Individual contributions to NPR are tax-deductible. That means the public IS indeed subsidizing NPR, far beyond the government's direct payments.
But the reality is only ~13% of US tax payers itemize deductions so in general there isn’t any such support when the average person donates to anything. It’s really just support for the kinds of people who can itemize their taxes rather than supporting charities.
I don't know what your point is in the first paragraph. Yes, we do "support" any 501(c)(3). Are you opposed to that?
Anyway, a more relevant “how many NPR contributors itemize their donations.” But of course it’s roughly in line other such charity’s, because when your talking about such a wide selection of the population it tends to look like the general population. Aka, when you start talking millions there aren’t enough billionaires for the group to mostly consist of billionaires.
I had an aunt who got a 7 figure refund after an IRS audit because she wasn’t bothering with minor donations. No idea how representative that is, but people are strange especially when you look at large numbers of them.
what's your point? Who else's can you itemize?
> when you start talking millions there aren’t enough billionaires for the group to mostly consist of billionaires
who mentioned millionaires, or billionaires? For that matter, that entire paragraph doesn't make any sense. I proposed a very simple test, which we unfortunately can't get the data for (easily).
when you watch a PBS pledge drive, they do seem to emphasize "tax-deductible" a lot when they ask for your pledge. So they must think it matters, at least.
Many people who could deduct donations don’t because they don’t bother with the paperwork. It’s a very meaningful distinction because the option doesn’t inherently cost tax payers anything only those who actually use it do.
Being tax deductible on the other hand is an easy way to saying they’re a legit charity. Anything that isn’t tax deductible that still wants donations should raise major red flags.
Less true for art museums and things because wealthy people can get more out of their donations, like their name on stuff and cool party invitations.
that's an easily-testable hypothesis. I dispute it.
As for "Wealthy people are too rare to matter" do a search on the percentage of income taxes paid by the wealthy.
The GP leaves the degree of taxation/funding, as well as the broader context of what other entities are tax funded and to what degree, unspoken; and they imply that, whatever those facts may be, it's a bad thing in this case. The parent (and other commenters) then provided some of that relevant information (and, assuming that information is true, you presumably would appreciate such a thing).
As for the downvoters, they may reasonably disagree with the parent's implication that it is a bad thing, or disapprove of their omission of details. You may reasonably disagree with this use of the downvote button, but it means they are not necessarily claiming the GP is stating an untruth.