6 ms·

According to disclosures: Less than 1% of NPRs budget comes from government grants (https://www.npr.org/about-npr/178660742/public-radio-finances https://www.np

According to disclosures: Less than 1% of NPRs budget comes from government grants (https://www.npr.org/about-npr/178660742/public-radio-finances https://www.npr.org/about-npr/178660742/public-radio-finance...). Other sources put it maybe as high as 4% (https://www.newsweek.com/where-does-npr-get-its-funding-calls-defund-outlet-met-calls-donate-1529009 https://www.newsweek.com/where-does-npr-get-its-funding-call...) across all federal, state, and local funding.

adamrezich 4y ago
so why is parent comment being downvoted, when it's a true statement?
- Retric 4y ago
  Because it’s true of every single non profit in the US. You can say the same about random churches, but that level of support doesn’t keep the lights on.
- kgermino 4y ago
  Because while it’s technically true (each American does contribute about $0.40 a year to NPR stations via federal taxes and the corporation for public broadcasting) it’s a tiny fraction of NPRs budget so the statement is misleading. It would be similar to complaining that people are forced to pay Ford via taxes because the government uses F-150s
- happytoexplain 4y ago
  Factual truth is required, but it is not the only part of human communication by a long shot. "It's true" is a meaningless defense of expressions (past childhood) if nobody is claiming otherwise (downvotes don't mean "I think this is a lie"). The GP leaves the degree of taxation/funding, as well as the broader context of what other entities are tax funded and to what degree, unspoken; and they imply that, whatever those facts may be, it's a bad thing in this case. The parent (and other commenters) then provided some of that relevant information (and, assuming that information is true, you presumably would appreciate such a thing). As for the downvoters, they may reasonably disagree with the parent's implication that it is a bad thing, or disapprove of their omission of details. You may reasonably disagree with this use of the downvote button, but it means they are not necessarily claiming the GP is stating an untruth.
  - AlbertCory 4y ago
    Because it's what you would call "misinformation." Individual contributions to NPR are tax-deductible. That means the public IS indeed subsidizing NPR, far beyond the government's direct payments.
    - astrange 4y ago
      They are not tax deductible for normal people in the last few years because nobody itemizes anymore.
      - AlbertCory 4y ago
        The relevant percentage is not "normal people who itemize" but "NPR contributors who itemize." Do you have that number?
        astrange 4y ago
        I don't but I think they're mostly average people. Wealthy people are too rare to matter. Less true for art museums and things because wealthy people can get more out of their donations, like their name on stuff and cool party invitations.
        AlbertCory 4y ago
        "I think they're mostly average people" that's an easily-testable hypothesis. I dispute it. As for "Wealthy people are too rare to matter" do a search on the percentage of income taxes paid by the wealthy.
    - Retric 4y ago
      Just as they are also supporting the Catholic Church, Atheist organizations, Mormons, Buddhists, etc and anyone else who fulfills the basic requirements to be tax deductible. But the reality is only ~13% of US tax payers itemize deductions so in general there isn’t any such support when the average person donates to anything. It’s really just support for the kinds of people who can itemize their taxes rather than supporting charities.
- soperj 4y ago
  because, while true, it doesn't tell the whole story. There would be a lot more than 4 podcasts being cancelled if it were solely relied on money through taxes.
- totetsu 4y ago
  Being technically true but also leaving out critical information in order to mislead people is a common practice called paltering
GreedClarifies 4y ago
CPB gets almost 500M/year from the federal government. 50% of CPB's budget goes to public radio stations. Budget of NPR is 300M. I'm going to say that any claim that NPR's public financing is very low (1% or 5%) is either malicious splitting of hairs or outright lying.
- kbelder 4y ago
  If less than 4% of their funding came from the state, they wouldn't fight so hard to keep it coming. If the state contribution was that low, it would be in NPR's best interest to just get off it entirely.
AlbertCory 4y ago
Anyone who contributes $100 to NPR deducts $100 from their income for tax purposes. So the public is paying, in that he or she would have paid $40-50 in taxes on it otherwise.
- dymk 4y ago
  So is this an argument against charitable donation to nonprofits in general? And I doubt your effective tax rate is 40-50%
  - UIUC_06 4y ago
    Tax math: it's the marginal tax rate you have to look at for deductions, i.e. the rate you'll pay on the next dollar you earn, or save on the dollar you deduct. We don't have a flat tax at the Federal level, or most states. We can find plenty of taxpayers in NY, CA, or MA who have a marginal rate of 40-50%. They are the highly affluent people that those PBS pledge drives featuring Baby Boomer musical acts are aimed at.
- ceejayoz 4y ago
  There aren't many Americans anywhere close to a 40-50% effective tax rate.
  - AlbertCory 4y ago
    California is easily close to that, when you add up Federal and State income taxes. As is New York. Just look at the continued campaign to remove the $10,000 limit on State and Local Taxes. Where's that coming from?
    - ceejayoz 4y ago
      > California is easily close to that, when you add up Federal and State income taxes. As is New York. No, it's not. Someone making $250k in California pays an effective Federal rate of 22% and state of 8%. Even someone making a million a year sees an effective rate of ~42%. (And that's before tax avoidance strategies they'll undoubtedly pursue.) https://www.forbes.com/advisor/income-tax-calculator/california/?deductions=0&filing=single&income=250000&ira=0&k401=0 https://www.forbes.com/advisor/income-tax-calculator/califor... Same thing for New York; $100k income nets out at a 20% effective rate. https://www.forbes.com/advisor/income-tax-calculator/new-york/?deductions=0&filing=single&income=100000&ira=0&k401=0 https://www.forbes.com/advisor/income-tax-calculator/new-yor... (And these are single-filers. If you've got a family, it dips substantially further.) > Just look at the continued campaign to remove the $10,000 limit on State and Local Taxes. Where's that coming from? The $10k limit isn't a limit on taxes, it's on how much state/local tax paid you can deduct, set in 2017 as a way to punish high-tax blue states. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Cuts_and_Jobs_Act_of_2017 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Cuts_and_Jobs_Act_of_2017

adamrezich 4y ago

so why is parent comment being downvoted, when it's a true statement?

Retric 4y ago
Because it’s true of every single non profit in the US. You can say the same about random churches, but that level of support doesn’t keep the lights on.
kgermino 4y ago
Because while it’s technically true (each American does contribute about $0.40 a year to NPR stations via federal taxes and the corporation for public broadcasting) it’s a tiny fraction of NPRs budget so the statement is misleading. It would be similar to complaining that people are forced to pay Ford via taxes because the government uses F-150s
happytoexplain 4y ago
Factual truth is required, but it is not the only part of human communication by a long shot. "It's true" is a meaningless defense of expressions (past childhood) if nobody is claiming otherwise (downvotes don't mean "I think this is a lie"). The GP leaves the degree of taxation/funding, as well as the broader context of what other entities are tax funded and to what degree, unspoken; and they imply that, whatever those facts may be, it's a bad thing in this case. The parent (and other commenters) then provided some of that relevant information (and, assuming that information is true, you presumably would appreciate such a thing). As for the downvoters, they may reasonably disagree with the parent's implication that it is a bad thing, or disapprove of their omission of details. You may reasonably disagree with this use of the downvote button, but it means they are not necessarily claiming the GP is stating an untruth.
- AlbertCory 4y ago
  Because it's what you would call "misinformation." Individual contributions to NPR are tax-deductible. That means the public IS indeed subsidizing NPR, far beyond the government's direct payments.
  - astrange 4y ago
    They are not tax deductible for normal people in the last few years because nobody itemizes anymore.
    - AlbertCory 4y ago
      The relevant percentage is not "normal people who itemize" but "NPR contributors who itemize." Do you have that number?
      - astrange 4y ago
        I don't but I think they're mostly average people. Wealthy people are too rare to matter. Less true for art museums and things because wealthy people can get more out of their donations, like their name on stuff and cool party invitations.
        AlbertCory 4y ago
        "I think they're mostly average people" that's an easily-testable hypothesis. I dispute it. As for "Wealthy people are too rare to matter" do a search on the percentage of income taxes paid by the wealthy.
  - Retric 4y ago
    Just as they are also supporting the Catholic Church, Atheist organizations, Mormons, Buddhists, etc and anyone else who fulfills the basic requirements to be tax deductible. But the reality is only ~13% of US tax payers itemize deductions so in general there isn’t any such support when the average person donates to anything. It’s really just support for the kinds of people who can itemize their taxes rather than supporting charities.
soperj 4y ago
because, while true, it doesn't tell the whole story. There would be a lot more than 4 podcasts being cancelled if it were solely relied on money through taxes.
totetsu 4y ago
Being technically true but also leaving out critical information in order to mislead people is a common practice called paltering

GreedClarifies 4y ago

CPB gets almost 500M/year from the federal government. 50% of CPB's budget goes to public radio stations. Budget of NPR is 300M. I'm going to say that any claim that NPR's public financing is very low (1% or 5%) is either malicious splitting of hairs or outright lying.

kbelder 4y ago
If less than 4% of their funding came from the state, they wouldn't fight so hard to keep it coming. If the state contribution was that low, it would be in NPR's best interest to just get off it entirely.

AlbertCory 4y ago

Anyone who contributes $100 to NPR deducts $100 from their income for tax purposes. So the public is paying, in that he or she would have paid $40-50 in taxes on it otherwise.

dymk 4y ago
So is this an argument against charitable donation to nonprofits in general? And I doubt your effective tax rate is 40-50%
- UIUC_06 4y ago
  Tax math: it's the marginal tax rate you have to look at for deductions, i.e. the rate you'll pay on the next dollar you earn, or save on the dollar you deduct. We don't have a flat tax at the Federal level, or most states. We can find plenty of taxpayers in NY, CA, or MA who have a marginal rate of 40-50%. They are the highly affluent people that those PBS pledge drives featuring Baby Boomer musical acts are aimed at.
ceejayoz 4y ago
There aren't many Americans anywhere close to a 40-50% effective tax rate.
- AlbertCory 4y ago
  California is easily close to that, when you add up Federal and State income taxes. As is New York. Just look at the continued campaign to remove the $10,000 limit on State and Local Taxes. Where's that coming from?
  - ceejayoz 4y ago
    > California is easily close to that, when you add up Federal and State income taxes. As is New York. No, it's not. Someone making $250k in California pays an effective Federal rate of 22% and state of 8%. Even someone making a million a year sees an effective rate of ~42%. (And that's before tax avoidance strategies they'll undoubtedly pursue.) https://www.forbes.com/advisor/income-tax-calculator/california/?deductions=0&filing=single&income=250000&ira=0&k401=0 https://www.forbes.com/advisor/income-tax-calculator/califor... Same thing for New York; $100k income nets out at a 20% effective rate. https://www.forbes.com/advisor/income-tax-calculator/new-york/?deductions=0&filing=single&income=100000&ira=0&k401=0 https://www.forbes.com/advisor/income-tax-calculator/new-yor... (And these are single-filers. If you've got a family, it dips substantially further.) > Just look at the continued campaign to remove the $10,000 limit on State and Local Taxes. Where's that coming from? The $10k limit isn't a limit on taxes, it's on how much state/local tax paid you can deduct, set in 2017 as a way to punish high-tax blue states. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Cuts_and_Jobs_Act_of_2017 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Cuts_and_Jobs_Act_of_2017