"President Trump said Friday he is stripping Harvard University of its tax-exempt status.“We are going to be taking away Harvard’s Tax Exempt Status. It’s what they deserve!” he said in a Truth Social post.
I think the post is losing something in the paraphrase. Trump's post speaks of doing something in the future. The NY Post portrays him as in the process of doing it now.
In any event, this is a big deal. Also a big deal in the news this morning: "Trump orders end to federal funding for NPR and PBS" (NPR).
President Trump signed an executive order Thursday directing the Corporation for Public Broadcasting's board of directors to "cease federal funding for NPR and PBS," the nation's primary public broadcasters. Trump contends that news coverage by NPR and PBS contains a left-wing bias. The federal funding for NPR and PBS is appropriated by Congress....
"Which viewpoints NPR and PBS promote does not matter," the executive order says. "What does matter is that neither entity presents a fair, accurate or unbiased portrayal of current events to tax-paying citizens."
Mga Post
105 komento:
...Hawaiian judge in 3...2...1...
..a more constructive strategy would be to sell them off to the highest bidder like they are assets but Trump won't get 'permission' for that either...
NPR protected us from hearing the Hunter Biden laptop story. I don't know what Trump is on about here. Doesn't he know that the simple truth is that the Democrats are our natural rulers?
I heard yesterday that so far in the 2nd Trump term there have been ~200 lawsuits filed against his admin for various "wrongs" committed to date. Let's add 1 more to that list...
Most studies show conservatives to be far more generous than progressives.
Leftism thrives on theft. Make 'em pay they're own way. We'll see what happens.
The report by Harvard of what they were doing looks bad. The report is their's, not the government's, yet Harvard doesn't seem to be acting to correct the things they did. Trump is not doing much more than following the law.
https://www.harvardmagazine.com/2025/04/harvard-antisemitism-anti-muslim-report-findings
There is no reason for taxpayers to fund TV or radio. None.
Fans of public radio for years have been defending public support by claiming there is almost no public support. So it shouldn't matter much.
Trump stripping Harvard of its tax exempt status hopefully is accompanied by a bill of particulars, a roadmap to restoring their status. If it doesn't, then I oppose the change. But if it does, then bring it on.
NPR and PBS are antiquated concepts, much like the USPS. The notion was having a tool that allowed the government to communicate to the people. That always made them a political tool, but the intention was to provide transparency. They long ago quit providing that transparency, and the role they would otherwise have can be fulfilled easily enough outside the government. The old argument, "if we don't do it, who will? " Has time and again been proven that others can and or more willing to bring the type of media that NPR and PBS used to provide.
Harvard's endowment is $53.2 Billion, billion with a "B".
"Trump is stripping Harvard of its tax-exempt status" can easily be read as referring to something he's intending to do in the near future. Like when I see something I like and tell the person I'm with, "Oh, I'm getting myself one of those."
Got to have a Jones for this, a Jones for that, but this runnin' with the Bob Joneses ain't where it's at
Next step is to tax the university endowments. They need to pay their fair share.
I would like to see a comparison of the way private universities, such as Harvard, manage their endowments and their tax burdens, with comparably-sized state schools, which manage their budget with state oversight. It's hard to accept that Harvard needs tax-exempt status when their endowment grows so impressively. And it's certainly hard to reconcile their sense of entitled independence when it comes to law-breaking, with the largess they are receiving by claiming the exemption.
As for NPR: The government's contribution is what percentage of the uptake? And similarly, if NPR wants to claim its independence from government oversight, then they can begin by broadcasting content that is independent, rather than in service of The Party.
Let ActBlue provide their funding, since they seem to be better aligned.
It's for their own good.
Trump has been doing journalist's job of exposing government malfeasance for more than ten years now. Who needs PBS or NPR?
"Trump contends that news coverage by NPR and PBS contains a left-wing bias."
i'd like to hear someone argue against this.
by argue,
i don't mean: NPR's spokesperson Says they don't..
i don't mean: someone says that NPR's spokesperson Says they don't..
i mean; i'd like to hear an ACTUAL argument, supported by Facts;
rebutting this.
i'll wait
Bill, Republic of Texas said...
“Next step is to tax the university endowments. They need to pay their fair share.”
No tax breaks for billionaires!!
Government should not fund any news outlet domestically. That "private/public" entity will never be "independent" because there will always be a bias, conscious or not, towards "more government."
"It's a large endowment the size of a small endowment! Tis but a pittance!" - Harvard (allegedly)
I used to listen to NPR (KPCC) daily on my commute to and from my seminary degree and then a lot over the weekend and later in the day. I even really liked Prairie Home Companion (though Click and Clack was always much more entertaining). I lean conservative but really do like balanced coverage and to get that rightly academic view from both sides, strengths and weaknesses of those we agree with and those we disagree with.
NPR always leaned left but it really did just become propaganda in the last 20 years. It's always just the weaknesses of the Right and the strengths of the Left (unless the latter aren't left enough). I actually don't look for cheerleading or grandstanding or other -ings in my news, so never liked conservative radio and really did and still do want a news source that provides balanced perspectives, not advocacy for ambitious strivers.
I like the idea of public funded media. KUSC playing classical was always a better alternative than most of the now cookie-cutter radio stations (clear channel -- spit). Especially since all of our media devolves toward easy, cheap ratings like what A&E and History Channel have become.
But if NPR and the others aren't going to live into their mission and niche, but just become another avenue for the typical reductionistic grandstanding, there's no reason for public funding to keep it going.
I'm the audience they say they want to reach, highly educated, mostly informed, socially and artistically curious. But they've made it clear they don't respect me enough to treat topics with fairness and rigor, choosing to demonize those they disagree with, more often than not to support corruption and established powers.
“If you’ve not yet watched yesterday’s FoxNews DOGE bros interview, it’s really a must. DOGE has unconvered just ASTOUNDING levels of incompetence in our federal government. In fact, incompetence doesn’t even begin to reach it. Rather it seems very much to be a system that was intentionally set up without, or more likely robbed of, even basic internal controls so that TRILLIONS and TRILLIONS of money could be spent in ways that are completely unauditable and therefore unaccountable.”
When I listen to NPR and Steve Inskeep in particular, I clearly hear a bias in the reporting. When discussing an issue they always have an expert or two who are presumably unbiased but always are stridently against whatever Trump or Republicans are doing. They slant the questions in ways that make Trump and Republicans look bad. Hope this executive order sticks.
1. NPR only gets something like 1% of its revenue from the federal government. It gets most of its money from local stations. It's a start.
2. Under the Bob Jones case, the IRS can revoke Harvard's tax exempt status because of its discrimination.
I found out years ago that the President of the law review is elected. Now, members of the law review are selected based on race. That's not how it was done at Creighton.
I like some of PBS's programming.
PBS "news" is just more democrat party.
NPR must no longer be funded by tax payers. That has been true for years. No one ever have the balls to actually do it.
have = has.
Headlines are always written in present tense, part of the old journalism rule (featured prominently in Strunk & White's Elements of Style because it is good advice for all writers) about using the active voice:
JAPAN BOMBS PEARL HARBOR; FDR DECLARES WAR
I first noticed widespread passive-voice journalism during Clinton's first term when the phrase and variants of "mistakes were made" kept popping up as though no actual person had any agency in them. Soon enough, as Rush famously riffed on so eloquently, we had headlines like "SUV mows down crowd" as if there was no driver at all and it was the "eeeevil polluting SUV at fault."
If Trump was like Michael Mann, he might consider suing the NYPost for suggesting he was stripping anybody.
Conservative talk radio is NOT tax payer funded.
NPR can exist with out tax payers.
I do have to thank NPR for informing me, in 1992, of Mauer's translation of Fr. Baltasar Gracian, S.J.'s "The Art of Worldly Wisdom."
Best book ever! I gave copies to the Creighton Prep Class of 2025.
Tough times for narrative workers. Are there any other jobs they could do?
Why can the party that controls all three branches of government not simply pass a law to do these things, rather than attempt to do them by decree?
I assume it's because even other Republicans realize these are bad ideas. Removing the tax exempt status of Harvard seems popular, but sets a precedent that will remove the tax exempt status from institutions Republicans care about.
Congress has toyed with the idea of defunding NPR and PBS for decades, but somehow they are popular enough they continue to get funding.
All of these decrees will get shut down by the judicial branch and probably completely reversed in 2-4 years when power swings back to the Democrats. If the Republicans want to make lasting changes rather than just cause temporary chaos, they need to pass laws.
Harvard is wealthy but, relatively speaking, not as wealthy as it once was. In 1982, Harvard had a $2B endowment and the richest American, Daniel Ludwig, had a net worth of $2B. While Harvard’s endowment has grown to $53B, the richest Americans have 4 or 5 times that, and Harvard would come in at #18 on the Forbes 400 list.
The president of NPR sez 'truth gets in the way'.
Such a quintessential leftist notion.
corrupt Biden family. Never any curiosity from NPR ABC NBC CBS etc. - just Soviet-mob-like obedience.
"precedent that will remove the tax exempt status from institutions Republicans care about."
Which ones and why?
Bob Jones is the precedent, for how it was dealing with issues of race. Harvard and others are being treated in the same way as Bob Jones. Just because they have fancier clothes and summer plans doesn't mean they can be discriminatory or anti-semitic.
Harvard gets audited for non-profit compliance failed by its executive staff.
Isn't one of the things a non-profit must do to retain tax exempt status is to distribute a certain and high amount of donations and investment earnings to the activity for which the entity was first incorporated under tax exemption? I don't see how Harvard qualifies any longer.
"While Harvard’s endowment has grown to $53B, the richest Americans have 4 or 5 times that, and Harvard would come in at #18 on the Forbes 400 list."
So, Harvard should pay taxes equivalent to what these billionaires pay, right?
Left Bank of the Charles said, "...Harvard would come in at #18 on the Forbes 400 list."
Oh no. 18?!? That's terrible. Just one more point lower and Harvard will need to start twerking in a tube top for tricks every Tuesday on Massachusetts Ave to make ends meet. Any lower than #20 and Harvard will need handouts from the local food pantry and CPS will take her kids away.
The only NP stations I listen to, anymore, play music all day. I don't think there's any news or commentary on them at all. I would hat to lose them.
As for Harvard, as others have pointed out, they are engaging in action in violation of the law. Their tax status should be revoked.
I used to love NPR, but in the last decade or so, it has been indistinguishable from the NYT or other corporate media. NPR has no purpose.
Uri Berliner, the experienced journalist who retired last year, could have been put in charge, but the organization is too far gone and isn't worth saving.
Is there any institution that is more "1%" than Harvard? The left should LOVE this. Why don't they?
For that matter, why exactly does Harvard get my tax money so that they can go and poach the worlds greatest professors and sit on top of a giant endowment like Scrooge McDuck all while keep my kids and your kids out of their Billionaire's club. Why does the left support this? Smells like a buncha bullshit to me.
"which ones and why"
Probably churches will be among the first. Especially the big evangelical "megachurches" that the lefties love to hate.
Bob Jones is not precedent for this. Bob Jones had an official deliberate racist policy. Harvard does not have any such policy and claims to be compliant with anti-discrimination laws. (I know you'll say they're lying, but the administration will need to prove that; they will not succeed.)
Frankly, I think these EOs are being done in such a half-assed way deliberately. When they face legal challenges and lose it reinforces the impression that everything is a big conspiracy against the Republicans and invigorates the ignorant among their base.
None of this matters, as none of this will stand.
Sorry for the cynicism, but from tax status, to deportations, to federal funding, this particular chief executive will simply not be permitted to govern in the way voters chose. Judges will prevent it.
I guess it does matter to an extent. We will learn if congressional Republican Trump supporters have the guts to back up these actions with legislation that will be harder to challenge in court.
NPR can exist with out tax payers.
In theory, yes. Whether they will is more debatable.
"The federal funding for NPR and PBS is appropriated by Congress" At least Trump is trying. Amazing, isn't it, that decade after decade the GOP in Congress just let funding for all sorts of lefty orgs continue.
Begley the evidence will come out that the Feds funded Corporation for Public Broadcasting in many indirect ways we were not aware of, and that will explain why they are squealing like pigs.
Really, if that was all the extra underwriting they needed, why would they fight so hard for that tiny 1% when they could just increase their 99% budget by 1.1% and more than make it up?
Removing the tax exempt status of Harvard seems popular, but sets a precedent that will remove the tax exempt status from institutions Republicans care about.
A guy is at a ball game with his wife. As they're sitting in the stands, other guys keep coming by and kissing his wife, grabbing her, fondling her breasts, etc. The guy just sits there ignoring it.
Finally, a man sitting behind them leans down and says, "Hey bud, don't you see what's going on here? What the hell?"
The guy says, " I know. I know. It happens every time I bring her to the game."
The man behind says, "Then why do you bring her?"
The guy says, "Because if I leave her home, everybody fucks her."
MJB Wolf:
NPR had no comment for the NPR story on this. LOL.
Steven, Bob Jones is explicitly the precedent for this. You don't like that, but it's actually the issue being used. There is disagreement whether that is true, but it seems the recent report on anti-semitism put out seems to hold that it's true. If someone abuses their kids but says they weren't, it doesn't make the abuse less real.
You just don't like that Harvard, or other left-leaning institutions, are being held to account like right leaning ones have long been.
And if a church is overtly violating the tax code with its politics, whether Evangelical or progressive, I'm all for cutting their tax status. This just has to be applied evenly for white mega churches or Black ones, and every shade and creed in between. Which is hasn't been. I actually don't think churches should have tax exempt status to begin with, but that's a different topic.
Chief Justice John Roberts, Associate Justices Neil Gorsuch, Ketanji Brown Jackson, and Elena Kagan are Harvard alums. They will all have to recuse. Or at least they should. Kagan, for sure, should recuse as she was Dean of Harvard Law.
meanwhile..
My Question Remains:
WHAT HAPPENED TO THAT HUGE STOCK CRASH?
remember?
because of That Darned Trump; the stock market was Supposed to have had a HUGE Crash..
Our 401k's were Supposed to be Ruined.
WHAT HAPPENED TO THAT HUGE STOCK CRASH?
Where did it go?
In the Washington area the PBS station — WETA — seems to exist as a playpen for Sharon Percy Rockefeller and her bestest buddies-wussies
Bob Jones had an official deliberate racist policy. Harvard does not have any such policy and claims to be compliant with anti-discrimination laws.
You seem rather ignorant of the actual facts. Constitutional law experts differ with your opinion on that Steven. Maybe you should read Harvard's just-published self-examination in which they admit in detail allowing discrimination and harassment and violence against students which violated their own policies. Allowed it for years.
Yet they have taken no corrective actions or proposed any. This is exactly like the Klan and Democrats blocking black students from attending universities in 1950s. Trump could send in the National Guard like Eisenhower did. Harvard is LUCKY to simply lose (temporarily, staying with the Bob Jones analogy) tax exempt status. Lucky! Maybe we should place them under a DOJ-managed consent decree like much of the south was.
I'm with Leland @ 8:16.
PBS and NPR* have outlived their usefulness. They may have had a justifiable purpose back in the day when we had 3 over-the-air TV stations, and were limited to AM radio, but times have changed. We now have a gazillion TV and radio (and other media) offerings from which to pick and choose.
Government programs are like old soldiers, but they don't even "fade away," much less ever "die."
As Pres. Reagan so famously said, "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we’ll ever see on this Earth."
[That was spoken 60 years ago: can you imagine what he would make of today's federal government expansion into all the corners of our lives?]
https://nationalcenter.org/ncppr/2001/11/04/ronald-reagans-a-time-for-choosing-1964/
* I'll include VOA among programs that have been made obsolete by technological advances in communication.
"Left Bank of the Charles said...
Harvard is wealthy but, relatively speaking, not as wealthy as it once was. In 1982, Harvard had a $2B endowment and the richest American, Daniel Ludwig, had a net worth of $2B. While Harvard’s endowment has grown to $53B, the richest Americans have 4 or 5 times that, and Harvard would come in at #18 on the Forbes 400 list."
"Relatively speaking." What a load of shit. Here's all that matters, their 1982 endowment is worth $6.6 billion today. Far short of their current $53 billion. They are far, far wealthier.
Ending Harvard’s tax exempt status will force all the others to take serious note and change their ways. It’s curious to me that he’s singled out Harvard, and didn’t include Columbia and others.
who needs harvard medical school when we've got u of alabama football team?
Dave, no official statement is needed when their defenders in the media and politics do the squealing for them. I have heard the actual accounting for funding in detail before, but don't have time to look up the exact numbers now. It's most of their funding. For one, the Feds give states money that the states then allocate to the CPB affiliates and schools (most are located on campuses), thereby swerving around that "direct" label.
Alternative survival tactic for CPB and its progeny: stop paying multi-million dollar salaries to people who produce nothing like that lady who hates the first amendment.
"Maybe you should read Harvard's just-published self-examination"
You seem to not understand that the fact that they performed an internal investigation and published the results is evidence in their favor! They are trying to put a stop to discrimination. An internal investigation shows that they are complying with the law.
It is unfortunate that whenever organizations conduct internal investigations their opponents try to use that against them. How can an organization be compliant if they do not investigate themselves once in a while?
Finally, Harvard is mostly leftists. You can ask them to investigate any "ism" and they'll decide they're guilty. They all think they're racists and sexist already. The Right has an advantage here because if anyone accused a conservative of anti-whateverism they would be smart enough to simply deny it and not investigate.
Bottom line, Harvard thinks being racist is not being racist.
Harvard's endowment isn't as large as it once was. It's quite a shame...becoming so dainty. A dainty little endowment!
In other words, Billionaire Harvard has to pay it's taxes like the rest of us, and NPR/PBS has to pay it's own bills like the rest of us.
jim: "who needs harvard medical school when we've got u of alabama football team?"
Moron jim hasn't been keeping up with the long running collapse in standards at Harvard in general and Harvard Medical and Law schools in particular. (STEM depts still keeping their heads just above water...for now).
Given the "quality" and "insightfulness" of jim's comments here, is anyone really shocked?
Would the U.S. even have a national debt at all if everybody paid their taxes and their own bills?
Harvard executive staff are avowed DEIsts (i.e. class-disordered ideologues).
National Propaganda Radio lost its way when it evolved to broadcast transnational, left-wing handmade tales. Show me the fitness function!
“So, Harvard should pay taxes equivalent to what these billionaires pay, right?”
Do those billionaires pay significant income taxes? I’ve heard that many of them don’t, such as #319 (Donald Trump).
It’s not clear Harvard would have to pay taxes if it were taxed as a private company. Under the Internal Revenue Code, gifts are not taxable to the recipient, even if the giver doesn’t get a charitable deduction. Harvard has investment income and tuition income, but it also has a lot of operational expenses - Harvard may have no net income to tax. In fact, Harvard’s federal income taxes might actually go down if it loses 501c3 status, as the endowment income tax Trump put on Harvard in his last administration would no longer apply.
Trump is threatening to shut down giving to Harvard, by taking away the charitable tax deduction from its donors. But, due to the Ryan tax cuts in 2015, most taxpayers don’t get the charitable deduction any longer because they no longer itemize.
Loss of the charitable deduction could affect the big donors, if they pay taxes. But under our self-assessment system, they can continue “claiming” the deduction for their gifts to Harvard with the expectation that IRS has to find them first and then they can fight off the IRS until Trump is gone.
In other words, Trump does not have as much leverage against Harvard as he thinks he has. Bob Jones University was able to survive without its tax-exempt status for over a decade before it finally caved. Harvard can hold out a lot longer than that.
"They are trying to put a stop to discrimination."
"Do. Or do not. There is no try."
Seriously, what's stopping them?
"Harvard can hold out a lot longer than that."
Well, there's only one way to know for sure...
Trump didn't have to assert revoking Harvard's tax exempt status. He just could have questioned why an institution sitting on $50 billion should not pay taxes. Then say he'd align with Bernie to fight the academic oligarchs.
Left Bank playing dumb again. I said equivalent taxes.
This will never survive a court challenge. Nor should it.
All 501(c)(3) non-profit organizations are exempt from tax. This includes most Universities, churches and other religious institutions, private charities and private foundations. Those in favor of stripping tax exempt status for Harvard, should get 501(c)(3) changed, and apply the changes equally to ALL those non-profits.
"Those in favor of stripping tax exempt status for Harvard, should get 501(c)(3) changed, and apply the changes equally to ALL those non-profits."
Don't threaten us with a good time!
Steven said...
Bob Jones is not precedent for this. Bob Jones had an official deliberate racist policy. Harvard does not have any such policy and claims to be compliant with anti-discrimination laws. (I know you'll say they're lying, but the administration will need to prove that; they will not succeed.)
That is easy to prove.
Just look at the average SAT score of Asians/Whites and compare that to the average SAT score of everyone else.
This is obvious racism and Steven is a racist supporting their racist policies in a dishonest way by bleating "prove it."
Steven is just a neo-Confederate democrat. All democrats are racist Confederates right now trying to save their racial discrimination policies and defying national laws against discrimination and illegal immigration.
We will put this Confederate Insurrection down just like the last one was put down.
Paddy O said...
"precedent that will remove the tax exempt status from institutions Republicans care about."
Which ones and why?
Bob Jones is the precedent, for how it was dealing with issues of race. Harvard and others are being treated in the same way as Bob Jones. Just because they have fancier clothes and summer plans doesn't mean they can be discriminatory or anti-semitic.
The Democrat Party was founded on the protection of the institution of slavery and racial spoils programs. It has not changed much since it's founding.
They wish to defy federal law in order to maintain their system of importing cheap exploitable labor again.
They fight for their programs of systemic racial discrimination again.
The people who own the democrat party do not care who is being discriminated against. They only care that the system is racist and that it keeps the people divided against each other by race. They only care that there is an exploitable class of labor and that they can use crime and violence to suppress the middle class.
"That is easy to prove.
Just look at the average SAT score of Asians/Whites and compare that to the average SAT score of everyone else."
I don't know how you argue against that. Some sort of contorted definition of discrimination I guess.
Those in favor of stripping tax exempt status for Harvard, should get 501(c)(3) changed, and apply the changes equally to ALL those non-profits.
From the IRS website:
"To be tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, an organization must be organized and operated exclusively for exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3), and none of its earnings may inure to any private shareholder or individual. In addition, it may not be an action organization, i.e., it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates."
So there are criteria that must be met to qualify. Accordingly, a previously-qualified entity can lose tax-exempt status by undertaking activities that take it out of those criteria. I would certainly argue that Harvard (and many other exempt entities) now routinely engages in campaign activity and attempts to influence legislation.
Bottom line, Harvard thinks being racist is not being racist.
Racism in the pursuit of anti-racism is no virtue.
In other words, is this really performative or merely performative?
Do those billionaires pay significant income taxes? I’ve heard that many of them don’t
You really should get out of your echo chamber.
Does the Althouse commentariat remember who was forced to shut down his fake "university" because its operation was consumer fraud? He currently is trying to undermine America's oldest, most prestigious, legitimate university through an abuse of presidential power.
“A couple of interesting points that I have heard but weren’t emphasized: first, there was a big increase in imports trying to get ahead of the tariffs, which drives computed GDP down; and, this increase in jobs is in spite of a whole lots of government jobs lost.“
—— Charlie Martin
Prestigious and legitimate? I don’t know. The only thing Harvard seems to produce these days is an abundance of extreme leftism and antisemitism. Neither of which should be funded by taxpayers.
According to the NPR CEO, truth is inconvenient and can work against agendas.
It's time to think of universities / professor as modeled only fans and just require streaming to public at no charge if public funded
Billionaires in the US do not pay tax on their billions because the Constitution prohibits taxation of wealth. They do pay tax on their income, when and if they have any (See Bezos, Buffet, Musk et al)
My first thought was that Harvard's endowment is analogous to wealth and untaxble with without an Amendment.
OTOH, buisnesses are not pemitted to accumulate large sums beyond what they can justify as necessary to the IRS. If to much, in the IRS opinion, they have to distribute it to the owners (partners, Shareholders)
So perhaps Harvard's endowment is more analogous to that. Perhaps it should be non-taxable but they should also be required to spend it. Perhaps on scholarships.
Income from the endowment is another matter. $54bn at 10% would throw off $5bn/yr If taxed at 35%, that would be 1.7bn annually to the treasury.
John Henry
https://www.thecollegefix.com/iowa-may-require-professors-to-publish-class-materials-online-for-public-review/
Funny story: on the morning after the of 2016 election, I awoke to the clock radio tuned to Classical NPR. I had gone to bed early the night before, feeling the doom of a Hillary! Victory. As I opened my eyes, the NPR announcer introduced the next concerto saying nothing about the election. All I heard was the mournful tone of his voice and I knew the impossible had occurred. Trump had won!
Universities do have minimum spending requirements for their endowments as non-profits.
"There is no reason for taxpayers to fund TV or radio. None."
Nor is there any reason for taxpayers to fund university administrators.
About Harvard -
In addition to cutting off funding, if they don't comply with the laws of the land, charge INDIVIDUALS and incarcerate as appropriate.
Taxing the endowment itself sounds like a wealth tax. Very slippery slope. Are people ready to have unrealized capital gains go into government hands. That's kinda like taxing me on my winnings at blackjack before I get up from the table.
I hate all "non-profits". Some are hugely profitable. How about changing the tax code from the monstrosity that exists because lobbyists and influencers have carverd out so many exceptions, exemptions, and definitions of same. How much real property in NYC pays no tax while residents pay more in tax than mortgage service?
On NPR -
The funding is mostly symbolic. Equipment, facilities and licenses are the real ball game. Deactivate the licenses and warehouse them for when needed. Others may lease or purchase equipment and facilities. The "new" entities will not be allowed to use names like NPR or Public Broadcasting.
That is easy to prove.
One other fact Steven is apparently ignorant of is that SCOTUS found systematic discrimination at Harvard against white and asian students in SFFA vs Harvard case. Guilty of discrimination: exactly what Bob Jones was accused of by the IRS in IRS vs Bob Jones.
Rich/Sockpuppet said...
"This includes most Universities, churches and other religious institutions, private charities and private foundations."
Let us know you hack which churches require payment of $80,000 a year to attend.
We'll wait.
As I've said before, Harvard is filthy rich. It doesn't make sense to give tax exempt status to an extremely wealthy (and profitable) business that successfully sells a premium product for top dollar. The tax exempt status is there to help entities who don't have a lot of resources do things for the public good.
"The tax exempt status is there to help entities who don't have a lot of resources do things for the public good."
Perhaps in principle. The reality is that almost all "non-profits" are someone's grift. Including churches, and charities.
NPR only gets something like 1% of its revenue from the federal government. It gets most of its money from local stations. It's a start.
Those local stations get rivers of money from government sources, both directly from USAID and other agencies, and laundered through grant-collecting NGOs run by left wing ideologues. Those rivers of money are deliberately commingled and siphoned off and commingled again until they look like the Orinoco delta, but ultimately end up commandeered by the Left for its own purposes. NPR, PBS, and a lot of other left wing termite mounds you never heard of get WAY more than 1% of their funding from your pocket and mine.
The sophisticated AI-assisted analysis that DataRepublican is doing shows clearly just how much of our money is being extorted by government scum and used for our own propagandization and enslavement by leftist filth. The complete and utter destruction of this corrupt, tyrannical system has got to remain Trump's #1 priority if America is to remain free and prosperous.
I would love for someone to do an evaluation of the total taxes never paid by the Harvard Endowment over the decades. Add in an estimate of the taxes saved by the charitable deductions claimed by Harvard donors.I expect it would be around $100 billion. Maybe more.
Certainly on the publicly available evidence Harvard should lose its tax exemption. However, it would be far better to use this opportunity to repeal tax exempt status for everyone. Doing so would raise far more money than the tariffs. Why is the Gates Foundation tax free? Those are the personal spending decisions of Bill Gates.
Bagoh20… your post @9:53am prompted me to look at your profile… “favorite music: Feats Don't Fail Me Now”
Great taste, my friend!
Why in G-d's name should US taxpayers subsidize TV shows? I just made a list of a dozen shows my wife and I watch/watched on PBS. E.g., The Forsyte Saga, Grantchester, Downton Abbey, All Creatures Great and Small, etc., etc. These shows are/were surely popular enough to get sponsors. I suppose there are other PBS shows that don't attract viewers and so wouldn't attract sponsors; what possible justification is there for forcing taxpayers to pay for shows they don't want to watch?
Trump rips the heart out of Progressives, then holds it up to gaze at it while laughing.
As we prepare to celebrate 50th anniversary of US release of Monty Python and the Holy Grail, reminder that MPFC was broadcast on PBS, where it gained an audience, without the cuts that would have happened on a network, and so opened the way for the success of the film and other classics, especially life of Brian. PbS also broadcast Fawlty Towers, for my money funniest series in TV history. For this alone funding worth keeping.
Hassayamper is right: the taxpayer money being pulled from CPB and PBS is miniscule compared with the many other ways they acquire public funds. They have increasingly insinuated their stations and broadcasting in public universities and colleges in "partnerships" that cost the taxpayers far more. But the real bling and idological power comes from their massive presence in K-12 public and private schools. They sell ultra-leftist curricula to the vast majority of school districts for a pretty penny. Trump has made a good, symbolic start here, but we won't unplug these parasitic leftists from the public teat until we can purge them from our educational system. Unfortunately, so many teachers are uneducated idiots today that they don't know how to prepare a lesson or teach on their own.
Readering @ 1:35
We have Criterion and BritBox now.
Mag-post ng isang Komento
Please use the comments forum to respond to the post. Don't fight with each other. Be substantive... or interesting... or funny. Comments should go up immediately... unless you're commenting on a post older than 2 days. Then you have to wait for us to moderate you through. It's also possible to get shunted into spam by the machine. We try to keep an eye on that and release the miscaught good stuff. We do delete some comments, but not for viewpoint... for bad faith.