Page 3 of 31 FirstFirst 123456713 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 454

Thread: Proposed elimination of arts funding

  1. #31
    Senior Member Becca's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    San Diego, California
    Posts
    4,097
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Based on the table below and using a current US population of 321 million and a UKP/US$ exchange rate of $1.38, that works out to about $1.68B, or about the cost of 4 of the new F-35 fighters, of which there are plans to buy approximately 2,450. Trump's proposed increase in defense alone comes to about $300B over two years or about 175 times the arts expenditure.

    Screenshot_20180212_193307.png

    Note: This table is not current and probably represents a higher amount than current.

  2. Likes eugeneonagain liked this post
  3. #32
    Senior Member DaveM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    So. California, USA
    Posts
    3,091
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KenOC View Post
    All forms of art? Is rap music not an art? Black velvet paintings of Elvis? Erotic sculptures on certain Hindu temples? I suspect the Canadian government needs to decide what is "art" and what isn't.

    When the National Endowment of the Arts in the US was handing our individual awards to artists, there were payments to Robert Mapplethorpe for his BDSM photos, and to Andres Serrano for his P**s Christ, a photo of a crucifix immersed, upside down, in a bucket of urine. Some people were not enthusiastic about their tax money being spent that way.

    So how does Canada decide how to spend its citizens' money on such things?
    They ask me for one thing. Those Black velvet paintings of Elvis take on new meaning when one has a certain mind-enhancement substance on board which is the situation when I give my advice.

  4. #33
    Senior Member SixFootScowl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Next to Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    13,434
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DaveM View Post
    They ask me for one thing. Those Black velvet paintings of Elvis take on new meaning when one has a certain mind-enhancement substance on board which is the situation when I give my advice.
    Oh yeah! I remember in the 1970s people would hang velvety fluorescent posters all over their walls then take all kinds of dope and turn on black lights and Iron Butterfly's In-a-Gadda-da-Vida (which actually is a pretty cool tune) and then sit there with mouths agape like a bunch of vegetables staring at the posters.

    Not that this has anything to do with the topic at hand, but your post brought back vivid memories.
    Last edited by SixFootScowl; Feb-13-2018 at 05:01.
    "Life is too short to spend it wandering in the barren Sahara of musical trash."
    --Sergei Vasilyevich Rachmaninoff

  5. Likes DaveM liked this post
  6. #34
    Senior Member Bulldog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Albuquerque, New Mexico
    Posts
    25,005
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    I wouldn't disapprove if the tax exemptions for religious organizations were eliminated with the proceeds going to fund infrastructure, the Arts and military parades (something for Trump).

  7. #35
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    2,109
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    A: The arts can pretty much NOT support themseles financially. 90% of what civilization has of lasting value was financed by governments, the Church, or rich people.

    B: A certain percentage of works of art are offensive to SOMEONE. Can't be helped. The Marriage of Figaro. Ulysses. Rodin's Balzac. Lady MacBeth of Minsk. Just have to suck it up.

    C: MOST art (95%+) is bad. But we need the 95% to get the five percent.

  8. Likes Larkenfield, Nereffid, violadude and 4 others liked this post
  9. #36
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    579
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    It gets harder and harder to justify even paltry spending on superfluities when more than half of American don't even pay federal taxes and the ultra-rich are mostly tax cheats. Doubly harder when over half of all spending is on wars the middle and upper-middle classes neither want nor benefit from. But that's probably why it's more fun to argue about.

  10. Likes eugeneonagain, Johnnie Burgess liked this post
  11. #37
    Member Jacob Brooks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    75
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    There is no moral basis for an entity taking money from some people to be distributed by a bureaucracy to others for art.

  12. Likes SixFootScowl, Johnnie Burgess liked this post
  13. #38
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    Gilbert, AZ
    Posts
    1,681
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    There should be NO federal funding for the arts. Zip. Nada. Zero. Funding for the arts should be a local decision. If a city wants to contribute and fund arts organizations, fine. Where I live the city council is quite enlightened and supportive of the arts. They provide a lot of money to run a symphony (granted, it's a community orchestra and not the Philadelphia Orchestra), a community band, some art museums, a couple of performance venues, several arts events during the year, etc. Maybe a state decision, too.

    I couldn't care less if NPR and CPB and PBS don't get a dime. They tell me that without my support they can't operate. Now the story changes - without gov't money they can't. Our classical station is run by the local community college district and a state university. I can't stand their playlist, but a lot of people love it and write checks for it every year. The PBS station is awful IMO - almost no classical programming like concerts, etc. Lots of bad programming. But here's the thing: why should we support these entities and not help companies like Clear Channel and Cumulus which are struggling? Why should their stockholders have to support non-profit TV and radio which arguably has better programming (it doesn't!)? There are people who look to England and the BBC for a model - but do the research. The Beeb has been struggling, dumping programming, eliminating orchestras just like Germany has had to do.

    TIme and again the free market is the best way to get things done. It's too bad the public at large doesn't value the arts anymore. But that's the fault of the artists, our crappy educational system, the mass media...

  14. Likes SixFootScowl, Johnnie Burgess, Varick liked this post
  15. #39
    Senior Member KenOC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    SoCal, USA
    Posts
    19,959
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Question for those who don't want central government supporting the arts, esp. in the US: Should contributions be tax-deductible? Right now if you send a check to your local orchestra, it's usually a deduction from income for tax purposes, reducing tax receipts. The reduction has to be made up by the people in general through higher taxes. Is that good policy?
    Last edited by KenOC; Feb-13-2018 at 06:34.


  16. #40
    Senior Member Becca's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    San Diego, California
    Posts
    4,097
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mbhaub View Post
    It's too bad the public at large doesn't value the arts anymore. But that's the fault of the artists, our crappy educational system, the mass media...
    Given the strong evidence that arts education for children has a positive impact on their ability to learn, our crappy educational system is partly the result of eliminating arts education.

  17. #41
    Senior Member DaveM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    So. California, USA
    Posts
    3,091
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KenOC View Post
    Question for those who don't want central government supporting the arts, esp. in the US: Should contributions be tax-deductible? Right now if you send a check to your local orchestra, it's usually a deduction from income for tax purposes, reducing tax receipts...
    Is that still true under the new tax law for 2018 and on?
    Last edited by DaveM; Feb-13-2018 at 06:47.

  18. #42
    Senior Member Larkenfield's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    Sedona
    Posts
    4,272
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    4

    Default

    I am for at least some, even token Federal funding of the arts as a statement of national priorities other than its obscene spending on defense programs, especially compared to other countries, and then the promotion of CULTURAL EXCHANGE PROGRAMS with hostile nations such as North Korea, rather than continue to excite hostilities with belligerent rhetoric and adolescent behavior by our emotionally immature leaders. Maybe we'd eventually get leadership who have actually benefited from hearing a Mozart symphony at least once in their lifetime. We have apparently become a nation of cultural illiterates at the Federal level.

    Some give no power to the arts to promote peace and conciliation. Or maybe we should rely on our smaller communities such Mayberry, USA, and the descendants of Andy Griffith to seed our cultural exchange programs with North Korea. There needs to something that makes a statement of peace and culture on the Federal level that can be communicated around the world.

    In the meantime, it's apparent that the arts have failed in the USA. It's a matter of not only defense priorities but the encouragement of a positive quality of life for American citizens that could be fueled in the arts with the reduction of one or two less billion dollars jets that might be of limited use in a nuclear war. The focus should be more on prevention of hostilities and the promotion of cultural exchanges as well as on wise defense spending.

    In Arizona, there's a lot of community affairs programming that might not be heard any other way other than on PBS, and some of the programs are arts-related. If its existence is threatened in any way then it deserves continual funding. Not only that but there are certain programs from the BBC and elsewhere that are available and promote the feeling of being part of a larger global community. It costs pennies compared to some of the wasteful gov't spendings that evidently have no limits ever placed on it. It's the "road less traveled."





















    fw
    Last edited by Larkenfield; Feb-13-2018 at 09:12.
    "That's all Folks!"

  19. Likes Becca, TurnaboutVox liked this post
  20. #43
    Senior Member KenOC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    SoCal, USA
    Posts
    19,959
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DaveM View Post
    Is that still true under the new tax law for 2018 and on?
    Good question. Some are concerned that by limiting federal deductions of state taxes, there may be an impact on charitable contributions by the very wealthy. But it seems that direct deductions of such contributions from taxable federal income are not affected. Maybe somebody can add to this.

    The effect, if any, seems to be felt mostly in "blue" states with high tax regimes. The overall impact will be to reduce federal subsidies for state government spending in these states.
    Last edited by KenOC; Feb-13-2018 at 07:03.


  21. #44
    Senior Member DaveM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    So. California, USA
    Posts
    3,091
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KenOC View Post
    Good question. Some are concerned that by limiting federal deductions of state taxes, there may be an impact on charitable contributions by the very wealthy. But it seems that direct deductions of such contributions from taxable federal income are not affected. Maybe somebody can add to this.

    The effect, if any, seems to be felt mostly in "blue" states with high tax regimes. The overall impact will be to reduce federal subsidies for state government spending in these states.
    Yes, my guess is that with the doubled standard deduction and the limits on deductions of state taxes (in states such as our California) and reduction and eventual elimination of health-related deductions, far fewer people will be itemizing so tax deductible status of things like charitable contributions won't mean as much anymore.
    Last edited by DaveM; Feb-13-2018 at 07:19.

  22. #45
    Senior Member KenOC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    SoCal, USA
    Posts
    19,959
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DaveM View Post
    Yes, my guess is that with the doubled standard deduction and the limits on deductions of state taxes (in states such as our California) and reduction and eventual elimination of health-related deductions, far fewer people will be itemizing so tax deductible status of things like charitable contributions won't mean as much anymore.
    This is true. Charitable contributions are encouraged by higher taxes. Lower effective rates, in general, make them less attractive. A Hobson's choice, as they say!


Page 3 of 31 FirstFirst 123456713 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: Aug-06-2008, 16:48
  2. Classical Music in Other Arts
    By EricIsAPolarBear in forum Classical Music Discussion
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: Jan-06-2008, 03:08

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •