End Artists' Tax-Free Status?

cdebru

m1ke wrote:

Yeah my figs are incorrect in the previous post. However, so are your revised figures, because the taxable income is actually 80m. It still doesn't matter, it's a very small amount and I stand by my original point.

I'm certainly not trolling and take offence to that suggestion. It's a typically Irish thing to go after one of ours who are successful such as Bono and just disregard all the other people who are affected in the spillover - maybe a Bono tax would satisfy you?

i pay a lot less tax than that surely its not worth the governments time and
resources chasing me for such as small piddling ammount


on your figures and i haven't checked them a 10% base rate would raise somewhere in the region 7million euro allowing for the minimum wage being tax free
7 million euro is hardly a small ammount it could do alot of good in some of our
primary schools that are falling down

Sleepy

If you don't earn enough to live on, you don't pay tax and can claim state benefits.
If you earn minimum wage you pay little or no tax.
If you earn above minimum wage you pay tax dependant on the level of your earnings.

Why should this be different for "artists"? Seriously. How many of us get the same level of pleasure out of our jobs as artists? How many of us get free clothing/jewellry/electronics etc. from top designers if we're in the top ranks of our professions?

I've no problems with genuine Artists getting tax relief to the point where they are earning the average industrial wage because they are contributing to the greater good. After this point, however, it's a patently unfair system.

There is no way that anything produced by Westlife, Celia Ahern, Boyzone, Ronan Keating can be claimed to have "artistic merit". I'm sure the only time these people even make that claim themselves is on their tax forms.

Why should these people that get free clothes, invites to premieres, gigs, parties etc where all the food and drink are paid for , get to fly around the world to perform and generally live the high life be exempt from tax? It's absurd.

Sleepy

Cork wrote:

Why are people obsessed that earnings should be taxed?

IF FF had left the property tax they brought in in place property prices would be far lower today. But alas the Irish middle classes revolted.

But, why not put a cap on the earnings of high earning artiests & see if they will flee the country? Before, they'd leave they'd do the chat show and radio circuit.

We'd haer all the guff about the jobs they are providing etc + all the good charity work they do.

But I surpose it would bring more equity into the system.

Why do we tax income? FFS :rolleyes:

Because it's the fairest, most progressive means we have of taxing people. I think the vast majority of people are agreed that tax should be paid according to one's ability to pay (one of the reasons I'm against the use of VAT).

Sure, some people have an ability to lower their income (and thereby their tax payments) for the year by re-investing profits into their businesses instead of taking a high salary from them but this is generally considered a good thing for the economy anyway as it stimulates growth and increases the incomes of others (e.g. the builders that put the extension onto that businessperson's office) which are then taxed accordingly.

Again, the taxation of income doesn't address those that don't have an income but live instead off their savings/family fortunes. Here there is certainly an argument for taxing these people in some manner but these are the only people who will be taxed fairly in a property tax system. Otherwise you have a system where if couple A are just married and are just about able to pay the mortgage on their three bed semi, they can be paying the same rate of tax as their next door neighbours who earn twice what they do but are happier to stay in that area and keep their money for themselves rather than moving into a larger house in "better" area and be taxed accordingly.

Victor

Gurgle wrote:

IMHO Minimum wage is not enough to get by on, especially if you need to buy (for example) art materials, instruments etc.

You confuse sales and income (sales less expenses).

Sleepy wrote:

Because it's the fairest, most progressive means we have of taxing people. I think the vast majority of people are agreed that tax should be paid according to one's ability to pay (one of the reasons I'm against the use of VAT).

Ah, Bono has more difficulty avoiding VAT on his purchases.

Victor

Budget 2005 is utterly outrageous, Bono will be at most only a few hundred, may a thousand euro better off. This might represent a 0.01% improvement, whereas an artist on minimum wage will see an improvement of more than 2.01%. Why should these people do 200 (well 201) times better than Bono?

SHAMEFUL!

Sleepy

Victor wrote:

Ah, Bono has more difficulty avoiding VAT on his purchases.

:rolleyes: No, rich and poor pay the same tax on these purchases which is unprogressive as it doesn't account for the ability to pay.

bonkey

Sleepy wrote:

:rolleyes: No, rich and poor pay the same tax on these purchases which is unprogressive as it doesn't account for the ability to pay.

Errr....not so.

The rich spend more. Ergo, they pay more hard cash into the coffers of the govenrment than the poor. So they do not pay the same tax on purchases - they only pay the same tax on any specific item that both purchase. It might sound like semantics, but its not.

What you seem to be suggesting is that because the rich have a better ability to pay, things should cost them more. So if we both buy the same car, it should cost me (say) 20K, but the guy earning 5 times my salary should pay 35K for the same car.

And if thats a progressive system, how do you stop him paying me under the table to buy the car at 20K and sell it on to him at a discount?

Or, when you say "ability to pay" is the basis of a progressive system, do you mean really "earnings"? If so, then while you might be correct in it being a progressive system, I think describing it as an ability to pay is disingenuous.

If I live at home, am single, and have effectively no day-to-day costs, do I have more or less of an ability to pay than someone earning 10K less in salary per year but who is paying an additional 30K in family-support, rent/mortgage, high commuting costs etc. etc. ???

I think the vast majority of people are agreed that tax should be paid according to one's ability to pay

I think the vast majority of people don't understand the intricacies of what they are agreeing on, and when push comes to shove, "ability to pay" would prove to be too nebulous a concept to define and implement fairly.....and would result in a system similar to where we are today....where exceptions to a basic rule are made to allow for genuine situations which would impact the ability to pay, and which would then be also used (misused) by those who simply seek to reduce their tax bill. These exceptions would then be held up as proof that our system favours the rich and was in need of reform.....and so on.

Sleepy

bonkey, you're right you are dealing in semantics Obviously different VAT rates can't be levied on individuals which is why I feel VAT (and most other Stealth Taxes) should be abandoned altogether. If the income tax rates were increased proportionately (to make up the income loss from VAT and stealth taxes). It would simplify the tax collection system (which in theory would reduce government overheads) and ensure a more equitable tax system.

Sure, leave duties in place that are there to discourage the purchase of alcohol, tobacco, plastic bags etc but imho the only thing we should be paying tax on is our income (capital gains income included).

luckat

Part of the job of artists - whether anyone wants their "product" or not - is to provide a mirror to their society.

Journalists can write and broadcast all they like about healthcare, but if someone writes a *fictional* book that graphically shows the effects of a bad health system, it has way, way more effect, because it grabs people viscerally.

Ditto paintings, ditto music.

The choice, in any case, is not between a tax-free deal for artists and a good health system. There are plenty of other tax deals that would more amply and justly fund a superb health system - for instance, what about the wealthy horseracing industry, whose stud fees are tax-free? Ever seen a racehorse owner with the arse out of his trousers?

What about all those well-praised Irish entrepreneur patriots who keep their millions in the Caymans or Monaco because they don't have to pay tax there, only returning to accept yet another honorary doctorate from their fawning fans?

(/curmudgeon)

By the way, Slovenia, I think it is (see the Sunday Business Post's articles on the Accession States coming into the EU last week) has set a standard income *and* corporate tax rate of 19% for all tax paid.

I don't think the 10% standard tax rate idea would be fair, myself: after all, if you're a machinist and you make €200 a week and pay €20, you have €180 left to feed your family, buy clothes and books and music and luxuries. If you're a rich millionaire (as opposed to the other kind), you earn €2,000,000 and pay €200,000 (? not great arithmetical genius here), you're left with, umm, let's see, €180,000... no, that can't be right. Someone who can add, help, please!

Anyway, whatever you're left with, you're left with a lot more money to buy the six little sprogs their six singles with salt-and-vinegar when you come home with your wage packet on a Friday night. So its effect would be, actually, to make poor people pay a much bigger relative slice of the price of the roads, libraries, health service, etc.

Incidentally, most artists do work, until and if they start making enough money from their creative work to be able to leave the day job.

I don't know... personally I think the artistic tax scheme is a noble thing for Ireland to do, and one that has won us many international reputation points!

Victor

luckat wrote:

Part of the job of artists - whether anyone wants their "product" or not - is to provide a mirror to their society.

How "arty" (read: "pretentious").

I don't know... personally I think the artistic tax scheme is a noble thing for Ireland to do, and one that has won us many international reputation points!

Among the jet set.

cdebru

luckat wrote:

Part of the job of artists - whether anyone wants their "product" or not - is to provide a mirror to their society.

Journalists can write and broadcast all they like about healthcare, but if someone writes a *fictional* book that graphically shows the effects of a bad health system, it has way, way more effect, because it grabs people viscerally.

Ditto paintings, ditto music.

The choice, in any case, is not between a tax-free deal for artists and a good health system. There are plenty of other tax deals that would more amply and justly fund a superb health system - for instance, what about the wealthy horseracing industry, whose stud fees are tax-free? Ever seen a racehorse owner with the arse out of his trousers?

What about all those well-praised Irish entrepreneur patriots who keep their millions in the Caymans or Monaco because they don't have to pay tax there, only returning to accept yet another honorary doctorate from their fawning fans?!!

I haven't heard anyone suggest these people should not be taxed as well
the basic rate should apply to anyone currently exempt(except those on the minimum wage)
however the thread is about the artists exemption

luckat wrote:

By the way, Slovenia, I think it is (see the Sunday Business Post's articles on the Accession States coming into the EU last week) has set a standard income *and* corporate tax rate of 19% for all tax paid.

I don't think the 10% standard tax rate idea would be fair, myself: after all, if you're a machinist and you make €200 a week and pay €20, you have €180 left to feed your family, buy clothes and books and music and luxuries. If you're a rich millionaire (as opposed to the other kind), you earn €2,000,000 and pay €200,000 (? not great arithmetical genius here), you're left with, umm, let's see, €180,000... no, that can't be right. Someone who can add, help, please!!!

I dont know if you are deliberately misrepresenting what i said
but here it goes again
anyone on paye would continue on paye
anyone not on paye
should pay at the very least a basic tax rate i gave 10% as an example
that would include artists
what we have at the moment is millionaires able to avail of limitless tax excemptions which mean that they can avoid paying any tax at all
what a basic rate would mean is you have to pay at the very least a minimum rate of tax irrespective of what tax exemptions are available
including artists exemptions
i am not suggesting that this replaces paye
obviously anyone earning 200euro a week does not pay any tax at all it is below the minimum wage

i find it odd that you think someone paying 20 euro on 200 euro
and someone paying 200,000 on 2 million is unfair

but someone paying nothing on 2 million euro is noble

Blisterman

Are architects considered artists?

bonkey

I don't believe so. Computer programmers aren't either....

m1ke

Are architects considered artists?

One of the artistic disciplines recognised under the affiliation of creative artists supported by the artscouncil is architecture(although this is only very recent). They must have a significant body creative work.

luckat

Many artists don't make a lot of money during their lifetime - for instance, WB Yeats was as poor as a church mouse - but thousands of academic leeches feed richly off its blood for years.

I don't think it's pretentious to say that art holds up a mirror to its society. If you're looking for images to illustrate a piece about Florence, some of the city's art is a likely choice; if you're making a film about London, you'll probably have music by the Beatles or Mahler, say; if you're writing or filming or making a radio show about Dublin, you'll probably quote Joyce or Yeats or Heaney. They are an accurate reflection of their society.

Sleepy

And those that don't make much money from their art wouldn't suffer under a limit to the amount of tax-free income they could earn.

Gurgle

luckat wrote:

WB Yeats was as poor as a church mouse

I wish I was as poor as that church mouse

DublinWriter

Cork wrote:

There was a time that certain foriegn artiests actually lived in Irelad to avoid paying tax.

And that time is now. I know of several very famous UK/US authors 'resident' in Ireland purely for tax purposes.

There's also quite a few UK (ex!) rock stars resident in Ireland too - Ronnie Wood, John Martyn, Noel Redding, Donovan, the Thompson Twins, yer man from Def Leppard to name a few.

Most are names from the 70's who eek out a tax-free living on PRS royalties on their back catalogues.

I think common sense would tell us that the artist exemption should be capped at around 100K, or the average industrial wage if you want to get all socialist on their asses.

Victor

Blisterman wrote:

Are architects considered artists?

No, architecture is a profession, like accountancy and law.