[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