6 ms·

Exactly my thought! This has "tax loophole" written all over it. Company gets to subsidize favorable propaganda, while at the same time getting a nice tax writ

Exactly my thought! This has "tax loophole" written all over it. Company gets to subsidize favorable propaganda, while at the same time getting a nice tax write-off. Edit: For those downvoting, would you care to elaborate? I don't see how this won't be abused. What am I wrong about here?

not_a_cop75 7y ago
I'm sure having one of the most powerful men in the world run a newspaper is going to produce unbiased journalism.
cartoonworld 7y ago
I would imagine a non-profit isn't able to well.... profit as much. And if I know one thing it is that a rich guy loves his money as much as a preacher loves the Lord.
- jtbayly 7y ago
  Non-profits are allowed to profit all they want. The NFL is a non-profit org.
  - lostapathy 7y ago
    The league is - the teams are not.
    - jtbayly 7y ago
      That's what I meant. Apparently it changed. But so what? The league itself made enough money to pay Roger Goodell $44M in 2013. As a non-profit.
      - lostapathy 7y ago
        I kind of figured you did, but I wanted to underscore the difference because I feel like this fact is usually trotted out for (and gets) a knee jerk. To be fair, I think it's a dumb state of affairs too, but overhyping problems is often counterproductive.
        jtbayly 7y ago
        Well, I do think it (was) dumb, but I also didn’t bring it up to show a big problem. I just wanted a counter-example to the claim that profits are limited at non-profits.
    - throwaway_law 7y ago
      The Green Bay Packers are a not for profit...its the only team not privately owned by billionaires.
  - vwuon 7y ago
    Not anymore http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/football/nfl-no-longer-non-profit-giving-tax-exempt-status-article-1.2202484 http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/football/nfl-no-longer-non...
    - jtbayly 7y ago
      Thanks. Not sure how I missed that. Regardless, the point still stands. Non-profit just means profit isn't its primary goal, but rather generally some mission. A non-profit can make oodles of money, but if it closes up shop, it can't be distributed to the "owners." It has to go to another non-profit.
      - vonmoltke 7y ago
        The NFL had a specific exemption added to the tax code just for it, so it really isn't a good example anyway. Nobody else could form such a "non-profit" without a literal act of Congress.
- mieseratte 7y ago
  As a sibling comment mentions, non-profits aren't always "above board" in reality, e.g. the NFLs or Susan G. Komens of the world. The position that I'm coming from is that a newspaper isn't always meant to be particularly profitable, e.g. in my small city our major paper is owned and underwritten by a wealthy real-estate family. While the paper does good reporting in other areas, including having won a recent Pulitzer, they never publish anything negative about the local real-estate and development. You will never find a piece critical of development or developer mistakes in this paper. If you're of the mind that papers can and are used as a way of laundering business propaganda for the owner, allowing it a non-profit status would then allow it to be a money-sink. The owning family can now provide donations to the non-profit paper which serves the business interests in the PR sphere. These donations can be written off. This means the tax-payer is now further subsidizing their PR efforts by virtue of a tax write off.
  - cartoonworld 7y ago
    Thanks, didn't consider that angle and also that non-profit might be a nonsequiter.

not_a_cop75 7y ago

I'm sure having one of the most powerful men in the world run a newspaper is going to produce unbiased journalism.

cartoonworld 7y ago

I would imagine a non-profit isn't able to well.... profit as much. And if I know one thing it is that a rich guy loves his money as much as a preacher loves the Lord.

jtbayly 7y ago
Non-profits are allowed to profit all they want. The NFL is a non-profit org.
- lostapathy 7y ago
  The league is - the teams are not.
  - jtbayly 7y ago
    That's what I meant. Apparently it changed. But so what? The league itself made enough money to pay Roger Goodell $44M in 2013. As a non-profit.
    - lostapathy 7y ago
      I kind of figured you did, but I wanted to underscore the difference because I feel like this fact is usually trotted out for (and gets) a knee jerk. To be fair, I think it's a dumb state of affairs too, but overhyping problems is often counterproductive.
      - jtbayly 7y ago
        Well, I do think it (was) dumb, but I also didn’t bring it up to show a big problem. I just wanted a counter-example to the claim that profits are limited at non-profits.
  - throwaway_law 7y ago
    The Green Bay Packers are a not for profit...its the only team not privately owned by billionaires.
- vwuon 7y ago
  Not anymore http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/football/nfl-no-longer-non-profit-giving-tax-exempt-status-article-1.2202484 http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/football/nfl-no-longer-non...
  - jtbayly 7y ago
    Thanks. Not sure how I missed that. Regardless, the point still stands. Non-profit just means profit isn't its primary goal, but rather generally some mission. A non-profit can make oodles of money, but if it closes up shop, it can't be distributed to the "owners." It has to go to another non-profit.
    - vonmoltke 7y ago
      The NFL had a specific exemption added to the tax code just for it, so it really isn't a good example anyway. Nobody else could form such a "non-profit" without a literal act of Congress.
mieseratte 7y ago
As a sibling comment mentions, non-profits aren't always "above board" in reality, e.g. the NFLs or Susan G. Komens of the world. The position that I'm coming from is that a newspaper isn't always meant to be particularly profitable, e.g. in my small city our major paper is owned and underwritten by a wealthy real-estate family. While the paper does good reporting in other areas, including having won a recent Pulitzer, they never publish anything negative about the local real-estate and development. You will never find a piece critical of development or developer mistakes in this paper. If you're of the mind that papers can and are used as a way of laundering business propaganda for the owner, allowing it a non-profit status would then allow it to be a money-sink. The owning family can now provide donations to the non-profit paper which serves the business interests in the PR sphere. These donations can be written off. This means the tax-payer is now further subsidizing their PR efforts by virtue of a tax write off.
- cartoonworld 7y ago
  Thanks, didn't consider that angle and also that non-profit might be a nonsequiter.