Thanks

But to assert that it is not a massive tax subsidy to a newspaper's revenue is completely false.

Pens are deductible business expenses too. So are all other legitimate business expenses, because they are exactly that - business expenses. Are these also "massive tax subsidies"? Advertisers also still pay GST and QST on ads.

Also, one could easily count newspapers' exemption from GST as a taxpayer funded subsidy.

Except newspapers don't profit from it. All it means is that consumers pay a few cents less every day for their papers. And plenty of stuff is exempted from the GST: books, food, rent.

Don't pretend that newspapers aren't like any other business, fighting for their slice of government largesse, whether direct or indirect.

I'm not. I'm arguing that there isn't much "government largesse" for newspapers, at least not yet.

Right wing economic ideas?

Bro, you are jumping to conclusions. Based on one post, you’re confusing me for Milton Friedman.

Take a chill pill.

To put it another way, if the tax code was re-written to eliminate the business deduction for advertising expenses, would newspapers suffer financially? Since the answer is obviously "yes," ergo, newspapers - and other media - receive an indirect transfer of funds from the government (or, more accurately, taxpayers).

Also, one could easily count newspapers' exemption from GST as a taxpayer funded subsidy.

You attempt to make it sound as if newspapers (I'll use "newspapers" interchangeably with "media") are somehow completely removed and disinterested, dispassionate and neutral arbiters and are untainted by such worldly concerns, when the truth is they are lined up at the public trough just like every other business. They are a special interest just like public sector unions or a defense contractor.

For example, the Canadian Newspaper Association is a registered lobbyist in Ottawa, whose mission statement includes:

These interests include such issues as freedom of the press, telecommunications, taxation, employment standards, postal affairs, environmental matters such as recycling, freedom of information, privacy, copyright, access to the judicial system, electoral laws and defamation.

Note the word "taxation." If newspapers didn't receive money from the government, why bother being interested in issues of "taxation?"

Don't pretend that newspapers aren't like any other business, fighting for their slice of government largesse, whether direct or indirect.

my understanding is that newspapers don't receive much money from the government

Unless, of course, you account for the write-off on advertising expenses that businesses take advantage of to purchase ads in the paper. This is, I would assert, a staggeringly massive taxpayer-funded subsidy of newspapers' (and other media) revenue.

Without that write-off for advertising expenses, I would surmise that many newspapers would find themselves belly-up in about six months' time.

People beyond Métropolitain/Décarie/Papineau would have to walk.

There used to be a free market for public transportation, until all the various non-overlapping streetcar companies were gobbled-up by the Montréal Tramways Company (except for the Montréal & Southern Counties); this was many, many, many, many moons ago.

And eventually, thanks to the creative accounting designed to suck as much money from the public as possible, and thanks to non investment in infrastructure and rolling stock, the MTC became bankrupt and had to be taken-over by the City.

It’s really funny how little right-wing punks put forward their brain-dead economic ideas without knowing that in the past, such ideas precisely died of a painful death because they never were viable in the long-term.

This is, of course, a predictable response, and the point is conceded, although I wonder what kind of subsidies local media receives through various and sundry provisions of the overall taxation system in Canada and Québec.

Though I don't have access to The Gazette's budget, my understanding is that newspapers don't receive much money from the government (unless you include those vaccine ads from the health minister). Certainly if you were to compare it to the aerospace industry, or television, it's not a subsidy sinkhole. Newspapers aren't regulated by the government, so anyone can just start one.

However, you are always asserting that newspapers and other local media are incredibly important to the communities that they serve. Yet you think that they shouldn't be open to the same level of public scrutiny that local governments are?

Well, no. I think media should open itself up to its audience, but governments should be entirely transparent. The former would be nice to see, the latter should be (and is) the law.

But imagine a series of forceful editorials that were, say, in favour of raising local taxes in order to cover certain expenses - say, like public transit, perhaps? - might provide enough political cover for local officials to choose exactly that approach.

Unless, of course, you are conceding that what a newspaper prints in its editorials doesn't matter.

I'm told that Words Matter(TM). But newspaper editorials only have power if people act based on them, which only happens (or should only happen) when they agree with them.

If there was a competing public transit company in Montreal...

Considering the level of existing infrastructure (tunnels, track, signalling equipment, maintenance facilities, above-ground installations) and rolling stock (buses, metro cars, AMT train cars), how precisely do you propose that a private enterprise could establish itself to be in competition with the STM?

Would a private enterprise buy its own buses, build its own bus stops, dig its own metro tunnels, purchase rights-of-way to run commuter trains? The level of capital investment would be staggeringly high.

The only solution would be to carve off and privatize parts of the STM itself which, from a political standpoint, is completely unrealistic.

I don't pay taxes to the Gazette.

This is, of course, a predictable response, and the point is conceded, although I wonder what kind of subsidies local media receives through various and sundry provisions of the overall taxation system in Canada and Québec.

However, you are always asserting that newspapers and other local media are incredibly important to the communities that they serve. Yet you think that they shouldn't be open to the same level of public scrutiny that local governments are?

And what's printed on the editorial page doesn't affect me financially.

In the most direct way, probably not.

But imagine a series of forceful editorials that were, say, in favour of raising local taxes in order to cover certain expenses - say, like public transit, perhaps? - might provide enough political cover for local officials to choose exactly that approach.

Unless, of course, you are conceding that what a newspaper prints in its editorials doesn't matter.

And some just rotten...

http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/driver+refuses+speak+English+calls+police/1963769/story.html

A free market transit service would be at least three times as expensive, and the primary goal wouldn't be to serve the customer but to make money off you.

I'm waiting with baited breath for you to adopt this same level of zeal for transparency when it comes to, for example, allowing Gazette editorial board meetings to be open to public attendance.

I don't pay taxes to the Gazette. And what's printed on the editorial page doesn't affect me financially.

Without any competition, they couldn't care less. Metro stalling or breaking down every week, rude staff, asshole bus drivers, power trip, etc...

Put them the free market, and all that would end. They might even be nice to you once in a while. Or at least make an effort.

With a monthly Paid subscription the STM receives $70/month. Lets assume a monthly compounding interest rate of 3% annually. At the end of the year they will have the $840 + $11.65 in interest. With an annual subscription the STM receives $840 (12x70) at the beginning of the year. Apply the same monthly compounding interest rate of 3% annually and they will have $840 + $25.55 at the end of the year. They will have $13.90 more in they're pocket. I admit, alone it's not very impressive, but if you multiply that by every person who would purchase a yearly pass and you've got a significant financial gain. More if they can get a daily compound at a higher interest rate, but the principal is the same. They're idiots not do to this.