291–300 of 736 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Additionally i would argue that in every such programm there will be people that abuse the system. Just because gp knows one such person, does not mean that everybody will be doing that. The article also mentions that overall the program had a positive impact.
There is generally a heavy bias to focusing on abuse instead of outcomes. Who cares that there are some false positives if there is a net benefit, it's just noise.
> Ireland began the three-year trial in 2022 Did anyone take a note of what kind of output the artists produced? Was any of it any good?
Is art subjective?
This was later one of the motivations to cancel the program.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We have a similar scheme in Slovenia. Don't know the details but there's the concept of a "free artist". At a minimum you need a registered business, regular exhibitions or performances in your field, you have to register with the ministry of culture, and can't have a job. Contract work is allowed and encouraged. Also you are expected to apply when the government issues a Call For Creatives. I think you get paid mini…
Interesting concept, seems like it is a way to pay less taxes as an artist, not really a pay but it will make it easier to live. Not sure about the selection process though.. > Self-employed in culture can be given the right to pay social security contributions from the state budget. https://e-uprava.gov.si/si/podrocja/izobrazevanje-kultura/za...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Working artists, spouses, and semi-retirees are relatively common. ‘2,000 creative workers’ would make this quite competitive, even if it’s only 20k USD/year that could easily enable people to be artists who wouldn’t make a career of it on their own.
Right, and it would be great if people who wished to become artists could avail of this, but now it only goes for people who already are artists.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm sure if you asked the average tax payer they would prefer programs like these rather than corporate welfare nonsense. So yeah, seems alright to me. I'm a tax payer.
i purchase a hell of a lot more stuff from Walmart than I do fine art.
Maybe we should have a structure in place that taxes companies based on how many benefits their employees claim, say five times the total amount of money claimed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because any modern unemployment insurance program (which Ireland has) will be a percentage based on salary. Struggling artist aren't exactly making regular money like a formerly employed salesperson or carpet installer would be.
Note that many carpet installers and other handyman also do work (partially) under the table so their salary isn't representative of their regular income either. This also fluctuates a lot based on season. It's the cost of being (partially) self employed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This seems like it mostly funnels money to rich kids, to be honest. Nobody else can afford to already be an artist.
Working artists, spouses, and semi-retirees are relatively common. ‘2,000 creative workers’ would make this quite competitive, even if it’s only 20k USD/year that could easily enable people to be artists who wouldn’t make a career of it on their own.
20k USD/yr is life changing for some people down on their luck.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is generally a heavy bias to focusing on abuse instead of outcomes. Who cares that there are some false positives if there is a net benefit, it's just noise.
A general reason to focus on abuse instead of immediately visible outcomes: if the abuse is not dealt with properly, then that may lead to the abuse becoming increasingly widespread and blatant, which will affect future outcomes.
I don’t get it. Why are artists more deserving than unemployed insurance salespeople or carpet installers?
Irish here. It's a cultural thing. Ireland is the only country in the world whose national symbol is a musical instrument. Art is seen as a worthwhile endeavour even if it can't necessarily support itself as a private endeavour. It's for the same reason galleries and museums are subsidised by the government. Anyone can call themselves an artist but to receive this money you would have to have a portfolio of work that…
Ireland's economic statistics are so badly distorted by US companies routing money there that there is an entire subfield of economics dedicated to trying to figure out what Ireland's real economic state is, called "Leprechaun economics". A common adjustment made by economics researchers when studying the EU is to just subtract Ireland entirely.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leprechaun_economics
https://www.cfr.org/articles/leprechaun-adjusted-euro-area-g...
https://democracychallenged.com/2025/05/14/irelands-phantom-...
> The key to understanding this disconnect is a number few outside Ireland pay attention to: Modified Gross National Income, or GNI*. Unlike GDP, which counts all activity happening within Ireland’s borders, GNI* adjusts for the distortions caused by the huge presence of foreign multinationals. And the gap is enormous. In 2023, GNI* was just €291 billion — meaning more than €219 billion of Ireland’s reported output never truly flowed into the Irish economy at all.
When looking at Ireland's own economy without the influence of US tax transactions, the economy shrinks by nearly half.