Why isn't Mcdonalds non for profit?

My wife is a doctor at the hospital here Fletcher Allen. Fletcher Allen is a non for profit hospital. My friend Tony works at the Peace and Justice Center book store. The Peace and Justice Center is a non for profit. My friend Rey works for Mcdonalds.
Mcdonalds is not non for profit. Why is this?

… Because the founder, and by extension, the CEO and shareholders, want to make boatloads of money rather than investing all of it back into growing the company?

How do you know what their intent is?

This may surprise you, but it’s because McDonald’s wants to make money.

Because that is the reason people buy stocks, and that is the fiduciary responsibility of a for profit corporation - make make money for their shareholders.

It’s pretty easy to guess, based on the fact that they didn’t incorporate as a nonprofit at the beginning, and haven’t tried to since then. If that was their intent, they would. Because they haven’t, it’s reasonable to infer that they don’t want to be a non-profit.

McDonald’s is a profit-making enterprise, and those profits are paid to the stockholders as dividends (or to the CEO and executives as stock options). In addition, their Board of Directors is paid (you can’t pay anyone on the board to be nonprofit). Finally, McDonald’s doesn’t qualify as a nonprofit since they don’t fit into any of the various IRS categories defining it.

A non profit aimed at what? Making America fat?

Not true:

Fletcher Allen has a CEO, his name is John Brumsted, and he also make close to a six figure salary.

Do you believe that McDonalds is morally required to provide those tasty McNuggets at cost?

Rey wants to make money?

I’m not really sure what the OP is getting at. McDonalds is a business whose sole purpose is to make a profit. Every single thing they do is to service the bottom line. That’s what business is.

CEO is an employee, Board of directors are usually the majority owners.

Fundamentally, most not-for-profit corporations are such for one of four reasons (and often several of these in combination):

  1. They were founded to provide a public service (such as a hospital)
  2. They were founded or owned by another organization which is, itself, a not-for-profit group (such as a church or charity)
  3. They were founded with the intent to raise money to support a charity or cause (such as the bookstore which the OP mentioned)
  4. They are a “mutual” organization, in which the owners are actually the members / customers (some insurance companies, as well as credit unions, operate under this model)

While there’d be nothing preventing someone from opening up a not-for-profit restaurant (and I’m sure that there are some out there, probably operating in conjunction with churches or other charities), it all goes back to what the (presumed) motivation of the founder was. In the case of a restaurant, it was almost undoubtedly because the founder wanted to make money.

Also, I suspect that it’d be pretty difficult for something like a restaurant chain to expand if it were a not-for-profit. Those types of business rely on investors and / or franchisees to put their own money into the operation to fund expansion; it’s hard to picture such investors being excited about investing into a company where their own potential to profit from the investment is limited (unless said investors are “true believers” in the cause behind the not-for-profit’s mission).

Side note: Conversely, some of the classic “non-profits” can be for profit. For instance, there are for-profit hospitals.

Exactly (I’d meant to mention that). There are a number of industries (e.g., hospitals, insurance, banking / credit unions) in which for-profits and not-for-profits compete against one another.

Would that make a group of atheist Muslims a non-prophet organization?

They did not incorporate as a 501© tax-exempt non profit organization, for one.

I worked for a non-profit for two years, The MITRE Corporation. It is incorporated as a 501©(3) non-profit. MITRE has no owners under this type of non-profit. If the company were to liquidate, any remaining assets would revert to the federal government. This was explained to me (and a bunch of other people) by the General Counsel for the company in a training seminar. There are many types of non-profits and I do not if this is true for all of them.

As I mentioned, at a 501©(3) there are no owners.

“Non-profit” is a bit of a misnomer because a non-profit is allowed to retain earnings (in general “retained earnings” are profits that are not distributed to owners). But there are restrictions on how the earnings can be used.

That’s true, but there are other kinds of non-profit corporations that do have owners. I own shares in such a corporation.