Policy is not always about how much tax one pays, it's about landscaping your society. The difference between a town with unique, local shops and a town with s

Policy is not always about how much tax one pays, it's about landscaping your society. The difference between a town with unique, local shops and a town with sprawling landscape of walmarts is the policies of those towns, one of the big ones being tax code. Policy is just a way to execute on decisions for what kind of social outcomes your society wants. In this instance, abolishing the category completely is essentially saying we don't want any non-profit organizations to exist as a legal structure, which is probably not the intention. Policy design favors strongly directed outcomes over reducing complexity of legal code (because we have a robust legal institution). So, yes, it is increased complexity. But most complexity is not out of reach. Most small organizations have the budget to handle policy complexity, even if many individuals do not. Ideally, good policy is tested as well and actually creates the effect it was intended for. A great example of bad policy design, IMO, is the plastic bag ban in California. Its intention is to reduce plastic waste, but the actual implementation probably didn't. All in all, it's a deep issue because you can then argue if the non-profit status really creates benevolent organizations AT ALL, or if it just creates tax-exempt businesses. But if you go down that route, you're essentially "joining" in the conversation - it's exactly what this article (or the research behind the article) is trying to figure out.