Lawsuit a joke
By The Tribune-Review
Published: Thursday, April 11, 2013, 8:55 p.m.
I find it interesting that the City of Pittsburgh (e.g., Mayor Luke Ravenstahl) is up in arms over the tax-exempt status of health-care giant UPMC. When you pay your CEO over $3 million a year and your other top executives make over $500,000 a year, you open yourself up to scorn, scrutiny and ridicule. That being said, there is a difference between a “not-for-profit” and a “nonprofit” organization.
The latter operates to not make a profit and generally requires funds from donors (foundations, individuals, corporations, government, etc.) for its existence.
The former can/does make a profit, but that is not the intent of its existence. A “not-for-profit” more than likely puts these profits back into the entity, and if it happens to make money, so be it, but that is not the be-all and end-all like it is for a for-profit entity.
For the city to cry foul is a joke! The mayor and council have run Pittsburgh into the ground, and in typical liberal fashion, they still do not realize they have a spending problem; they think they have a revenue problem!
People are leaving in droves (present company included) and yet these stalwarts still do not get it.
Norman F. Hargraves IV
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Strong enough
- Telling facts
- Budget & business taxes
- Fix icy hazard on Rt. 66
- ‘We the people’ are veterans