Here's the difference: I am open to thinking and looking outside the box and not be bound by definitions that limit thought.

Yes, of course, the accepted definition of profit does not align with what I have presented. That much is obvious.

And yet, "nonprofits" like the American Petroleum Institute, the National Rifle Association and many others exist precisely for profit in two forms. In some cases it is for the enrichment of those who run the organization. There, I used a different word. Happy? In other scenarios, they exist to generate massive profits --sometimes in the billions of dollars-- for supporters. If I remember correctly, the American Petroleum Institute generates some $250 million dollars a year in revenues. These are not $25 donations from Bernie supporters. These are massive membership fees paid for by the oil companies for which this organization works to generate billions in profits.

Disagree as much as you'd like with my out-of-the norm take on the realities of how nonprofits have devolved. The difference is you are bound by the dictionary definition of a word. I am looking at the realities on the street.

Seriously, it is naïve to actually believe these companies are not for profit. The mechanisms abound. A church purchasing manager gives a lucrative multi-million dollar contract to a contractor in exchange for under the table kickbacks. This crap happens all the time. The Vatican has done this kind of thing in transactions worth tens of millions of dollars while servicing as the financial arm for the buildout of television stations in Africa. The problem is you don't know what you don't know and a single-point dictionary definition of a single word is the extent of what you will look at as evidence to fight the idea that the nonprofit thing is seriously broken. But, hey, you are right, the word is defined precisely as you indicate. Good job.

Some guy gets paid ten million dollars to sign over checks to feed the children and you think that's overhead. I think it is an abuse of the system that, while not currently legally defined as such, should be classified as profit. And taxed accordingly. Better yet, it should be capped and the children should get more money.

Since you seem fond of little intelligent-sounding sayings, here's one that's applicable:

"In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not."

Nonprofits: In practice, they are not. Not all of them.

BTW, I actually help run a small --real-- nonprofit. We setup a legal nonprofit organization to fund a local high school robotics team. We take-in donations and spend the money to pay for anything the kids need (usually tool, parts, etc.). Fully 100% of the money we receive (about $25K per year) is spent on what the kids need. 100%. Not a single penny goes towards anything else (OK, the occasional bank fee is another expense). Every mentor is a volunteer and most of us are actually donors as well. That's a real nonprofit, in the full sense of the word. Because nobody within the organization derives any kind of financial profit from it. There are no conflicts of interest whatsoever, no murky lines. Not sure what "nonprofits" who consume 40% of revenues should be called.