Your viewpoint is not a liberal view. It is a libertarian view. (I approve. )I have a more liberal view of it…
If the entity doesn't make a profit, then it doesn't pay income tax. Non-profit status isn't really about the taker as much as it's about the giver. Again, using the example of the Foundation vs. 1870, they both have the goal of giving post-expense donations to the charitable recipient. So, no difference whatsoever.If the organization has no profit, it should be untaxed imo. If it went this way, i would concede there needs to be hard laws on compensation being taken by ownership (presently there are guidelines, but those are soft limits).
But i don't have a problem with NFL being nonprofit. The commissioner gets an appropriate salary, all the profit is being made by the teams... where it should be taxed.
The difference lies within the impact to the donor. I believe it was reported that CJ Stroud, for example, gave $100k to the Foundation. That only cost him ~$60k. It cost the federal and state government the other $40k. That's the rub. No one in their right mind would give a dime to the exact same competing entity when it costs them exponentially more for the exact same result.
Again, if the cafe doesn't make a profit, then they won't pay any income tax. If they were a nonprofit, however, then you wouldn't have to pay sales tax, similar to shopping at Salvation Army, for example.If you told me my local mom and pop cafe was a nonprofit, i would say "good for them". Put that money into the business, worker comp/benefits, etc. They still get us on sales tax (the only tax that should exist imo, but that's another topic).
Upvote
0