Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
Comments
Share Article
Facebook
Twitter
Google+1
del.icio.us.
Digg!
Yahoo! Buzz
Diigo
google
newsvine
reddit
technorati
Yahoo!
MyspaceThe centerfold fundraising piece in the Independent by the Santa Barbara Botanic Garden (SBBG) was beautiful [8/9/12]. I hope people will donate or become members. The garden deserves community support.
However, the SBBG should not write that it “is not subsidized by any government agencies or public funds” as this is not true; nor should any nonprofit. The SBBG has received regular grants of plus-or-minus $100,000 from the Institute of Museum and Library Services. The 2009 labyrinth was funded in part with $40,000 from the National Endowment for the Arts. The SBBG has had contracts with the National Park Service and the military. These are all government agencies and public funds. The SBBG’s 990 tax returns showed $1,747,451 from the government in 2007; $237,125 in 2010; and $85,000 in government contributions in 2011.
No nonprofit organization pays property taxes. This is a county government subsidy, for the public benefit that the nonprofit provides. The SBBG owns over 160 acres that are off the county’s property tax rolls.
Donations to 501c3 organizations are tax deductible. Funds deducted by eligible donors are not then available to help pay to run our government.
My point is that government subsidizes everyone – nonprofits, individuals, and private, for-profit businesses.
Support the Santa Barbara Botanic Garden and other nonprofits that you believe in.
Previous Month
Comments
I don't know when I've been to the Botanic Garden last. A decade and a half. I don't know it if is worth it. There needs to be some objectivity when allowing all this tax exempt status and tax-deducted donations for someones idea of a feathered cap. Truthiness dispatched by those clamoring for their favorite cause and pastime doesn't really help evaluate or do the county budget necessities.
DonMcDermott (anonymous profile)
August 16, 2012 at 8:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"My point is that government subsidizes everyone – nonprofits, individuals, and private, for-profit businesses."
This is true only if you assume that the government owns all of everyone's income. In that case, any income not taxed could be called a "subsidy".
This in turn follows from "you didn't build that".
Robert Ramey
ramey (anonymous profile)
August 16, 2012 at 8:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Mr. ramey, your meager point would be stronger if you didn't confuse the concept of a 'subsidy' with 'pays for.'
A subsidy is a form of assistance, a gift to aid an entity.
Rare is the person or organization which doesn't benefit from the programs, efforts, and infrastructure managed by government in our United States.
binky (anonymous profile)
August 16, 2012 at 7:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)
A good example of the government (or taxpayers) subsidizing a for-profit industry appears in today's Edhat:
http://www.edhat.com/site/tidbit.cfm?...
You'd think that the companies using the new and high-tech "manufactured nanomaterials" in mass consumer products should prove (or at least provide some confidence) that they're safe before using them. Its a very interesting scientific question.
But no ... the taxpayer picks up the tab for the research.
If it turns out that nanomaterials are safe, then the taxpayers subsidized a for-profit industry by doing the safety research for them.
And if they're uinsafe, then some people got to make some money before they were shut down, again at taxpayer expense. But at least public water and food supplies were protected.
People often don't see all these hidden costs/subsidies.
EastBeach (anonymous profile)
August 20, 2012 at 12:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)