Quote:
Originally Posted by Liviu_5
I'd rather have the US government do it if there is to be government subsidy at all (which again I do not particularly like or want, but may be inevitable to close the gap between revenue and cost); with all its faults here there are many safeguards that other countries including EU just do not have; and I do not want to enter into the subject of UN, corruption and the like
|
Are you suggesting that the U.S. government is incorruptible?
But seriously, any government could be susceptible to undue influence... including our own. That's why an independent non-profit organization is best: Compared to governments and businesses, they are least likely to be so influenced from within or without.
And the "subsidy" is really still a payment to the organization, placing the government as middleman to hand them your money (collected through taxes) in one lump sum. Think of it like the "donation" boxes you might check for a direct donation to a political party or an environmental fund: The money specified goes straight to the fund without being "tapped" by the tax system. The Universal Library tax would be like that: Everybody pays X added dollars with their tax assessment, and that X dollars goes straight to the UL fund, no more, no less. So it might "technically" be a subsidy, but in reality it's X dollars-times-number of citizens, going straight to the UL in one big check. Again, one check versus billions is easier to handle by any organization.