61–70 of 84 posts
My own employer has been burnt by consultants essentially moving the deck chairs around to the tune of $800 an hour
I suspect if someone internally made the same suggestions they'd be shot down, but only because they didn't cost so much
Realistically, non-profit hospitals aren't non-profit because they are altruistic in some sense. It's because that is a tax-efficient structure for them. Given that, the participants in the structure must have a mechanism to extract money from the machine. It's a bit of a cynical view, but I believe many non-profits are organized in this fashion and their vendor contracts are the mechanism of value extraction. Beside…
Assuming that non-profits are altruistic seems fallacious. Granted, I don’t know why they are assumed to be by some; it’s just presented as such because it seems obvious, no arguments need to be given. It’s clearly fallacious to assume that non-profit is altruistic just because, I don’t know, for-profit is assumed as a premise to be about egotistical money hoarding.
However once such a tax category was created, there was really nothing to stop the sociopathic MBA class from using them as just another optimization tool in their tax-minimization arsenal. Another example is non-profit schools where the property is owned by the founders and they charge hugely non-market rents to personally extract revenue from the non-profit.
So in current days we have both genuine altruistic endeavors (they still exist) and the predatory ones abusing the system.
Realistically, non-profit hospitals aren't non-profit because they are altruistic in some sense. It's because that is a tax-efficient structure for them. Given that, the participants in the structure must have a mechanism to extract money from the machine. It's a bit of a cynical view, but I believe many non-profits are organized in this fashion and their vendor contracts are the mechanism of value extraction. Beside…
Assuming that non-profits are altruistic seems fallacious. Granted, I don’t know why they are assumed to be by some; it’s just presented as such because it seems obvious, no arguments need to be given. It’s clearly fallacious to assume that non-profit is altruistic just because, I don’t know, for-profit is assumed as a premise to be about egotistical money hoarding.
It may not be wise to assume non-profits exist within the confines of the law that authorizes their continued existence, but I don't see how it's fallacious.
[0]: https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organiz...
The whole premise of 'for-profit' healthcare stinks to high heaven. Regardless of hospitals calling themselves 'non-profit', they behave like profit seeking enterprises. This is the ultimate corporate double speak. The bottom line is that - people do not get to choose their illness. So a capitalist model in Adam Smith's sense where people get to 'choose' their 'insurance' based on price and benefit is an illusion. It…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I take here "nonprofit" means same as it does with religions.
Why should there be any profit in healthcare.
You see the issue here right?
Now.. who pays is the question. Imo it must be the state, because otherwise there are too many perverse incentives.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Assuming that non-profits are altruistic seems fallacious. Granted, I don’t know why they are assumed to be by some; it’s just presented as such because it seems obvious, no arguments need to be given. It’s clearly fallacious to assume that non-profit is altruistic just because, I don’t know, for-profit is assumed as a premise to be about egotistical money hoarding.
I think the assumption about non-profits being altruistic is a reasonable one, because what would otherwise be the justification for giving them tax breaks? If the reality is different, then maybe there shouldn't be non-profits anymore. In the UK for example, there are no non-profits, there are only charities. And clearly, the expectation of altruism is explicit here.
The tax-exempt status is granted for Exempt Purposes, but not as a matter of altruistic intention: https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organiz...
For example, ask your favorite LLM search engine: Can you list non-profits/501(c)(3) that are US defense contractors?
Draper Laboratory and Energetics Technology Center are registered 501(c)(3) corporations. Their primary output is weapons research. RAND Corp, whose name you'd likely recognize, is also a DoD contractor and 501(c)(3).
The NRA Foundation and the Heritage Foundation are also registered as 501(c)(3).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the assumption about non-profits being altruistic is a reasonable one, because what would otherwise be the justification for giving them tax breaks? If the reality is different, then maybe there shouldn't be non-profits anymore. In the UK for example, there are no non-profits, there are only charities. And clearly, the expectation of altruism is explicit here.
I think your position seems reasonable, too. Though intuitive, it isn't the reality. The tax-exempt status is granted for Exempt Purposes, but not as a matter of altruistic intention: https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organiz... For example, ask your favorite LLM search engine: Can you list non-profits/501(c)(3) that are US defense contractors? Draper Laboratory and Energetics Technology Center are…
Yeah, organizations like think tanks (Heritage Foundation) are supposed to influence policy/public thought/elite thought. That’s obviously not a for-profit enterprise.
EDIT: My personal feelings about conservative think tanks aside: any and all think tanks are supposed to spread ideas. The altruism is where in that goal? It could be evil, good, neutral. It’s simply a not-for-profit enterprise.
It’s a bit hard to wrap my head around this original idea of altruistic non-profits.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do for-profits become altruistic when corporations get tax breaks? Edit: I’m replying to the “reasonable one” point.
Not sure why this would matter. You know that implication is directional, not symmetric, right? To be more explicit: Given that for-profits can be given tax-breaks for (hopefully) good reasons, what would be the reason to give non-profits tax-breaks, if not for altruism? After all, as you point out yourself, you can get tax-breaks also as a for-profit, so you don't need non-profits just for that reason.
* therefore non-profits can be given tax-breaks for (hopefully) good reasons [which are not altruistic].
A defense contractor designing missile guidance qualifies for the Exempt Purpose of "scientific."
A megachurch with a private jet qualifies under its "religious" category.
These do not specifically require altruistic intent. Congress chose to subsidize certain categories of activity (religious, scientific, educational, and so on) because it wanted more of that activity produced, regardless of the motives of the people doing it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the assumption about non-profits being altruistic is a reasonable one, because what would otherwise be the justification for giving them tax breaks? If the reality is different, then maybe there shouldn't be non-profits anymore. In the UK for example, there are no non-profits, there are only charities. And clearly, the expectation of altruism is explicit here.
I think your position seems reasonable, too. Though intuitive, it isn't the reality. The tax-exempt status is granted for Exempt Purposes, but not as a matter of altruistic intention: https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organiz... For example, ask your favorite LLM search engine: Can you list non-profits/501(c)(3) that are US defense contractors? Draper Laboratory and Energetics Technology Center are…
Given that the NRA counts as a non-profit, not sure there is anything reasonable about giving them tax breaks. But hey, you also voted for Trump. Twice.