Very often, they are not neutral.
Go to your local library's website, and check out the new arrivals section. Most likely, the political bias will be very evident.
Then go to the page where the list the board members, and Google their political affiliation.
Finally, if you are still not convinced, send them an FOIA request to see what books they are discarding from the catalogue.
Imagine a scenario where everyone is taxed, say, 10%. Then, the government introduces an extra tax of 10%, for a total of 20%, and then gives everyone a tax exemption, so that everyone pays 10% after all, just like before. Is the new tax exemption an "implicit subsidy"? Do people feel subsidized by not having to pay extra 10% on top of 10% they already pay? No, at best they are grateful that they are losing less money to a bully.
Now, imagine we start from 0%, and again introduce a new tax of 10%, and a new exemption, so that nobody actually pays any tax after all. Again, in this no tax world, is the government "subsidizing" everyone? No, that's not what the word "subsidize" mean.
Churches owe taxes because they conduct business in the United States. The government pays those taxes instead. That's a subsidy.
I don't mean to be flippant, but engaging with a disconnected hypothetical takes away from the discussion of reality. In my original comment, I believe I sufficiently communicated that I disagree that taxes are extortion. In the context of funding libraries and churches, I don't think that disagreement is going to lead us anywhere.
And you owe the bully your lunch, because you conduct your presence in his class. When the bully says he won’t take your lunch today, he is actually buying you your lunch. That’s a subsidy.
If it sounds stupid, that’s because it is. Tax exemptions are not subsidies.
Alternatively, here's a definition of subsidy:
> A subsidy is a benefit given to an individual, business, or institution, usually by the government. It can be direct (such as cash payments) or indirect (such as tax breaks).
I just have to go with the definition. Part of the brevity of the original communication was that semantics shouldn't really require discussion, as words have meanings. Even if your position is believed, and taxation is coerced; "subsidy" is defined as including tax breaks. You might think it sounds weird that a bully giving the money back is a subsidy, but that's what that word means. I can find opinion pieces making the case you're making, but that's not the definition used by the majority of other publications.
It also really shouldn't matter either way. Whether the government is "subsidizing" a Library or "not bullying" a Church, the original point was that they are receiving special treatment from the government.
I don't pay income take on the donation.
That absolutely is a subsidy. About 30% of my donation comes from the public purse via tax not collected.
But I think your point about differing value systems is exactly on point. The problem is, in theory your local libery association, or teacher’s union, etc., isn’t supposed to bear comparison to a gun rights organization or evangelical church. Like, I can imagine that folks in NYC would be unhappy if their local public library adopted the value system of an evangelical church or gun rights organization. Why is it surprising that the same reaction results when the shoe is on the other foot?
But here's NYPL's new arrivals page: https://www.nypl.org/books-music-movies/new-arrivals
One quick check you can do is to look at the gender of the authors.
Here's the list of the board members: https://www.nypl.org/help/about-nypl/leadership/board-truste...
If I can, I will do a rough headcount of their political affiliation and then update this comment with it.