I was listening to a buyer ask the saleman, “Do I get a special non-profit rate?” to which the salesman replied yes.

That question has always been intriguing for a couple of reasons.

First, if I’m in line behind the customer getting the special rate for the same exact thing, why should he get a discount and not me?

We but the same things; we buy the same quantities, etc.

Just because a company says they are non-profit does not mean they do not make money. Non-profit companies have to make a profit in order to survive.  Without a profit on their products and services, payroll can’t be met and the utilities can’t be paid.

I’ve done business plans for non-profit companies and they buy products and resell them at higher prices, which is the gross profit.  Service prices are figured on the amount of people they serve and breakeven points on expenses too.

In reality, a big difference between the two business structures is a non-profit cannot pay shareholders; therefore, a solution is to pay more in salaries, which which is an expense, to disburse the profits.

Next, non-profits do not like to pay taxes.  Thus, the reason to be a non-profit is for tax status, not a goal for losing money.  The irony is for-profit companies pay taxes and can be a financial source for non-profit companies grant money, or subsidies.

Ironic maybe, funny – no.

The non-profit company wants lower costs and tax exemptions, but who doesn’t?  What struggling business wouldn’t want subsidies?  (The ones who realize their taxes pay them, I guess.)  Receiving lower prices and taxes exemptions can allow the non-profit company to stifle or eliminate competition – the very companies paying taxes in the first place.

The next time I see something like this happen, I’ll be seeing the manager of the company for the last time because taxes subsidize many things and people, and so do my purchases.

Thinking business, I was watching the commentary and interview of Bill Dunkelberg, National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) Chief Economist. Obviously, jobs, taxes, Obamacare, etc. are very important for everyone; however, the video itself is not so popular. The video only has 291 views at the time I posted it.

Watch it anyway.

Then watch “Two Important Videos For Different Reasons…Part 2″

With Obama’s enormous requests for spending and the Congress willing to oblige and write the checks, Volcker feels we need a new tax to pay for the expenses.

Spending is at 25% of GDP and the new taxes will come from income taxes, a VAT (value added tax), energy tax, carbon tax or whatever. These taxes seem to be a “good idea”. Corporate taxes are already among the highest in the world. No wonder why companies move overseas.

Speaking of oversea, I have a relative who lives in Sweden and when they came to America, I was told he and his wife are required to put their kids in daycare at the age of three. The income taxes are 50%; therefore, both spouses have to work. I don’t know about you, but I enjoyed playing with the kids when they were three versus letting someone else raise them.

But back to needing a new tax; in my opinion, cutting out the waste and backdoor deals, such as buying votes in Louisiana to get the health care bill passed, cutting out spending for free education and health care for illegal aliens, etc. seems to be a better idea.

If strategies such as the VAT are “poison” in the U.S. because they are a bad idea, and all of the European and Mexican ways of running a country do not work, why try it here? Why not fix the problems there instead of having the U.S. taxpayers bailout out everyone.

Unfortunately, what the American people want is not the agenda of Washington – redistribution is.

Take Credit Card Payments On Your iPhone With The Square

Small Business Not Hiring Not Buying

Boost Small Business With These Desktop Apps

Tax To Bailout Banks In The Future Likely

Fannie Mae Buying More Risky Loans

Fannie Mae Seeks More Money From Government To Cover Losses

I was reading an article today from the Money Game talking about Barack Obama and his comments on the VAT tax (value added tax). What is interesting about the comment is Obama said “my first priority is to figure out how can we reduce wasteful spending…”

My thought right here was, “who needs to reduce wasteful spending?”

The American people or the Federal Government?

From the looks of the following graph, the Federal Government’s spending is out of control.

In addition, I received an e-mail from a relative the other day (which is the source of the graph) stating:

“…babbled again today about Obama inheriting a huge deficit from Bush.

Budgets do not come from the White House. They come from Congress, and the party that controlled Congress since January 2007 is the Democratic Party. They controlled the budget process for FY 2008 and FY 2009, as well as FY 2010 and FY 2011.

In that first year, they had to contend with George Bush, which caused them to compromise on spending, when Bush somewhat belatedly got tough on spending increases.

For FY 2009, though, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid bypassed George Bush entirely, passing continuing resolutions to keep government running until Barack Obama could take office. At that time, they passed a massive omnibus spending bill to complete the FY 2009 budgets.

And where was Barack Obama during this time? He was a member of that very Congress that passed all of these massive spending bills, and he signed the omnibus bill as President to complete FY 2009…

In a nutshell, what Obama is saying is, “I inherited a deficit that I voted for and then I voted to expand that deficit four-fold since January 20th.”

So much for the dog & pony show and lip service.

By the way, did CEObama pay 90% income taxes on his $5.5 million (or part of it) as did CEO’s who received bonuses – which were allowed by Congress in the bailout bill?