Skip to content

Comment on Who Owns Los Angeles?parent

Comments

That's true. If profit is defined as income less expenses, some orgs may have more income than expenses at the end of the year, which could be considered "profit". However, a non-profit is organized in such a way as there are no shareholders or other owners to distribute the profit. So, the precise term should be non-profit-distribution, I guess. Of course, the principals of a non-profit still take a salary, and you could probably sneak in a reasonable bonus as well, and not call it a profit distribution.

AboutSource Built by g1lg1l

Hackerly is an independent reader for Hacker News, built on the public HN API. Not affiliated with Y Combinator.