Meh, I disagree. Art galleries, museums and public broadcasting only really appeal to "nerds" and the elderly. Those people can pay out of pocket.Wow, I am disappointed and disheartened by this position. :shut: Art galleries, and museums are wonderful places of learning. Public broadcasting gives you a view of the world found no where else. This doesn't diminish because you don't find these things worthwhile. It just means you are missing out.Yes, galleries, museums, public broadcasting should exist - and it's good they do; they add to many people's lives. I just hate the idea of paying any amount for them! Do you agree with the concept of National Parks? To me, they are treasures.
Meh, I disagree. Art galleries, museums and public broadcasting only really appeal to "nerds" and the elderly. Those people can pay out of pocket.Wow, I am disappointed and disheartened by this position. :shut: Art galleries, and museums are wonderful places of learning. Public broadcasting gives you a view of the world found no where else. This doesn't diminish because you don't find these things worthwhile. It just means you are missing out.Yes, galleries, museums, public broadcasting should exist - and it's good they do; they add to many people's lives. I just hate the idea of paying any amount for them! Do you agree with the concept of National Parks? To me, they are treasures.Oy, I am somewhat embarrassed to admit, I'm not very familiar with them. But some national parks - I'm thinking Yellowstone, Grand Canyon, seem definitely worth funding, because they are magnificent to look at.
But some national parks - I'm thinking Yellowstone, Grand Canyon, seem definitely worth funding, because they are magnificent to look at.Great! Now what's the difference between that and funding (at basically de minimus amounts) museums and public TV that put things magnificent to look at (and hear, and learn about) within reach of even more people?
But some national parks - I'm thinking Yellowstone, Grand Canyon, seem definitely worth funding, because they are magnificent to look at.Great! Now what's the difference between that and funding (at basically de minimus amounts) museums and public TV that put things magnificent to look at (and hear, and learn about) within reach of even more people? You beat me to that point! :coolsmile:
But some national parks - I'm thinking Yellowstone, Grand Canyon, seem definitely worth funding, because they are magnificent to look at.Great! Now what's the difference between that and funding (at basically de minimus amounts) museums and public TV that put things magnificent to look at (and hear, and learn about) within reach of even more people?IDK, it's just my opinion. You seem to be reaching over the top here Doug, I'm aware these fora are relatively free to the taxpayer and enjoyable to some, and I'm aware how a democracy works - I simply don't like it. I accept it though.
I think there’s a legitimate question about what counts as stuff “in the public interest”, and at what amounts those things should be funded. E.g., I don’t think pro sports should be funded by the government. Sports is basically brainless entertainment that is all too easily self-funding. (Material for fitness and exercise might be a different matter – another reason for public and national parks). OTOH history, science, nature, and arguably some “cultural” (arts) stuff is worth funding, because of their educational value. Same reason the government should help fund public libraries. Without these kinds of free or relatively inexpensive educational opportunities, motivated but underprivileged citizens will be unable to learn and better themselves. Even Andrew Carnegie realized that.
My gripe is the principle of the thing.Can you say a little more about this? Why the gripe? What principle? Stephen
Yes, galleries, museums, public broadcasting should exist - and it's good they do; they add to many people's lives. I just hate the idea of paying any amount for them!Seriously, why? Your part of the taxes that fund such things is so small you wouldn't likely get a refund that would buy you bubblegum.
Actually the article is more about tax subidies to the upper middle class and wealthy, than funding of sports and the arts.Gary's right and instead of arguing about the institutions that mean much in our lives we should be focusing on ways to raise revenues to sustain them. IMO sports arenas have the same "bread and circuses" value as they did when the Romans created them and I'll leave it at that. Not a sports fan but many friends and family are, so what. Now on to the lunch pin of the tax issue: carried interest. This is the one tax loophole for the extremely wealthy that, if closed could earn us $21billion in ten years. This is going to be the next major tax fight in Congress and the reps. are already digging in for a fight with Boehner declaring a "line in the sand" on this issue. We"ll see how the 113 Congress handles this hot potato, which if Obama is successful will cap his career. http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/tax-reform/news/2012/12/18/48469/congress-should-close-the-carried-interest-loophole/ Cap't Jack
Sports is basically brainless entertainment that is all too easily self-funding. (Material for fitness and exercise might be a different matter -- another reason for public and national parks).Hard to argue with this! But, talking about sports being brainless entertainment gets very close to elitism.
Yes, galleries, museums, public broadcasting should exist - and it's good they do; they add to many people's lives. I just hate the idea of paying any amount for them!Seriously, why? Your part of the taxes that fund such things is so small you wouldn't likely get a refund that would buy you bubblegum.I'm a miser.
My gripe is the principle of the thing.Can you say a little more about this? Why the gripe? What principle? StephenThe principle of saving or spending money as I see fit.
... talking about sports being brainless entertainment gets very close to elitism.Well, the point is that public funding should be for things that are of real social benefit, that aren't adequately funded by the private sector. Public education is of such benefit. Museums, PBS, libraries are educational. Sports isn't educational; it's mere entertainment. It's like the circus. Nothing wrong with the circus but apart from it making people smile, there is no real social benefit from circuses. ("Panem et circenses" notwithstanding). Also, sports and circuses are self-funding. That said, one huge source of revenue for sports is local governments who give money or large tax breaks for new stadiums. One might argue that only a portion of PBS programming is really educational, or that some museum exhibits aren't really educational, etc. I would agree with that contention, and think that the government should be giving these organs closer oversight regulation to be sure they are complying with their mission.
I see both, education and entertainment of the public, equally important. It may be difficult to recognize this in our complex society, but try to scale it down to an island of a few dozen people and where you are the chief. I would want to educate my tribe as much as I would try to keep them entertained. Boredom is probably as dangerous as ignorance.
Yes, galleries, museums, public broadcasting should exist - and it's good they do; they add to many people's lives. I just hate the idea of paying any amount for them!Seriously, why? Your part of the taxes that fund such things is so small you wouldn't likely get a refund that would buy you bubblegum.I'm a miser....who'll pay for National Parks. You aren't being consistent, at all.
... talking about sports being brainless entertainment gets very close to elitism.Well, the point is that public funding should be for things that are of real social benefit, that aren't adequately funded by the private sector. Public education is of such benefit. Museums, PBS, libraries are educational. Sports isn't educational; it's mere entertainment. It's like the circus. Nothing wrong with the circus but apart from it making people smile, there is no real social benefit from circuses. ("Panem et circenses" notwithstanding). Also, sports and circuses are self-funding. That said, one huge source of revenue for sports is local governments who give money or large tax breaks for new stadiums. One might argue that only a portion of PBS programming is really educational, or that some museum exhibits aren't really educational, etc. I would agree with that contention, and think that the government should be giving these organs closer oversight regulation to be sure they are complying with their mission.Sadly I'd bet there are many more Americans who value sports over museums, national parks, and libraries. As I frequently tell folks, I don't have the 'sports gene'. :) However, I do watch the Niners occasionally and I've been known to head out to a ball game as well. Regardless, I agree that sports should not be funded by taxpayers. The problem, to me is, that local politicians only think the sports team will draw revenue and rarely seem to think it through and see the down sides. I believe Oakland residents are still smarting over the deal getting the Raiders to return. And we see how Santa Clara does with the 49ers.... Take care, Derek
Sadly I’d bet there are many more Americans who value sports over museums, national parks, and libraries. As I frequently tell folks, I don’t have the ‘sports gene’. However, I do watch the Niners occasionally and I’ve been known to head out to a ball game as well. Regardless, I agree that sports should not be funded by taxpayers. The problem, to me is, that local politicians only think the sports team will draw revenue and rarely seem to think it through and see the down sides.Also sadly, sports can also be used to gererate not only tax issues but in the case of Pennsylvania Gov. Corbett used as a political boost to his career by siding with the Penn. State alumni on the NCAA sanctions. With popularity slipping he's suing the association to have the sanctions reduced hoping that this stance will increase his chances of reelection. This despite the fact that he was the Attorney General when the incident was uncovered, dragging his feet on prosecuting Sandusky. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/03/sports/ncaafootball/governor-announces-lawsuit-against-ncaa-over-penn-state-penalties.html?_r=0 Cap't Jack
Yes, galleries, museums, public broadcasting should exist - and it's good they do; they add to many people's lives. I just hate the idea of paying any amount for them!Seriously, why? Your part of the taxes that fund such things is so small you wouldn't likely get a refund that would buy you bubblegum.I'm a miser....who'll pay for National Parks. You aren't being consistent, at all.Everyone who pays taxes will pay for them. What I would like to do, and what I have to do are obviously different - most of the time.
My gripe is the principle of the thing.Can you say a little more about this? Why the gripe? What principle? StephenThe principle of saving or spending money as I see fit. Well, I don't really see why you should be able to spend all the money you receive (before tax) on what you see fit. That wouldn't seem moral in principle, unless perhaps you argue that would serve society best as well as your self somehow. And I can't see that it would work, there is lots of stuff we need that individuals left completely to their own devises probably wouldn't spend on. Stephen
I think there's a legitimate question about what counts as stuff "in the public interest", and at what amounts those things should be funded. E.g., I don't think pro sports should be funded by the government. Sports is basically brainless entertainment that is all too easily self-funding. (Material for fitness and exercise might be a different matter -- another reason for public and national parks). OTOH history, science, nature, and arguably some "cultural" (arts) stuff is worth funding, because of their educational value. Same reason the government should help fund public libraries. Without these kinds of free or relatively inexpensive educational opportunities, motivated but underprivileged citizens will be unable to learn and better themselves. Even Andrew Carnegie realized that.I don't like professional sports, however your delineation here Doug is very subjective. I think a panel of well reasoned individuals could handily argue that both Public Sporting events and Art Museums are equally valuable to a culturally balanced society. Ergo...they both deserve public funds.