Most non-profits are not financially sustainable and rely on donations and grants to operate. If the service they provided could be financially sustainable, a for-profit would popup and operate in that space.
But I agree that non-profits can and should find fee-for-service opportunities and generate revenue to reduce their reliance on gifts.
I understand and you’re trying to critique “social nonos” (laws) so where do you draw the line? You can generally say whatever opinion about someone but you can’t say whatever you want to do to someone.
You can’t contribute to the HSA but can spend it on qualified medical expenses or sit on it until age 59.5 and draw it down or use it to pay Medicare premiums starting at 65.
US Steel is super rocky and blocking a buy out by Nippon will likely mean some sort of deal with Cleveland-Cliffs. The difference is Nippon has negotiated that they would maintain union contracts and upgrade facilities in SW Pennsylvania whereas Cleveland-Cliffs will almost certainly shut the plants down.
Frankly, it’s a bandaid that eventually needs to be ripped off. USX hasn’t reinvested into their processes pretty much ever, decided to spend their time trying to circumvent Clean Air Act laws for 50 years and then bitch and moan that it would be too expensive to become compliant.
The Mon Valley has terrible air quality and it’s directly from three primary polluters, which are all USX facilities.
Most non-profits are not financially sustainable and rely on donations and grants to operate. If the service they provided could be financially sustainable, a for-profit would popup and operate in that space.
But I agree that non-profits can and should find fee-for-service opportunities and generate revenue to reduce their reliance on gifts.