El Feo said:That just occurred to you? Geez, you're normally more on the ball than that. Tell, me, BKM, how many of your hard earned dollars does Rupert Murdoch extort from you in the form of taxes to pay for that biased "reporting"?
None, you say?
The only direct government funding NPR receives is through competitive grants from government agencies for specific projects. Such grants are awarded by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the National Science Foundation, and the National Endowments for the Arts and the Humanities, and typically represent only 2% of total revenues.
allan said:Sorry to jump into this on my first post, but I want to point out that the United States government does not fund NPR directly. According to their site:
Total revenue for NPR last year was $143,821,613, so 2% of that would be $2,876,432 (at least by my calculations).
Now, compare that to the $12.9 million dollar grant made to Rupert Murdoch's New York Post, or the fact that News Corp only pays a 6% tax rate, versus 31% for the Disney Corp (that equates to a savings of $300 Million).
So, yes, the government does take my money and give it to Rupert Murdoch.
BKM said:...(who also noted the large sponsorships by such evil leftish institutions as Exxon/Mobile and Archers Daniels Midland)...
allan said:O'Reilly sells himself as a truthteller, someone who is always honest (though he is clearly not). if someone is going to sell themselves that way, they have to expect that people are going to, as Bill would say, "call him on it". He was called on it, and he reacted like a three-year throwing a tantrum. It was a sad spectacle.
El Feo said:First of all, I'd like to know who told you the New York Post received a $12.9 million federal grant. I'd like to see some backup for that.
Secondly, News Corp pays every penny in taxes that it owes. The "savings" over Disney's taxes is not a subsidy.
Respectfully, I'd like to say I think you're wrong.
If Chairman Mao was in charge and running NPR Exxon and ADM would lick his boots and grin. Exxon aint my pal. You can be conservative and believe most corporations are morally neutral to morally evil.
why should News Corp be given a different tax rate than other media companies -- it seems like a subsidy to me.
allan said:Sure, I assumed you would. The information came from a New York Times article entitled "Post Gets $24.4 Million in Incentives to Stay in New York" published July 21, 1998. I don't know that there is a web accessible version of it.
As far as the second point, the $300 Million is a subsidy, why should News Corp be given a different tax rate than other media companies -- it seems like a subsidy to me.
But if an 80% reduction in tax rate is not something you consider a subsidy, I am sure I can find other examples if you like.
El Feo said:What say we form a right-left coalition to get rid of corporate welfare entirely - from ag subsidies to News Corp grants.
And BKM, you, Allan and lurker are helping make my point. If NPR can be 98% privately funded, why not 100%? As EG (and Adam Smith) notes, those corporations ain't in the business for my good - but their funding is a hell of a lot more palatable than gov't funding (direct or indirect) is in my book.