letting them keep blight around them, which then in return lowers prices, letting them buy even more land at a discount. So I look at the incentive, and I see that it's doing far more damage than what it makes. So it doesn't matter that it sounds good on paper: We shouldn't argue with the reality that is in front of our eyes. We should tax them regardless.
- 3y ago
- quickthrowman 3y agoInstead of paying out profits to shareholders, a non-profit hospital/clinic will use their excess dollars to build new facilities, buy new equipment, and add the capacity to care for more people. How is that worse than a for-profit company? If your local healthcare systems are not expanding while the regional population is expanding, you’ll have less care available for all regional residents. There are ways to abuse non-profit status, but operating a large hospital and clinic system isn’t one of them.