Laeserin
2mo ago
Here is where you all are confused.
A nonprofit company is an NGO, by definition. The name comes from the fact that they are not part of the government, but they benefit from tax advantages and they are therefore oriented near to the government, by design.
If you give money to a nonprofit company, they can give you tax money and a service or product, in return.
If you give money to a for-profit company, they give you the service or product, and they also have to retain additional monies for the taxes.
A nonprofit company is an NGO, by definition. The name comes from the fact that they are not part of the government, but they benefit from tax advantages and they are therefore oriented near to the government, by design.
If you give money to a nonprofit company, they can give you tax money and a service or product, in return.
If you give money to a for-profit company, they give you the service or product, and they also have to retain additional monies for the taxes.
See translation
19
6
0
0
0
Replies
Laeserin
@Laeserin
2mo ago
The question is then, why shouldn't we only buy products and services from NGOs or the government? Seems like a sweet deal!
Because their products and services will tend to be worse, and decline over time, as they are not motivated by profits.
Because their products and services will tend to be worse, and decline over time, as they are not motivated by profits.
See translation
0
0
0
0
0
Laeserin
@Laeserin
2mo ago
People don't understand this effect, but for-profit companies have to work harder and more efficiently because they have to deliver the same products and services, often carrying the additional cost of taxation, while continuing to return a profit.
That means they have to steadily reform, refactor, and innovate. Their economic energy becomes increasingly dense, which powers the next phase in their organizational development.
Or they fail to turn a profit and leave the market, to make room for someone better.
That means they have to steadily reform, refactor, and innovate. Their economic energy becomes increasingly dense, which powers the next phase in their organizational development.
Or they fail to turn a profit and leave the market, to make room for someone better.
See translation
0
0
0
0
0
mleku
@mleku
2mo ago
tax is a crime tho... and usually selectively pushed on those both least able and most outside of the in-group of power
business would advance a lot faster in terms of net improvement of efficiencies without the drag of taxation
same as giving your cat worming tablets and flea treatments improves its health, the parasites bring more trouble than what they steal, they bring other thieves who take advantage of the weakness
business would advance a lot faster in terms of net improvement of efficiencies without the drag of taxation
same as giving your cat worming tablets and flea treatments improves its health, the parasites bring more trouble than what they steal, they bring other thieves who take advantage of the weakness
See translation
0
0
0
0
0
Laeserin
@Laeserin
2mo ago
I am not of the opinion that taxation is a crime, in every case, but I am of the opinion that onerous taxation makes economies less efficient and deters productivity, and that exempting certain companies from such taxation exacerbates that situation for the remainder.
See translation
0
0
0
0
0
mleku
@mleku
2mo ago
no, the entire concept is a crime, a punishment for profit
paying for services is paying for services
they have deliberately muddied the waters around this in order to get a special privilege to ask whatever price they want for funding their hobby horse social manipulation projects and they are therefore ... the worst kind of psychopaths, the ones who pretend to care about the masses, while pocketing a huge chunk of their wealth to pay for this so-called service
there is at least one good historical case, involving the catholic church, where a form of taxation lead to a regression of the wealth and health of a society - that of Iceland in the middle ages
they had a tax, that you had to pay to the chief, and they decided to change the rule so you could pay that tax
paying for services is paying for services
they have deliberately muddied the waters around this in order to get a special privilege to ask whatever price they want for funding their hobby horse social manipulation projects and they are therefore ... the worst kind of psychopaths, the ones who pretend to care about the masses, while pocketing a huge chunk of their wealth to pay for this so-called service
there is at least one good historical case, involving the catholic church, where a form of taxation lead to a regression of the wealth and health of a society - that of Iceland in the middle ages
they had a tax, that you had to pay to the chief, and they decided to change the rule so you could pay that tax
... See more
See translation
0
0
0
0
0
mike
@mike
2mo ago
The problem is that taxation started as a crime with royalty using the military to steal funds from its subjects to fund war.
Trying to legitimise it after that is a difficult ask.
That’s not to say that some tax is used for good things.
Trying to legitimise it after that is a difficult ask.
That’s not to say that some tax is used for good things.
See translation
0
0
0
0
0
03 more reply(ies)
mleku
@mleku
2mo ago
technically the government is also a nonprofit
See translation
0
0
0
0
0
Niel Liesmons
@nielliesmons
2mo ago
*corporation under admiralty law
See translation
0
0
0
0
0
Markola
@Markola
2mo ago
Often, this is true. However, the market will not address every need. The market has largely botched US healthcare and health insurance, for example. And we certainly would not have our national, state and local parks system, or relatively clean water and air, and many other essentials, if not for government and nonprofits. Military, roads, bridges, fire and police departments, etc. So a balance is needed that restrains the market and meets needs it won’t, while not restraining it too much.
See translation
0
0
0
0
0
Laeserin
@Laeserin
2mo ago
Yeah, nah, I am not convinced that the government can deliver any service more efficiently than a private company can.
The only exception I can see is mounting a common defense (because the nature of violence means that it can be more important to be effective, than efficient), and I'm open to being wrong about that.
The only exception I can see is mounting a common defense (because the nature of violence means that it can be more important to be effective, than efficient), and I'm open to being wrong about that.
See translation
0
0
0
0
0
Markola
@Markola
2mo ago
Valid. It’s an old, well trod argument I don’t care to get into right now. ✌️
See translation
0
0
0
0
0
Dan
@Dan
2mo ago
Wait... you believe market forces are what ruined healthcare and health insurance?!
See translation
0
0
0
0
0
The Beave
@The Beave
2mo ago
Beeeeeeeeee
Eeeeeeeeeeeeeessssss
LOL!
Eeeeeeeeeeeeeessssss
LOL!
See translation
0
0
0
0
0
Tekkadan/USDT 🌐
@Tekkadan/USDT 🌐
2mo ago
See translation
0
0
0
0
0
Frogfren17 ⚡️🐸 bitcoin liberation
@Frogfren17 ⚡️🐸 bitcoin liberation
2mo ago
🍿 I’m comfy AF… how ‘bout you?
🇺🇸🟨🇺🇸
🇺🇸🟨🇺🇸
See translation
0
0
0
0
0
🟧 MEME LOVER 🥶
@nftenet
2mo ago
Probably at that time Tom :
See translation
0
0
0
0
0