zlacker

This seems like pedantics…? Yes, they technically make a profit, in that they bring in more money in revenue than they spent in expenditures. But it’s not going towards yachts, it’s going toward hospital supplies. Your comment seems to be using the word “profit” to imply a false equivalency

>>bbor+(OP)
Understanding the particular meaning of each balance-sheet category is hardly pedantry at the level of business management. It's like knowing what the controls do when you're driving a car.

Profit is money that ends up in the bank to be used later. Compensation is what gets spent on yachts. Anything spent on hospital supplies is an expense. This stuff matters.

>>bbor+(OP)
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/25/podcasts/the-daily/nonpro...

>>scythe+T3
So from the context of a non-profit, profit (as in revenue - expenses) is money to be used for future expenses.

So yeah, Mayo Cinic makes a $2B profit. That is not money going to shareholders though, that's funds for a future building or increasing salaries or expanding research or something, it supposedly has to be used for the mission. What is the outrage of these orgs making this kind of profit?

>>vel0ci+G6
The word supposedly is doing a lot of heavy lifting in your statement. When it's endowments keep growing over decades and sometimes centuries without being spent for the mission, people naturally ask why the nonprofit keep raising prices for their intended beneficiaries