How is it the same? The newspaper is an actual non-profit (the shareholders had to give up control to get the status) but what you seem to be suggesting is to give for-profit businesses non-profit status for tax purposes even when they are not actually non-profit organisations.
Or do you mean that businesses should be able to convert to non-profit organisations when the business is no longer viable? I can agree with that sentiment. If the shareholders are prepared to give up control, and the creditors are paid off, it would be great if businesses converted to tax-exempt non-profits instead of going bust entirely.
Previous poster implied that all businesses are influenced by government so the non-profit status does not have additional bindings. I answered that if all businesses are regulated by government regardless, why collect taxes at all, since they are all extensions of government willpower.
The impression I got from their post was that businesses are just as prone to government influence as non-profits,[1] not that they are all extensions of government willpower. That does not follow unless you assume that all non-profits are also government puppets.
1. I am not saying they were right or not because I just don't know, just my reading of the post.
The reason the government collects taxes is to make money, not to extend willpower to the businesses it taxes. The extra influence for non-profits is a side effect and not very large compared to baseline laws. It's not a goal, and it wouldn't make up for the loss of revenue; it serves a much smaller and completely different purpose.
