I’m looking at a study that is comparing the impact on the taxpayer of for-profit vs. not-for-profit schools.
The study (sponsored in large part by money coming from a for-profit) is saying that not only do for-profits pay taxes, but tax-exempt nonprofits are, duh, not paying taxes. Thus, the study says, the for-profits are in a net plus situation, but the nonprofits are in a net minus situation. (I’m obviously simplifying like mad here).
I’m good so far – but critics of this study are saying you can’t both count for-profits paying taxes and nonprofits not paying taxes.
If I’m understanding your simplifications and the objections correctly, it is because the two calculations are using different revenue baselines, and are then being added together to give an overall “cost” of the policy.
They should really discuss the two numbers separately, and represent any policy recommendations as changes from the current baseline.
So, for example, taxing the non-profits would add X revenue. Not taxing the for-profits would reduce revenue by Y. It gets dodgy when you start making claims like “for-profit schools create X+Y in revenue”.
I have two reasons not to let my Charter Membership to the SDMB lapse: Not only would I lose the $7.50 discount, but I’d also have to pay $7.50 more per year than I do now.
