Beyond Labels

This week’s topic was is about non-profits. It was prompted by a comment about the way that non-profit PBS is treated under the law, and the tax code, and through public subsidies rather than the way that for-profit business, that seem to do similar things are treated.

Underlying that, was this principle (again, as best I can remember it) that there should be equal treatment under the law.

There are two subjects here: public subsidies and tax treatment of non-profits, and tax-deductions for donors. I’ve only begun to dig into the subject. Here is some interesting reading.

Forbes article suggests the possibility of taxing non-profits.

Article from Pew Charitable trusts on taxing non-profits. Includes a description of the plan proposed by Gov. Le Page, and a table of asset holdings of exempt organizations, by state. The total is $5 trillion. (We are a rich country!)

An article from the Washington Post on the effect of Virginia’s law which, like the Le Page proposal, lets local governments tax some non-profits.

But of course, not religious organizations! Neither Le Page’s proposal nor Virginia’s allow that. This piece in Time proposes that churches should pay their share. Although neither proposes to remove the exemption for donations.

But why not? And why not churches, too.

Here is some interesting reading related to that:

“Are churches  making America poor” from Newsweek.

“How 727 megachurches spend their money”  from Christianity today.

Finances of the Catholic Church in the United State from The Economist. Interesting facts: the Economist estimates that the Church spends about $170 billion a year. Bigger than GE. More employees than Wal-Mart.

“Only a third of charitable contributions go to the poor” from Washington Post.

Could the United States meet its electricity requirements using solar power? The answer seems to be yes, in theory, but there’s a long, long, long, loooong way to go to get there.

A 2012 report from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory gives the total consumption of electricity in the US (2011)  as 3,856 TWh (Terrawatt-hours). The report assess the “available renewable energy resources” for each state and state that “urban utility scale photovoltaics” could supply almost 2/3 that amount, rooftop photovoltaics could produce 20% more. Rural scale photovoltaics, onshore and offshore wind could produce way, way more. The total, if exploited, would be more than 100 times current consumption. Wikipedia Ref.   Source material ref.

Where are we now? Here’s a graphic that shows the sources and uses of energy in the United States

Sources and uses of energy

A looooong way to go.

Assume, for a moment (even if you don’t already believe it) that the effect of humans on the climate is certain, significant, and dangerous.

If you don’t believe it, just, assume it, for the moment.

This is an article by Bret Victor, a thoughtful guy I follow in the tech world. He lays out the underlying issues  in the following framework:

• Funding
• Producing energy
• Moving energy
• Consuming energy

Then, because so much of he opportunity and success in the area depends on what scientists and engineers do:

• Tools for Scientists and engineer

And because robust, reasoned public debate requires better understanding of complex situations:

• Media for understanding situations

I happen NOT to believe that the effect of humans on the climate is all three of certain, significant, and dangerous.  But from a risk-management perspective, it makes just about zero sense to me to do nothing but criticize people who are trying, however imperfectly, to assess a risky situation, and argue that markets will solve the problem better than governments.

Which maybe is a segue into next week’s topic.