Arts funding

[goldstone]

So there's this big debate about public funding for the arts.

What people seem to forget is that it's our (taxpayers) money they're talking about here.

I am a taxpayer and I don't want millions of pounds given to the arts. Those that want art should pay for it. Those that don't shouldn't have their pockets picked by the government to subsidise something they don't want.

What we need is menu pricing. We pay for what we want through our taxes and those things we decline to support through taxes we pay for when we use them.

Lots of difficulties with the system I'm sure, but the only sensible way forward.

Or even more radical. No income tax and we pay for what we use through sales tax, VAT, road tolls, higher tax on fuel, medical care, garbage collection, etc. If we use the fire service we pay for it. If we use the police force we pay.

Then we get all the money we earn and WE can decide how to spend it.

I like the idea.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

..and those who want a football ground in Falmer should pay for it themselves as well? Instead of going cap in hand to various grant funds?

Besides, I think you will find that the value of art and culture, in all its guises, to this nation way way exceeds the value of funding it receives. In a recent report it was valued at between 25 and 29 billion pounds per annum in London alone. Bit of a no brainer really.

 

[The Merry Prankster]

Philestine.

 

[Starry]

>>Those that want art should pay for it. Those that don't shouldn't have their pockets picked by the government to subsidise something they don't want.<<

Where do you draw the line with that sort of thinking though?

 

[The Clown of Pevensey Bay]

If we use the fire service we pay for it. If we use the police force we pay.

Then we get all the money we earn and WE can decide how to spend it.

I like the idea.

So when the Marquis of Bath's flat in Chelsea burns down, he writes out a cheque for three grand. Fine.

What about when a poor pensioner's house in Hove burns down. She's only just scraped enough together for a week's food and an hour's heating every day. And then the fire brigade want three grand off her for putting out her front room.

And when someone stabs me in the chest one night, and I happen to have just lost my job, the police force and ambulance crews are not going to bother because I'm a bit short of cash.

A million people "withdraw" their tax support for UK troops fighting in Afghanistan because it's "not how they want to spend it"... the army runs out of guns... and whoops-a-daisy, Johnny Taleban seems to have killed them all.

Have you really thought this through?

 

[fatbadger]

Have you really thought this through?

Of course he hasn't. The whole post lacks thought.

 

[beorhthelm]

So there's this big debate about public funding for the arts.

What people seem to forget is that it's our (taxpayers) money they're talking about here.

I am a taxpayer and I don't want millions of pounds given to the arts. Those that want art should pay for it. Those that don't shouldn't have their pockets picked by the government to subsidise something they don't want.

Its not as simple as that. whats happening is they are cutting central funding overall so those that dish the money cut off the supply of funds completely to the small community projects in favour of the high brow stuff that frankly should be support itself through thte patronage of the wealthy. You might not want your taxes going to any arts, but then your children might actually benefit from local projects and we as a society would be much poorer without any culture beyond TV.

if you take you pricing menu to its conclusion, do you want to get rid of the NHS, schools, social security, state pension, police, fire, rubbish collection... no, i doubt it.

 

[goldstone]

Its not as simple as that. whats happening is they are cutting central funding overall so those that dish the money cut off the supply of funds completely to the small community projects in favour of the high brow stuff that frankly should be support itself through thte patronage of the wealthy. You might not want your taxes going to any arts, but then your children might actually benefit from local projects and we as a society would be much poorer without any culture beyond TV.

if you take you pricing menu to its conclusion, do you want to get rid of the NHS, schools, social security, state pension, police, fire, rubbish collection... no, i doubt it.

Just a subject for debate ...

But I do feel strongly about the arts thing. You want it you pay for it. I do not want to give my money to some poncy arty farty theatre group, but do I have a choice?

Fund the whole thing from the lottery and then the idiots who buy tickets can fund it all.

 

[Hornblower]

Just a subject for debate ...

But I do feel strongly about the arts thing. You want it you pay for it. I do not want to give my money to some poncy arty farty theatre group, but do I have a choice?

Fund the whole thing from the lottery and then the idiots who buy tickets can fund it all.

It's not as simple as that, and not as simple as the posting above that starts 'It's not as simple as that'

The Arts Council of England are radically changing their funding criteria, moving away from 'tick box' funding to what Brian McMasters in his DCMS commissioned report refers to as rewarding excellence in the Arts. This doesn't necessarily mean that small community projects will lose their funding infact overall ACE funding over the next 3 years will increase by over 10%

We are blessed in this country with a rich and varied arts and cultural scene that is the envy of other countries around the world. Our arts and culture scene has attractted huge investment from overseas and created masses of employment not to mention enriching our daily lives. That doesn't happen by chance and it doesn't happen anywhere nearly as successfuly if you take away all the funding.

Field Marshall Herman Goering was famously quoted as saying "When I hear the word culture I reach for my revolver" and he was a nazi fuckpig.

 

[The Large One]

So next time someone wants to put on an exhibition of Albion memorabilia, or Sussex CCC want to let people know about its history, they won't be able to because public funding of the events needs to be paid for by the people who attend? So who pays for the upfront expenditure?

It sounds to me like you don't want us to be knowledgable of or have any education about our history, our culture and our society.

 

[BlueWhite]

Just a subject for debate ...

I do not want to give my money to some poncy arty farty theatre group, but do I have a choice?.

I used be the director of a theatre group (don't think it was poncy arty farty). We did a show called Brighton 'Til I Die. There is absolutely no way we could have put the show on without Arts Council funding, unless we'd charged about £60 a ticket... then who would have come? There was no way sponsorship could have been raised to cover the costs (theatre is expensive to make)

Incidentally, since the Gardner closed last year, and now that the Arts Council have taken away funding from Komedia (ironically, given this post, because they think Komedia is too commercial), there's no theatre in the city that we could put the show on at.

There's a lot of art and culture I really don't like, and to an extent resent public money going towards... £1M a year for Glyndebourne! But culture needs subsidy if it's going to happen. The Arts budget costs the average taxpayers about 60p a week.

 

[Staypuft]

£1M a year for Glyndebourne! .

Really....I never knew that...

 

[Storer68]

£1m doesn't go very far when running an opera house with an internationakl reputation. And its in SUSSEX.

 

[Brovion]

I have no problem with Taxpayers' money funding 'arty farty' theatre that, yes, I will never attend. If the only art that was allowed was stuff that could fund itself we'd be left with nothing more than Pop Idol and Rolf Harris.

 

[Storer68]

Can I stop funding the hospitals, schools and roads that I never use.