Letter: Cultural riches of Radio 3 no substitute for helping the poor
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: Marianne Macdonald shows she lives far from the real world by suggesting that financing Radio 3 by a tax is the same as financing unemployment pay or sick pay out of taxation. ("Why we should all pay to keep Radio 3 elite", 11 September.)
The effect on her of withdrawing tax finance for Radio 3 would probably be that it became more like Classic FM, and she might have to buy more CDs to get the music she wanted to hear. But an unemployed person losing benefit would be unable to buy food, heat and shelter.
There is an old principle that government expenditure should be progressive rather than regressive - it is better to transfer resources from the rich to the poor than vice-versa. Financing Radio 3 out of the licence fee is an example of regressive expenditure; indeed, the licence fee itself is a regressive tax.
DAVID SAWERS
Littlehampton, West Sussex
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments