![]() |
| New Orleans non-for-profit public school - Ruby Bridges 1960 - Happy Birthday |
In the words of an old chum at the University of Arkansas, here's how most of us see wealth.
'I see dollars kind of like I see calories. When I see a person who doesn't get enough calories, who's skinny and weak, it makes me uncomfortable. It's unattractive. When I see someone who's getting more calories then they need, I kind of see it like an obese person. It's unattractive. I like to be around healthy people who make enough money.' - Bertrand X?, friend at U of ABut there is an entire group of people who think "profit" is "likely bad". They are anti-globalist. And they often seek out a once-obscure federal tax statute to "certify" business partnership.
"Your company is for profit. I work for a non-profit. You shouldn't charge me recycling fees."
I made more money working for non-profits than I have made running a small business, and I have helped more disadvantaged people with my business than I helped working in the not-for-profit sector. I'll demonstrate that later. But using a tax code to predict environmental outcomes was a key ingredient in the decade's "e-waste tragedy". I'm not going to attack non-profits, but the belief that the tax status is necessary or sufficient to predict best behavior will attract wolves in sheeps' clothing.
Why do people attach a moral fetish to a federal corporate income tax filing statute? What's with the obsession over corporate filings, as an indicator of morality? Why are some people more suspicious when I take my personal savings, buy a truck, drive it for income, and pay taxes on that income? What makes a federal tax category more "honest" and more "trustworthy" than a small business?
