[arrosenberg]

> That is why, at least in the U.S., we have given non-profits exemptions from taxation.

That's your belief. The NFL, Heritage Foundation and Scientology are all non-profits and none of them improve society; they all profit from it.

(For what its' worth, I wish the law was more aligned with your worldview)

[tsimionescu]

Ostensibly, all three of your examples do exist to improve society. The NFL exists to support a widely popular sport, the Heritage Foundation is there to propose changes that they theoretically believe are better for society, and Scientology is a religion that will save us all from our bad thetans or whatever cockamamie story they sell.

A non-profit has to have the intention of improving society. Whether their chosen means is (1) effective and (2) truthful are separate discussions. But an entity can actually lose non-profit status if it is found to be operated for the sole benefit of its higher ups, and is untruthful in its mission. It is typically very hard to prove though, just like it's very hard to successfully sue a for-profit CEO/president for breach of fiduciary duty.

[lordnacho]

I think GP deals with that in his parenthesis.

It would be nice if we held organizations to their stated missions. We don't.

Perhaps there simply shouldn't be a tax break. After all if your org spends all its income on charity, it won't pay any tax anyway. If it sells cookies for more than what it costs to make and distribute them, why does it matter whether it was for a charity?

Plus, we already believe that for-profit orgs can benefit society, in fact part of the reason for creating them as legal entities is that we think there's some sort of benefit, whether it be feeding us or creating toys. So why have a special charity sector?

[twelvechairs]

> OpenAIs goal is to advance digital intelligence in the way that is most likely to benefit humanity as a whole, unconstrained by a need to generate financial return. OpenAI believes that artificial intelligence technology has the potential to have a profound, positive impact on the world, so the companys goal is to develop and responsibly deploy safe AI technology, ensuring that its benefits are as widely and evenly distributed as possible.

From their filing as a non-profit

https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/810...

[aurareturn]

FYI, the NFL teams are for profits and pay taxes like normal busineses. The overwhelming majority of the revenue goes to the teams.

[arrosenberg]

I know that, does that change what I said?

[aurareturn]

I don't know if it does but my point is to prevent others from thinking that a giant money making entity like the NFL does not pay any taxes.

[mschuster91]

> The NFL, Heritage Foundation and Scientology are all non-profits and none of them improve society; they all profit from it.

At least for Scientology, the government actually tried to pull the rug, but it didn't work out because they managed to achieve the unthinkable - they successfully extorted the US government to keep their tax-exempt status.

[some1else]

Starting OpenAI as a fork of Scientology from the get go would have saved everyone a great deal of hair splitting.

[polygamous_bat]

  :s/Xenu/AGI/g

[ameister14]

No - that's the reasoning behind the law.

You appear to be struggling with the idea that the law as enacted does not accomplish the goal it was created to accomplish and are working backwards to say that because it is not accomplishing this goal that couldn't have been why it was enacted.

Non-profits are supposed to benefit their community. Could the law be better? Sure, but that doesn't change the purpose behind it.

[whelp_24]

The NFL also is a non-profit in charge of for-profits. Except they never pretended to be a charity, just an event organizer.

[turquoisevar]

Bad actors exploiting good things isn’t in and of itself an indictment of said good things.

[gardenhedge]

An argument could be made that sports - and a sports organization - helps society

[arrosenberg]

Sure you can, but I wouldn't make that argument about the NFL. They exist to enrich 30 owners and Roger Goodell. They don't even live up to their own mission statement - most fans deride it as the No Fun League.

[passion__desire]

Fast fashion and fashion industry in general is useless to society. But rich jobless people need a place to hangout so they create an activity to justify.

[achenet]

useless to society...

fashion allows people to optimize their appearance so as to get more positive attention from others. Or, put more crudely, it helps people look good so they can get laid.

Not sure that it's net positive for society as a whole, but individual humans certainly benefit from the fashion industry. Ask anyone who has ever received a compliment on their outfit.

This is true for rich people as well as not so rich people - having spent some time working as a salesman at H&M, I can tell you that lower income members of society (like, for example, H&M employees making minimum wage) are very happy to spend a fair percentage of their income on clothing.

[dheavy]

It goes even deeper than getting laid if you study Costume History and its psychological importance.

It is a powerful medium of self-expression and social identity yes, deeply rooted in human history where costumes and attire have always signified cultural, social, and economic status.

Drawing from tribal psychology, it fulfills an innate human desire for belonging and individuality, enabling people to communicate their affiliation, status, and personal values through their choice of clothing.

It has always been and will always be part of humanity, even if its industrialization in Capitalistic societies like ours have hidden this fact.

OP's POV is just a bit narrow, that's all.

[atq2119]

Clothing is important in that sense, but fashion as a changing thing and especially fast fashion isn't. I suppose it can be a nice hobby for some, but for society as a whole it's at best a wasteful zero-sum pursuit.

[mensetmanusman]

we can correlate now that the more fast fashion there is the less people are coupling though...

[passion__desire]

There was a tweet by Elon which said that we are optimizing for short term pleasure. OnlyFans exists just for this. Pleasure industry creates jobs as well but do we need so much of it?

[dheavy]

> fashion industry in general is useless to society > rich jobless people need a place to hangout

You're talking about an industry that generates approximately $1.5 trillion globally, employing more than 60 million people globally, from multi-disciplinary skills in fashion design, illustration, web development, e-commerce, AI, digital marketing.

[passion__desire]

well, web3 created lot of economic activity and jobs, it doesn't mean it is useful.

[quickthrower2]

As does a peer to peer taxi company.

[renewiltord]

Indeed, and one for ChatGPT.

[mensetmanusman]

it's also your belief that sports like the nfl do not improve society ...

beliefs can't be proven or disproven, they are axioms.

[depr]

So what is your belief about why they exist?