Good for me, but not for you?

re: Good for me, but not for you?

TokyoTom — Fri, 16 May 2008 03:38:06 GMT

For as long as we have a corporations tax, I am afraid we'll just have to live with enduring distinctions between "profit" and "non prift" activities - and the best that we can hope for is to educate that both are equally preference-maximizing activities.

re: Good for me, but not for you?

Chris Q. — Wed, 14 May 2008 13:09:57 GMT

I agree with most your points.

For the lefties, especially here in Europe, money and profit are vulgar words that should be avoided. Using them will erode their well established role as the politicians that care.

As for the comment about non-profits. Why is this a problem?

What right does anyone have to demand profit, or anything else for that matter, from companies?

re: Good for me, but not for you?

cant — Sat, 10 May 2008 01:44:24 GMT

All not-for-profit corporations should be abolished. Wikipedia and Mozilla foundation and others should be turned into for-profit corporations. (Mozilla actually made millions of dollars)

Non-profit corporations are highly corrupt, and most of the wealth goes to the owners.