zlacker

>>modele+(OP)
Allowing startups to begin as non-profits for tax benefits, only to 'flip' into profit-seeking ventures is a moral hazard, IMO. It risks damaging public trust in the non-profit sector as a whole. This lawsuit is important

>>therei+4H
The public has no idea what non-profits are and a lot of things that people call 'profit seeking ventures' (ie. selling products) are done by many non-profits.

>>whimsi+qU
I think the public is well aware that “non profit” is yet another scam that wealthy elites take advantage of, not available in the same way to the common citizen.

>>jimbok+4V
Or at least not available to the common citizen who does not have the $50 incorporation fee

>>whimsi+UZ
What matters isn't the money, but the knowledge of what to do with it. And that is not easily obtained by the common citizen at all.

>>jprete+sa1
It's not even knowledge. I can't take advantage of most of the tax breaks rich people can because I am not in control of billions of dollars of physical and intellectual property to play shell games with.

As a normal citizen with a normal career, I do not have any levers to play with to """optimize""" what the IRS wants me to pay. For some reason, we let people in control of billions of dollars worth of physical stuff and IP give them different names, and put them under different paper roofs so that they can give the IRS less money. It's such utter nonsense.

Why should you have MORE ability to defer your tax liability by having MORE stuff? People make so many excuses about "but Jeff Bezos doesn't actually have billions in cash, he holds that much value in Amazon stock" as if that doesn't literally translate to controlling billions of dollars of Amazon property and IP and influence.

Why does controlling more, and having more, directly translate to paying less?