[egh]

Incoherent argument. Non-profits pay sales taxes, income taxes for employee salaries, and, in many cases, property taxes. The only thing they aren't ever paying taxes on is profits, because... they are non-profits. They don't pay out profits to owners.

Some non-profits are exempt from property taxes and other taxes (e.g. universities) and abuse this by becoming huge landowners. This should probably be reined in.

[jacobgkau]

> Non-profits pay sales taxes,

It may vary by state, but I used to work at a private, non-profit educational institution in Missouri, and I know we didn't have to pay sales tax for our purchases. I now work for an online retail business in Colorado, and our sales team routinely waives sales tax for non-profits (from various states) with the correct documentation (usually also educational institutions, fwiw).

[bombcar]

You can pretty closely simulate a non-profit with a for-profit enterprise with a bit of "clever accounting" as long as you're not taking profits out.

Once they come out, they get taxed, as salary or distributions.

What the for-profit ALSO gets taxed on is "income" but if you manufacture expenses you can keep your income low or non-existent (this is what companies do when they transfer their IP to a tax haven and then charge themselves for it).

[gamblor956]

You've just suggested tax fraud, and the mechanism you referred to is no longer a viable method for accomplishing it...

[oceanplexian]

It’s ridiculous we are trying to find more ways the government can rent-seek. Corporations are taxed on profits, they are taxed when they pay employees, the employee is taxed on their income, and the employee’s post tax dollars go to pay sales tax, the remaining money goes to businesses that pay tax, and then the whole thing repeats again. The government is a literal parasite on the economy.

I am repeatedly surprised when people argue that lower taxes don’t improve the economy, it’s as obvious as water being wet or the sky being blue.

[EasyMark]

I think it’s because most people who declare “less taxes are good for the economy” don’t want to pay taxes at all and would be willing to let infrastructure and society rot in order to make a few more dollars. There has to be an optimal level, and surely it isn’t always “less”.

[Jach]

Meanwhile the infrastructure is not exactly doing great in many places, and it seems doubtful that it would be doing particularly better with more taxes collected. Anyway, there's been a pretty clear trend towards not-less, even in just the last few decades (really, compare quality of services and infrastructure at revenues and debts in the 90s to now), without a clear sign that it's actually worth it or that more would make anything better. A fruitless 20 year war didn't help either.

[Teever]

How does infrastructure look in places like Norway and Finland?

Why can those countries have what they have but America some how can't?

What are they doing that America isn't?

[asdasdsddd]

They have a high trust society where people follow rigid norms thereby lowering the cost for infrastructure. For example, they probably don't need to clean the streets as much because people don't shit on the sidewalk.

[yencabulator]

You're attempting to blame all of US problems on some homeless people. Try blaming the corporations and politicians instead.

High trust societies are ones were those in power are not (very) corrupt.

[Teever]

What does high trust society mean?

[gamblor956]

For starters, they have much smaller populations, and more natural resources per person.

They also rely on America to provide the bulk of their national defense...

[Teever]

Do these places have more natural resources per person than the US, or do they just do more with the resources that they have?

Can you tell me more about the military aid that Finland has received from the US?

[rovolo]

There isn't a clear trend to more taxes in the US (scaled to GDP). Federal tax receipts were higher in the 90s (17-20%) than the 00s/10s (14-18%). Local and state receipts have been basically flat at ~8.8%.

Federal: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFRGDA188S

State & Local: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1pltN

[Jach]

Has GDP gone up or down over time? It's gone way up, so even if the percentage was constant, the amount of money collected has increased significantly. This is what I mean by a clear trend towards "not-less". Despite this increase, I don't think we're seeing proportional returns, and I'm very doubtful that increasing it even further will help anything. If the root problem is mismanagement/corruption/inefficiencies/pointless wars, throwing more money at it isn't going to fix anything, while taking money away could.

[Clubber]

>and would be willing to let infrastructure and society rot in order to make a few more dollars.

In fiscal year (FY) 2023, the government spent $6.13 trillion.

The federal government spent $44.8 billion on infrastructure in 2023 and transferred an additional $81.5 billion to states.

That's a hair over 2%. Certainly you can imagine people wanting to cut the budget in other places.

[azinman2]

Until you start looking at what those other places are.

Tax money is spent in all kinds of ways that touch so many lives that it's literally too much for any one person to comprehend. You can make arguments, but it will affect people in material ways that they'll have counterarguments for.

[Clubber]

>it will affect people in material ways

I agree, but this is false.

>>it’s because most people who declare “less taxes are good for the economy” don’t want to pay taxes at all and would be willing to let infrastructure and society rot in order to make a few more dollars.

Just because someone wants the government to spend less, doesn't mean they don't want to pay their taxes or want to see the infrastructure go to hell. That's a disingenuous argument. Also, “less taxes are good for the economy,” is unarguably true, so he's making two incorrect assumptions in once sentence.

[mistrial9]

> “less taxes are good for the economy,” is unarguably true

no, but there have to be a lot of variables involved to find new balance points.. it is certainly a political situation

[azinman2]

> Also, “less taxes are good for the economy,” is unarguably true

This isn’t unarguably true. Right now we’re running a very large public debt because we spend more than we collect, so if you collected it in taxes you’d slow down inflation. That would be good for the economy. You also see a lot of strategic reallocation of funds through taxes, moving things from possibly inefficient places to places that generate far more growth. China has been doing this very well over the last decade (and sometimes not so well, but net positive) - lots of state back efforts which have tipped industries in China’s favor. This has been great for their economy and soft power. The US did that with Covid vaccines by assuming the risk— something the private market literally could not and would not do.

Taxes and government spending are complex subjects and do not follow universal rules.

[Dalewyn]

>They don't pay out profits to owners.

And then there are damning examples like Mozilla Corporation/Foundation.[1]

There are organizations that should be registered and handled as non-profits, but I also think a lot of the non-profits today are scams warranting a clean up.

[1]: https://assets.mozilla.net/annualreport/2022/mozilla-fdn-990...

[bhelkey]

This is a sixty page document. Is there something specific you want to call attention to?

[Dalewyn]

1. It's a non-profit organization, see page 2.

2. The chairman received just over $6.9 million dollars in compensation, see page 8.

3. Consider the above against what I replied to earlier.

[asdasdsddd]

The 6.9 million is income taxed so what's the problem, it would be the exact same tax scheme if it was a for-profit business.

[chung8123]

It would be double taxed in a for profit. The business would be taxed and the income would be taxed.

[asdasdsddd]

No, corporate taxes are paid on net income which does not include salary

[bigstrat2003]

The business would not necessarily be taxed. Corporate taxes are on profits, not revenues.

[Dalewyn]

One of the justifications argued for non-profits is they "don't pay out profits to owners".

MoCo/Fo is one, particularly outlandish, example where a "non-profit" makes a substantial profit and pays it out to its owner(s).

[asdasdsddd]

And anything paid out to owners in the form of salary is taxed. The point is that they can't pay dividends or do buybacks