Why prefer a private non-profit to the government?
I like non-profits in some cases. They're great at funneling money into specific causes that people care about. Especially small ones (a local theater group is the go to example) or politically charged ones. But "the trains running" doesn't seem like one of those. Why not have the government oversee it?
As opposed to the unaccountable board of a non-profit raking in significant income? Where they can pay themselves a nice bonus if they make more money for the non-profit?
Its a completely unproductive answer. Why do you assume a non-profit set up for a cause will predominantly exist to pay it's directors bonuses?
Lets deconstruct the three options on the table:
1) for-profit private -> exists to make money to their shareholders
2) government -> exists to (on paper) provide services to the people, but has a plethora of other reasons of existence (provide jobs for people, provide ego boosts for politicians working in the system)
3) non-profit private -> exists to provide a legal structure around an agreed cause
It is certainly possible someone establishes a non-profit to pocket the money for themselves, but it is a very clear violation of the purpose of the whole structure. In the other two, it is completely acceptable to bounce out of the cause of providing a service to the people, as there are other "goals" for the underlying system.
Whining about directors paying themselves bonuses a low-IQ bait to start flame wars.
