6 ms·

Nonprofit funding is, in significant measure, a form of public funding as the organization's income is not taxed and its donors receive a tax deduction.

dwighttk 4y ago
If the public wants that credit, tax ‘em and pay for the programs. Otherwise I’ll give you the government didn’t discourage the effort.
enriquec 4y ago
- lotsofpulp 4y ago
  Then why does society allow someone to reduce their tax liability for “charity”? Of course, it would be better if there were no deductions in the first place, and the government just paid for content if it wanted to pay for content which was then automatically in the public domain.
  - qubex 4y ago
    Because lobbyists receive a healthy sum to achieve and defend their benefactors’ ability to influence societal development by indulging in subsidised philanthropy they can focus on issues and aspects they desire (rather than going through the State and governmental assignment of funds).
  - ghaff 4y ago
    Do you really want government as the primary arbiter of what goes on PBS? At that point, it might as well be a government news channel. Though for better or worse, broadcast channels--including PBS--are less and less relevant. The federal government in the US is perfectly within its rights to commission and host content on .gov--which in general would be public domain.
  - pyuser583 4y ago
    The idea is that when you donate to charity, the money is never “yours” - you never benefit from it. Analogously, if part of your compensation was a donation to charity, you wouldn’t be taxed on it. > it would be better if there were no donations in the first place, and the government just A lot of Democrats in red states and Republicans in blue states disagree. If America removed the charitable tax deduction, the big losers would include churches, Planned Parenthood, Human Rights Campaign, ACLU, etc
    - ghaff 4y ago
      >Analogously, if part of your compensation was a donation to charity, you wouldn’t be taxed on it. Which is basically how corporate gift matching works.
    - HWR_14 4y ago
      > The idea is that when you donate to charity, the money is never “yours” - you never benefit from it. Of course you do. If you didn't benefit from the donation, you wouldn't have made it.
      - endominus 4y ago
        Just for clarification, do you mean this tautologically? As in, if I produce examples of people not materially or socially benefiting from their charitable donations (such as by donating anonymously in countries without charitable tax deductions) would your argument reduce to "They only give to charity to feel better about themselves, therefore they benefited and would not have made the donation otherwise"?
        HWR_14 4y ago
        I'm willing to give up the tautological definition in the edge case of "donated food anonymously to the poor" type cases. But I think that the number of ways of selfishly donating are both the vast majority and far broader than "material or social" benefiting.
        4y ago
  - IncRnd 4y ago
    > Of course, it would be better if there were no deductions in the first place, and the government just paid for content if it wanted to pay for content which was then automatically in the public domain. You are arguing in favor of government propaganda, because that's what will happen in your scenario.
- brigandish 4y ago
  > What twisted logic hahaha Try to remain respectful, this isn't Twitter or Reddit.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
MichaelCollins 4y ago
By that logic, a pack of cigarettes taxed at 500% is "publicly funded" because it could have been taxed at 1000%.
- nwah1 4y ago
  There is no functional difference between a tax break and a subsidy. And everything is private property only if a sovereign authority says it is. Much of it is not even remotely justifiable even by the most generous Lockean assumptions. But it remains private property because an entity with the power to do so has deemed it so.
  - pyuser583 4y ago
    > everything is private property only if a sovereign authority says it is This is simply untrue. Private property proceeds the existence of the modern state. Many parts of the world have extremely weak states, yet a distinction between private and public property remains. Arguably, the states role is to ensure private property protections are available to the weak and the powerful, not just the powerful. “The commons” - in the European and British sense were/are public property long before a meaningful state became involved. Both s public and private property proceed modern states, and can have their origin in customary law as much as legal statutes.
    - nwah1 4y ago
      Sovereign authorities also precede the existence of states.
    - specialist 4y ago
      Claims of ownership are only as legitimate as the potential to do violence to assert such claims.
      - pyuser583 4y ago
        Authority isn’t always rooted in force or threat of force. “The commons” is/was publicly owned, but without any real threat of force behind it.
IncRnd 4y ago
By that logic, your posting uses public funds. The government could have taxed your comments, but they didn't.
imgabe 4y ago
This presumes that all income belongs to the government by default, and not being taxed is some special favor. That’s backwards, all income belongs to the people who earn it by default. We agree to use a portion for the common good to fund the government. Since a nonprofit is presumably already working for the common good, there is no reason to take any of their income to fund the government.

dwighttk 4y ago

If the public wants that credit, tax ‘em and pay for the programs. Otherwise I’ll give you the government didn’t discourage the effort.

enriquec 4y ago

lotsofpulp 4y ago
Then why does society allow someone to reduce their tax liability for “charity”? Of course, it would be better if there were no deductions in the first place, and the government just paid for content if it wanted to pay for content which was then automatically in the public domain.
- qubex 4y ago
  Because lobbyists receive a healthy sum to achieve and defend their benefactors’ ability to influence societal development by indulging in subsidised philanthropy they can focus on issues and aspects they desire (rather than going through the State and governmental assignment of funds).
- ghaff 4y ago
  Do you really want government as the primary arbiter of what goes on PBS? At that point, it might as well be a government news channel. Though for better or worse, broadcast channels--including PBS--are less and less relevant. The federal government in the US is perfectly within its rights to commission and host content on .gov--which in general would be public domain.
- pyuser583 4y ago
  The idea is that when you donate to charity, the money is never “yours” - you never benefit from it. Analogously, if part of your compensation was a donation to charity, you wouldn’t be taxed on it. > it would be better if there were no donations in the first place, and the government just A lot of Democrats in red states and Republicans in blue states disagree. If America removed the charitable tax deduction, the big losers would include churches, Planned Parenthood, Human Rights Campaign, ACLU, etc
  - ghaff 4y ago
    >Analogously, if part of your compensation was a donation to charity, you wouldn’t be taxed on it. Which is basically how corporate gift matching works.
  - HWR_14 4y ago
    > The idea is that when you donate to charity, the money is never “yours” - you never benefit from it. Of course you do. If you didn't benefit from the donation, you wouldn't have made it.
    - endominus 4y ago
      Just for clarification, do you mean this tautologically? As in, if I produce examples of people not materially or socially benefiting from their charitable donations (such as by donating anonymously in countries without charitable tax deductions) would your argument reduce to "They only give to charity to feel better about themselves, therefore they benefited and would not have made the donation otherwise"?
      - HWR_14 4y ago
        I'm willing to give up the tautological definition in the edge case of "donated food anonymously to the poor" type cases. But I think that the number of ways of selfishly donating are both the vast majority and far broader than "material or social" benefiting.
        4y ago
- IncRnd 4y ago
  > Of course, it would be better if there were no deductions in the first place, and the government just paid for content if it wanted to pay for content which was then automatically in the public domain. You are arguing in favor of government propaganda, because that's what will happen in your scenario.
brigandish 4y ago
> What twisted logic hahaha Try to remain respectful, this isn't Twitter or Reddit.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

MichaelCollins 4y ago

By that logic, a pack of cigarettes taxed at 500% is "publicly funded" because it could have been taxed at 1000%.

nwah1 4y ago
There is no functional difference between a tax break and a subsidy. And everything is private property only if a sovereign authority says it is. Much of it is not even remotely justifiable even by the most generous Lockean assumptions. But it remains private property because an entity with the power to do so has deemed it so.
- pyuser583 4y ago
  > everything is private property only if a sovereign authority says it is This is simply untrue. Private property proceeds the existence of the modern state. Many parts of the world have extremely weak states, yet a distinction between private and public property remains. Arguably, the states role is to ensure private property protections are available to the weak and the powerful, not just the powerful. “The commons” - in the European and British sense were/are public property long before a meaningful state became involved. Both s public and private property proceed modern states, and can have their origin in customary law as much as legal statutes.
  - nwah1 4y ago
    Sovereign authorities also precede the existence of states.
  - specialist 4y ago
    Claims of ownership are only as legitimate as the potential to do violence to assert such claims.
    - pyuser583 4y ago
      Authority isn’t always rooted in force or threat of force. “The commons” is/was publicly owned, but without any real threat of force behind it.

IncRnd 4y ago

By that logic, your posting uses public funds. The government could have taxed your comments, but they didn't.

imgabe 4y ago

This presumes that all income belongs to the government by default, and not being taxed is some special favor. That’s backwards, all income belongs to the people who earn it by default. We agree to use a portion for the common good to fund the government. Since a nonprofit is presumably already working for the common good, there is no reason to take any of their income to fund the government.