4 ms·

As I said, that was my non-American perspective. You gave a specific legal definition in a single jurisdiction. It does not match the definition in many other

As I said, that was my non-American perspective. You gave a specific legal definition in a single jurisdiction. It does not match the definition in many other jurisdictions or the intuitive understanding many people have. From my perspective, there is no fundamental difference between an ordinary company distributing its profits as dividends, an employee-owned company distributing profits as higher wages or bonuses, and a coop distributing its profits by providing better/cheaper services to its members. They are all for-profit businesses. Only the mechanisms of profit distribution are different.

PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
Then I consider your perspective flawed. A company that exists to make money for its owners, who do not materially participate in the operations of the company, is (for me) substantively and qualitatively different from worked-owned coops, consumer-owned coops, credit unions etc. I'd be interested in a jurisdiction that does not make this distinction.
- jltsiren 2y ago
  My perspective was from Finland. Non-profit status there is tied to what the organization does rather than to the specific form of the organization. As a rule of thumb, if the organization competes against for-profit organizations, it's probably a for-profit organization for tax purposes. That covers most coops, including credit unions. There are of course specific rules for different types of organizations, but they don't change the big picture.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
    The US has a second form - the "benefit corporation" - that is based on what the organization does. It is possible to be a for-profit or not-for-profit benefit corporation, though sort of by definition almost all US not-for-profit organizations are inherently "benefit corporation" since otherwise they would likely lose their not-for-profit status. But this reminds me ... I think that this conversation has not paid enough attention to the difference between the legal sense of a non-profit (in the USA, a 501c3 is the main classification, though there are others) and the colloquial sense (such as a credit union). In the USA, you cannot be a 501c3 and also a credit union, for example. or a consumer owned cooperative. Nevertheless, people will sometimes refer to such organizations as "not for profit". I think there's less difference between the USA and Finland than we've been suggesting.

PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago

Then I consider your perspective flawed. A company that exists to make money for its owners, who do not materially participate in the operations of the company, is (for me) substantively and qualitatively different from worked-owned coops, consumer-owned coops, credit unions etc. I'd be interested in a jurisdiction that does not make this distinction.

jltsiren 2y ago
My perspective was from Finland. Non-profit status there is tied to what the organization does rather than to the specific form of the organization. As a rule of thumb, if the organization competes against for-profit organizations, it's probably a for-profit organization for tax purposes. That covers most coops, including credit unions. There are of course specific rules for different types of organizations, but they don't change the big picture.
- PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
  The US has a second form - the "benefit corporation" - that is based on what the organization does. It is possible to be a for-profit or not-for-profit benefit corporation, though sort of by definition almost all US not-for-profit organizations are inherently "benefit corporation" since otherwise they would likely lose their not-for-profit status. But this reminds me ... I think that this conversation has not paid enough attention to the difference between the legal sense of a non-profit (in the USA, a 501c3 is the main classification, though there are others) and the colloquial sense (such as a credit union). In the USA, you cannot be a 501c3 and also a credit union, for example. or a consumer owned cooperative. Nevertheless, people will sometimes refer to such organizations as "not for profit". I think there's less difference between the USA and Finland than we've been suggesting.