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
I live in Pittsburgh, and UPMC’s nonprofit status as they make billions in profits and pay their executives fortunes, is a running joke. With the hospitals and universities as the biggest employers and land owners here, a big chunk of the cities financial assets are exempt from contributing to the city budget.

>>jimbok+SU
If they are non-profit, they do not make billions in profits. I suspect you mean revenue :)

Exec compensation is another thing, but also not a concern I am super sympathetic to given that for profit companies of similar magnitude generally pay their execs way more they just are not required to report it.

>>whimsi+JX
> If they are non-profit, they do not make billions in profits. I suspect you mean revenue :)

Uhm, profit is a fact of accounting. Any increase in equity (or "net assets", or whatever other euphemism the accountant decides to use) on a balance sheet is profit. Revenue is something completely different.

>>userna+D71
Change in net asset is calculated the same as net profit, but is not the same in an accounting sense.

Constitutive to profit is a return to private stakeholders, holding assets in reserve or re-investing in capital is not the same.

>>whimsi+Kf1
What's in a name? That which we call a rose

By any other name would smell as sweet

>>userna+pk1
Reinvesting in providing further care or lowering costs would smell as sweet as giving it to wealthy individuals?

Should get your nose checked, sounds like you have covid or something.