I’ve looked over what I wrote and have been unable to find the post that states that I don’t think NASCAR benefits from tax breaks given to racetracks. Can you please point it out?
The other day I bought a case of canned fish for $6. After I sent in some paperwork, they mailed me a $1 rebate. Would you say that I’m now being funded by Big Tuna?
I get a 5 cent discount on gas by using a certain credit card. Am I being funded by VISA?
Sure, here you go:
But maybe I’m misreading it. Could you clarify what you meant by and not?
You’re being pedantic.
Generally when someone says that an entity or organization is federally funded, it means that the money they count on to operate their organization comes from the federal government in the form of grants, benefits or aid. The receiving organization would reflect these funds as revenue on their profit and loss statement.
If your tax bill is less than it would have otherwise been, that’s not the source of your funding that allows you to operate.
Sorry, still don’t understand. Are you arguing that the payments to you don’t have monetary value, or are you arguing with the word “funded”. Because if you’re arguing with the word “funded”, I said earlier feel free to replace it with the word “benefits”, so I don’t understand what you’re arguing about. Perhaps you missed that post?
By pedantic, do you mean “excessively correct”?
And I’m sorry, but I still don’t understand your position. Could you pick the multiple-choice item that best represents your position so that I know what I’m arguing about:
[ol]
[li]Tax breaks don’t provide a benefit[/li][li]Tax breaks provide a benefit, but it’s a non-monetary benefit[/li][li]Tax breaks provide a monetary benefit but money received from tax breaks is different in some way than money received from other forms of payments[/li][li]Tax breaks provide a monetary benefit and money received from tax breaks is identical to money received from other forms of payments, but I don’t like to use the word “funding” to describe them[/li][/ol]
I think it’s the same argument you can make about why the Fish and Wildlife Service spends money protecting condors and doesn’t spend money protecting crows; condors need the help but crows are doing okay on their own.
The genres of country and rock have large fan bases and get all the support that they need to exist. Opera and jazz have much smaller fan bases that arguably aren’t large enough to support the genres.
You can make a valid argument that if opera and jazz don’t have enough fans to support them, then they should be allowed to disappear. But if we are going to hand out government funds, there should certainly be a needs test attached.
Sure. The organizations that own racetracks receive the tax break. As far as I know, NASCAR doesn’t own any racetracks. Organizations like the International Speedway Corporation and Speedway Motorsports receive the tax break. That is what I meant. Whether this benefits NASCAR or not is not something I know nor posted on.
I agree. A system with gives a deduction in taxes due in return for a specific action is subsidizing that action. It is pedantic IMO to say charities (including the arts) aren’t also subsidized by the charitable deduction as well as direct govt funding. These are ‘tax code expenditures’.
The preference for one over the other method of subsidy is a matter of where the choice resides which specific arts to subsidize. In case of artistic orgs which qualify for the charitable deduction, the individual tax payer decides which ones if any to subsidize, and is required to put their own money (the after tax amount) into the pot also. In case of direct funding the representatives gaining 50%+1 (or whatever other formula like Electoral College) decide and everyone else has to go along, though OTOH to a lot of people it’s really not their money. Not saying the tax code shouldn’t be progressive, but the fact that it is, and a lot of the voting is about what to do with other people’s money, should be reflected in what the govt does and limit it to what it really has to do, just IMO. So IMO the charitable deduction is a superior way of subsidizing the arts to direct govt funding and I see no problem dispensing altogether with the latter method.
However I would be cautious about treating stuff like this as overarching matters of principal. If you really think the govt should decide which arts get subsidized and then do it with tax money directly, fine that’s your opinion. Likewise if you agree with me, or if you don’t think the arts should be subsidized directly or via a deduction.
Fair enough, thanks for the clarification.
Well, yes, not very well, but a dollar is a dollar, and they hooked you up with it. Unless that dollar is somehow non-fungible, and you cannot use it for anything but buying more tuna, then yes, Big Tuna is funding your lifestyle.
Change it slightly, say that Big Tuna sent you a rebate for 20% all of your groceries last year, would you then consider it to be funding you?
Oh, for fuck’s sake, the NEA doesn’t exist to make music “enjoyed by rich people”; it exists so that music (and arts of other forms) can be enjoyed by everyone. The entire point is to make are and entertainment available to the general public at costs comparable to other entertainments without being covered in ads for cigarettes and beer or periodically interrupted by commercials hawking big SUVs and female hygiene products.
Oh, and for the issue that the NEA doesn’t support certain types of music “like country or blue grass[sic]”: Earl Scruggs, Bluegrass Banjo Player, 1989 NEA National Heritage Fellow. One of the critical missions of the NEA is to support traditional arts and music that are no longer widely popular but still valued for their contributions to currently popular arts.
Stranger
Not sure actually. But do you consider that different than “Big Tuna sent you a check for $10,000 to do anything you want with”?
What about you hire a gardener to mow your grass for $50. After he’s done, he says “Well, since today is Wednesday, it’s only $40” Did he just fund you $10?
Suppose you pay the gardener, and then he says “thanks, that settles us. Hey, you’re such a great poster, here’s $10 for your great posts.” Does that $10 spend differently than in your scenario?
It doesn’t spend differently, no. But I will record it in a different section in my Mint budget 
This series of examples seems to me off point. The key subsidy or ‘funding’ via the tax code is is subsidization/funding of artistic orgs qualifying for the charitable deduction, not ‘funding’ of the tax payer. In your analogy with tuna, the tuna buyer is the tax payer, not the arts organization. If Big Tuna agreed to rebate you $1 on every $6 if you donated the tuna to a food bank, would Big Tuna be ‘funding’ the food bank? Yes. Likewise if your gardener agreed to have you pay him less than the usual fee for him to go mow the food bank’s lawn, he’d clearly be funding/subsidizing the food bank. That’s what the govt does wrt to organizations qualifying for the charitable contribution deduction.
IMO that form of subsidy funding, via charitable deduction, while the same $1 for $1 as direct funding, is superior because a) the individual gets to choose what to contribute to and not get roped into to what a slight majority of other people (around half of whom don’t pay income tax, the payroll tax isn’t directly relevant here) want to fund. And b) that taxpayer still has to give net money, the after tax amount, so must really want to support the thing.
Trump is not a conservative, I’m not sure what a ‘conservative’ is supposed to be, but zeroing out the NEA is fine IMO, though again I don’t consider it a crime against humanity if it continues. It’s small on the fed govt spending scale, obviously.
A vigorous art scene can be a cultural and political strength. Sometimes public funding is critical to getting innovative artists over the economic hump to be free to seek success. Very often the best artists are not the best businesspeople or marketers.
The CIA helped foster the modern art movement by bankrolling people like Pollock, de Kooning, and Rothko.
For one, because opera singers’ profession isn’t one that involves sickening or killing their neighbors and all humanity.
All industry is a series of trade-offs. Opera singers don’t provide energy for homes and businesses. If the energy industry has moved beyond coal for whatever reasons, and miners are obsolete, then maybe we should allow the profession of mining to disappear. Likewise, if opera can’take put enough assessment in seats to pay for itself because tastes in music have moved on, then opera should be permitted to disappear.