Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ireland rolls out basic income scheme for artists

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

361–370 of 736 posts

Re: Ireland rolls out basic income scheme for artists

#361

Post by fedeb95 »

danlitt wrote: post #342
fedeb95 wrote: post #325

this kind of reasoning will accumulate so much inefficiencies that it will eventually blow up. Or, in the best case scenario, create a proportional inflation that makes this subsidies useless. Think about the big picture: your salary is a cost for someone else. In the case of "basic income" is a cost for the tax payers. Who decides what benefits the tax payers? The state can't possibly do it, if not for a limited ext…

This argument has a lot of holes in it. Notably, > Planned economies have historically failed. Very much false - the US war and post-war economy was very heavily planned, and was perhaps the most successful economy in history (precisely until it was gutted in the 70s/80s). > best case scenario, create a proportional inflation You give no reason to expect that this inflation will at best be proportional. It is perfect…

Companies are the same that both give salaries to consumers and can up prices. More taxes on companies means higher prices, job cuts, less salary increases. It's not necessary to point out that your quote of the post-war economy is cherry-picking. Plus, after a war it's very easy to get a recovery, especially if you win it.

You talk about the US, but look at countries where the state is both heavy on taxes and inefficient. The point is that you delegate decisions on what do do and how to do it to very few people. They can be good, or be bad. Diversifying on an entire market is better.

The only thing that can save middle/low class consumers is the hope that the state won't increase taxes faster than we can save money. A culture of proper saving, of not falling for luxury items presented as necessary by our peers (or companies selling them), is the only way out. Focusing on what matters.

Most of us are instead living in the illusion that we can live a luxury life.

Re: Ireland rolls out basic income scheme for artists

#362

Post by fedeb95 »

whiplash451 wrote: post #350
fedeb95 wrote: post #325

this kind of reasoning will accumulate so much inefficiencies that it will eventually blow up. Or, in the best case scenario, create a proportional inflation that makes this subsidies useless. Think about the big picture: your salary is a cost for someone else. In the case of "basic income" is a cost for the tax payers. Who decides what benefits the tax payers? The state can't possibly do it, if not for a limited ext…

Countries benefit massively from art. First-grade art attracts wealthy people who pay local taxes and wealthy tourists who contribute to the economic cycle of the country. For some European countries, the numbers are mind-blowing.

it is a short term benefit.

Re: Ireland rolls out basic income scheme for artists

#363

Post by probably_wrong »

haritha-j wrote: post #304
s_dev wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 already has a competitive economy Well it has a competitive tax haven.

Po-tay-to, po-tah-to.

Re: Ireland rolls out basic income scheme for artists

#364

Post by pastage »

trinix912 wrote: post #293
pastage wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

The link is totally irrelevant, it's about filing taxes and the right to pay to the social security fund not about the income you receive while you have the status. Yes, you get an extra tax break (taxes aren't paid on the money you receive from the state), but that's not the main point.

If there are other ways artists get support do you have a better definition one can search for? Considering it talks about supporting artists I feel it is relevant to the situation in my country. Getting help with social insurance is pretty important in many countries, and something I know many artists have problem with.

Re: Ireland rolls out basic income scheme for artists

#365

Post by Schlagbohrer »

fedeb95 wrote: post #325

this kind of reasoning will accumulate so much inefficiencies that it will eventually blow up. Or, in the best case scenario, create a proportional inflation that makes this subsidies useless. Think about the big picture: your salary is a cost for someone else. In the case of "basic income" is a cost for the tax payers. Who decides what benefits the tax payers? The state can't possibly do it, if not for a limited ext…

** * libertarian

Re: Ireland rolls out basic income scheme for artists

#366

Post by spockz »

danlitt wrote: post #345
roenxi wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of those relevant writings became relevant because of the horrible experiences the author went through forged them into an interesting writer. If we're assuming that we only know retrospectively whether the writing is important then the best course of action would be for people to write as a hobby and make choices that are likely (rather than unlikely) to lead to a comfortable life. Particularly in this current…

Are you arguing that most good writers from history were poor? This is after all the only "horrible experience" a subsidy would alleviate. I don't think that's actually supported by evidence, most great writers I can think of were relatively extremely sheltered (although they often were sensitive to the horrible experiences of others)

I think the argument is a) most writers have to do a lot of writing to achieve writing consumable/appreciated but sufficient to be considered successful, b) most great writers had to go through some shit in life to incorporate that in their writing to make it interesting in order to be successful.

Re: Ireland rolls out basic income scheme for artists

#367

Post by Schlagbohrer »

jimnotgym wrote: post #351

There are some pretty revealing comments here. People seem to think only money has value. Then there are people who see art only as a rich person's pursuit. It can be, but it doesn't need to be. I am reminded of Daniel James also known as Gwyrosydd, his bardic name. He was a Welsh language poet, who wrote probably the greatest Welsh language song, Calon Lân (means 'a pure heart'). People throughout Wales sing this so…

When Nirvana first moved from their small Washington town to Seattle, they were able to pay their rent + everything else from working minimum wage jobs for 2 weeks a month. They had time to practice music and pursue their art.

In an era where working a full time job is not enough to pay the cost of living, arts and culture no longer exist except as hobbies for rich kids. Seattle successfully exterminated their entire arts, music, and culture scene by raising the cost of living sky high.

Re: Ireland rolls out basic income scheme for artists

#368

Post by ap99 »

jimnotgym wrote: post #351

There are some pretty revealing comments here. People seem to think only money has value. Then there are people who see art only as a rich person's pursuit. It can be, but it doesn't need to be. I am reminded of Daniel James also known as Gwyrosydd, his bardic name. He was a Welsh language poet, who wrote probably the greatest Welsh language song, Calon Lân (means 'a pure heart'). People throughout Wales sing this so…

You can only tax people so much before it's too much.

effective tax rates

0% ... not realistic outside very unique circumstances. 25% ... feels fair to me. 33% ... still fair but yeah 1 out of every 3 days worked you start to feel that. 50% ... the border of fair and unfair. if i keep less than half of what i make, that feeling of fairness wears thin.

Now, when you are near that border of fair and unfair and then you see John Q Artist getting his whole list comped using tax money that pushes the somewhat fair into unfair territory real fast.

Now, we already have situations similar to this in most countries either from subsidies, gov't spending you don't agree with, corruption, waste, etc.

All of that should be reduced but when you see your neighbor living free while you slave away you feel that differently.

Re: Ireland rolls out basic income scheme for artists

#370

Post by throwaway77385 »

uyzstvqs wrote: post #353

Economics apply the same way to art. It can be one of the most profitable solo-endeavors, when your art is generally accepted as good or meaningful. All the government-subsidized art that I've come across is straight up awful, and nobody ever actually cares for it. Typically it's weird abstract stuff. By these standards, should I be paid an income from your tax money for my 5 side-projects on GitHub that nobody uses?

I'm reasonably sure funding for the arts is globally as low as can be.

If we applied the rule of "it has to be good to be worth it" and money is the main indicator for "good", then what about the myriad products and services that are low quality / terrible, yet make tons of money because they can afford to shove marketing down everyone's throats and thus stay relevant?

Most popular music is downright awful to me. Do I want to take their money away because I don't think they deserve it? No. On the other side of that coin I'd like to see some kind of counter balance. How many artists were considered awful until they suddenly became the biggest deal ever? Often posthumously.

This tiny sliver of funding for some people you may not like won't take anything away from you.

The early internet was so great because it was full of weird things. We've lost ALL of it, due to commercialisation. We stand to lose even more if we don't do something to fund the people who dare to be weird.

This goes right back to the thing Bezos said about how we need to become interplanetary so we can inhabit the galaxy, because if we inhabit the galaxy we could have a thousand Mozarts. I think we could already have a thousand Mozarts if they weren't busy slaving away in Amazon's warehouses.

Once there's a trillion humans in the galaxy and they're still all slaving away in warehouses, we still won't have any Mozarts.

Not everything can or should be quantified by money and economics.

Post reply on HN