New Weekly Basic Income for Artists

So we now put forward the theory that the Govn't selected Bambie Thug to represent Ireland😂

What's your point exactly?

Up to a certain point, as incomes increase consumption increases. After that people tend to spend their OWN money on assets, such as a pension. Do you think you should be able to dictate how people spend their money?

As a society we offer an unbelievable amount of support for people to up skill. People have numerous opportunities to better themselves in Ireland. At the state's expense. Which I approve of by the way. It's to everyone's benefit when people improve their skills.

However, every transfer payment that the government gives creates a disincentive to work. And as we've seen in Ireland there's a significant cohort who are happy not to work.

Also, why are so many hard work tax payers happy to see their money thrown at the undeserving?

Or maybe they could get another job if they can't earn enough in their current one.

Why should the tax payer be on the hook just because someone can't earn a crust with their art?

If you were being asked to directly pay 300 odd euro a week to someone you'd be fairly quick to say no. But once it's "taxpayers' money" all of a sudden it's fine to waste it.

Edit:

Also, 40 hours a week of work leaves plenty of time for a hobby. Ask anyone who's studied part time while working.

Or plays/coaches sports.

Or enjoys going to the cinema.

Or the simple joy of walking the dog for an hour.

Some people love cooking.

Some people play computer games/watch TV in their spare time.

People don’t get paid for their hobbies. And there’s nothing to stop you doing art when you’re on the dole.

Of course it's important.

We're discussing how it should be funded.

Fair play to those lads giving to the community.

It shows a real love of a place when residents are willing to give their time like that.

So all those people could be on 350pw on a basic income, giving them more time to devote to these interests. I mean that would depend on this trial being a success (which is what it's looking like) and getting more people on board (which is the challenge).

Great.

If it's important, it has to be paid for. You can't just pay the "successful" artists as

A: you'll run out of artists as the young ones have to give it up, and get a job unless their parents are loaded. The artists that come late to the game wouldn't be able to take the financial risk of going for it either.

B: You run the risk of underrepresented artists from working class areas (which is already happening) as money is such an issue to them.

C: Basic income is taxable income, so anything they earn over it is taxed straight away. They'll also be spending their 350 on rent (taxable) supplies (taxable) workshops (taxable).

I think we have to wait to see exactly how much what the net cost to this scheme will be before we can judge that. (350pw Vs how much the govt received back).

The problem with that is, where do you stop? The playwright on 350 a week writes a play and receives €7,000 for it, which they're taxed on. Then it's put on stage, actors, backstage support, sets, costumes, lights etc are all paid (and pay tax) and the audience (potentially thousands) buys tickets and have a meal before going in and having a drink at the bar, before getting a taxi home (all adding to the states coffers).

But all we'll see is the tax take on 7000 vs 350pw.

Would the playwright have written that play without the safety blanket of 350pw? Maybe, but it might not have been crafted as well due to having to hold down another job.

It's the basic problem with trying to justify art in a financial sense. It's finance Vs intangibles.

I'd argue that he'd write a better play without basic income because he would have some life experience from working.

He might be able to relate to those people sitting in the audience, who've spent their hard earned on a ticket.

I doubt Orwell's books would have been improved (or even existed) had he been a life long doler.

Also, any money spent is good for the economy. However, an economy cannot sustain unlimited transfer payments. Someone has to actually do some work to pay for everything!

This "wouldn't it be nice" scenario where other people's money is given to people to fund their hobbies is the typical rubbish we come up with in Ireland. Because we haven't yet figured out that the government can only spend our money, and a significant portion of society lives on the backs of others.

People would have more money to spend on art if the government taxed them less. And, people would be free to fund the art they like, not have their taxes used to fund all sorts of rubbish.

Productivity increases are what pay for wage increases.

If you start discouraging companies from investing in technology then we'll just fall behind the competition. Employment levels will change as new technology emerges. But one thing is for certain, the idea that AI will replace everyone is laughable.

Also in Ireland, what is "fair" when it comes to taxing companies. We don't have a big capital base to tax. The golden geese that are currently paying for our bloated public sector and society's "most vulnerable" will up sticks in the morning if the tax regime here becomes unfavorable. Don't ever forget that. Our prosperity depends entirely on allowing foreign companies access to the EU while offering the benefits of being in a tax haven.