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

591–600 of 736 posts

Re: Ireland rolls out basic income scheme for artists

#591

Post by TomasBM »

EQmWgw87pw wrote: post #511
angiolillo wrote: post #487

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> one might wonder why they apparently are not able to sell their art for the same amount of money "Public goods" like parks, museums, bridges, roadways, transit, nature preserves, community spaces, and public safety services produce both direct value to their immediate users as well as substantial diffuse value to their community. Direct value can be captured by user fees, tolls, subscriptions, etc but capturing dif…

Your argument makes sense, but a park has a measurable scope. We all want it to be X sqft, with Y trees, and it will cost Z dollars. Are you going to force artists to make the specific art that the community is in need of, or can they just do nothing?

Not OP, but posed like that, neither.

Expect something? Yes. Enforce it? Not sure for the first tranche, but make it a prerequisite for continued funding.

One big obstacle is, of course, how to define what to expect from each artist. For example, you can't expect the same level of output from sculptors and musicians. Another big obstacle is obviously the expected quality of output.

I don't pretend to know the solutions to either of those obstacles, but they should be surmountable [1]. I think it's fair to expect some output in exchange for funding, but it doesn't have to be a high expectation.

Personally, I like the idea of hiring artists as full-time with particular projects in mind [2], but intentionally leaving ~50% of their time to personal projects.

[1] Perhaps artist communities themselves could discuss ways to make this exchange work for all parties.

[2] Murals, restorations, beautification of public spaces, etc.

Re: Ireland rolls out basic income scheme for artists

#592

Post by camgunz »

jjice wrote: post #590
camgunz wrote: post #538

HN: Don't worry about AI, UBI will fix it. Also HN: UBI is a scam and no one will want to contribute to society.

But HN is thousands of people and not one hivemind.

I don't see any pro-AI people in this thread heralding the toehold UBI is getting in Ireland.

Re: Ireland rolls out basic income scheme for artists

#593

Post by angiolillo »

EQmWgw87pw wrote: post #511
angiolillo wrote: post #487

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> one might wonder why they apparently are not able to sell their art for the same amount of money "Public goods" like parks, museums, bridges, roadways, transit, nature preserves, community spaces, and public safety services produce both direct value to their immediate users as well as substantial diffuse value to their community. Direct value can be captured by user fees, tolls, subscriptions, etc but capturing dif…

Your argument makes sense, but a park has a measurable scope. We all want it to be X sqft, with Y trees, and it will cost Z dollars. Are you going to force artists to make the specific art that the community is in need of, or can they just do nothing?

> Are you going to force artists to make the specific art that the community is in need of, or can they just do nothing?

My understanding is that the Irish scheme doesn't force any specific work for the three year period, though I'd expect any artist who takes a three year, ~$60k grant and uses it to do literally nothing may find it hard get a grant in the future, potentially ending their art career. Still, I wouldn't be surprised if a few recipients end up doing that, in which case it's an economic question as to whether the net loss from such freeloaders is more or less than the cost of the bureaucracy necessary to prevent them.

Re: Ireland rolls out basic income scheme for artists

#594

Post by ryanjshaw »

shwaj wrote: post #581
komali2 wrote: post #471

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then it would be a popularity contest and depend on the artists' ability to market themselves in a capitalist space. The one with the best TikTok channel would get the money. That doesn't lead to having diverse, interesting, and challenging art.

That’s not what they’re saying. Only the funding source would change; the funds would still be split evenly to anyone who meets the criteria of being an artist.

Thanks. That was exactly my question.

Re: Ireland rolls out basic income scheme for artists

#595

Post by lc9er »

1234letshaveatw wrote: post #583
the_gipsy wrote: post #510

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> people who have to create "wealth" most people don't "create wealth". They're forced to serve up half of their awake time to someone that is "wealthy", most likely through inheritance.

And now they're forced to serve up some of their awake time to artists

What fraction of that time goes to subsidizing the exponentially wealthier? We could just tax the hell out of the rich and and make better lives for the vast majority of us, while wealth hoarders still get to “win” at the game of life.

Re: Ireland rolls out basic income scheme for artists

#596

Post by PepperdineG »

s_dev wrote: post #262
CalRobert wrote: post #227

The frustrating thing about this program is that it is not possible to avail of this unless you are ALREADY an artist. So if you gave up art because you had bills and kids and needed to support yourself or a family, you're SOL. The only person I know getting this money was already semi-retired after selling their house in London and retiring to the Irish countryside, and basically just noodles around on the guitar no…

>The frustrating thing about this program is that it is not possible to avail of this unless you are ALREADY an artist. Correct, the programme is FOR artists. How could this possibly work otherwise? By somebody stating they intend to become an talented artist? How else would you gauge merit if not through their portfolio of prior work?

If someone was in college this could be a way for them to get going right after they graduate without having to take some other non-art job instead.

Re: Ireland rolls out basic income scheme for artists

#597

Post by multiplegeorges »

misja111 wrote: post #431
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…

> People seem to think only money has value. Your either don't understand or don't want to understand what people are commenting about here. Of course nobody thinks that only money has value. If only money had value, why would anybody exchange money for, say, a bread? What many people are wondering about, is whether the value of the money paid by tax payers to artists, equals the value of what they give to the tax pa…

Art is often only appreciated in retrospect, so it is typically undervalued at the time of its creation.

> equals the value of what they give to the tax payers in return

This seems incredibly shortsighted.

Re: Ireland rolls out basic income scheme for artists

#598

Post by bagacrap »

Spooky23 wrote: post #567
bagacrap wrote: post #526

Earlier quoted context omitted.

... shouldn't they? Ultimately that comes out of their pockets. Every tax benefit my neighbor gets simply shifts the tax burden more to me. Unless I am someone who doesn't pay taxes I guess. Do you pay taxes?

IMO, no. I pay alot of taxes. Probably more annually in the last decade than I made in total my first decade working. Many of my peers spend alot of time agonizing about this stuff and spending both mental energy and significant capital in avoidance. I get a higher ROI focusing on more valuable activities. Besides, art is an economic engine. If you studied it, I’d guess those tax credits in Ireland generate multiples…

Agreed it is a waste to spend too much time worrying.

It seems dubious to claim that the tax break is a net positive for the country's economy. If art were so economically viable I suspect it would pay for itself and not need government incentives. I have no problem with the government paying a muralist to beautify some public space, but this is not that. This is subsidizing art that already has some economic value to someone, just not very much.

I feel like what is actually happening is subsidizing the buying of art, as the artist themselves can afford to charge a lower price due to the tax break. So you are encouraging the population to buy more art. And I guess that has some hypothetical returns in terms of life satisfaction and civility...? I think if they framed it this way, as a tax benefit available to anyone instead of exclusively to a select few, it might be more well received. I think of the mortgage interest tax break in the USA (which is actually almost completely negated at this point by the growing standard deduction) in the same way. It encourages people to settle down, maintain a job, and buy into society, so it helps build social stability and reduces violence.

Re: Ireland rolls out basic income scheme for artists

#599

Post by komali2 »

ryanjshaw wrote: post #576
komali2 wrote: post #471

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then it would be a popularity contest and depend on the artists' ability to market themselves in a capitalist space. The one with the best TikTok channel would get the money. That doesn't lead to having diverse, interesting, and challenging art.

How does the government solve this problem? Why can’t a private organization replicate that? How was art produced previously without the existence of these programs?

> How does the government solve this problem?

The same way it solves all problems: poorly, yet better and more fairly than corporations do.

> Why can’t a private organization replicate that?

Private organizations are driven by profit motive. Profit motive is usually in a negative correlation with fair results in these sorts of situations. If you mean a church or non profit, then, because those don't represent a region of people, and there's no petition mechanism to change their behavior if they're bad. "We'll stop giving them money" great so you're back to my original point then: profit motive.

> How was art produced previously without the existence of these programs?

Hard to say, but there sure is a lot of it, from as long ago as ten thousand years, so personally I think it's safe to say there were lots of reasons beyond either an S Corp or 501(c) buying popular art, or a liberal democracy funding it.

Re: Ireland rolls out basic income scheme for artists

#600

Post by spankalee »

komali2 wrote: post #529
EQmWgw87pw wrote: post #517

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think people would do the following arrangement; work for free until the business becomes profitable (which could be never), but then get a much higher share of the labor margin?

It's an interesting question, but it's too narrowly focused. Surely we can think of more risk-reward structures than just "founding engineer?" What about worker co-ops? Revenue sharing agreements? Profit sharing? Equity on top of salary? Base pay plus performance? Capital owners aren't the only ones taking a risk, laborers do as well. Why is it that only capital risk is considered?

SBA loans and other state funding...
Post reply on HN