Of course not. Do you think that people can’t both be interested in funding PBS and in making sure they pay lower taxes by cutting the minuscule federal funding for CPB? It can be both, yeah?
Please don’t put words in my mouth. That’s not what I said. There is a sincere belief in the cutting of taxes to an absolutely bare minimum and pushing all public services into the private sector that has nothing to do with some evil, mustache twirling agenda. It’s not something that I agree with, however. Public services serve all of us, not just those who can afford to pay for it.
It can be both a tax have and a public good. But while we’re on this issue, why fund an opera (either through taxation or private donations - or most likely, a combination of both, which it has been historically - most often through tax breaks more than through direct funding, although the NEA has given plenty of grants to such organizations, especially during the CW), but not, say, a hole in the wall, youth-centered punk club? How public $$$ and private money is spent has always been political. Opera, orchestras, and ballet (for example) have been considered high art and thus worthy of at least some public funding, while “lower” class culture has not.
Last I looked into it, most US cities arts organizations made specific point to make their performances accessible to all members of the community, certainly not those who provide major funding. From what I’m aware of, ticket sales arent what keeps the lights on.
I suspect we have very different understandings of what the term “tax haven” means.
Was that really the best example? Unless things have really changed since my youth, I cant imagine what kind of punk club would accept government money…
There are certainly cases where when “lower” class culture gets its ass together and applies for and successfully receives public or private funding.
Sure. And they are partially underwritten, if not by direct funding (from city governments, for example - it’s not just about the federal government) than by various tax cuts because they are often non-profit status. You’re correct about ticket sales, too.
I think that contributing to non-profits count as a tax haven, because you can write it off on your taxes. It’s a tax break and the more you can contribute to non-profits, the more of a break you get. Again, I think you’re interpreting what I’m saying to mean that there is some nefarious purpose, when I’m not at all saying that. I’m saying that people can want to get tax breaks and support culture that they value. Many of us do this (just not at the level of say people who are primary contributors to places such as the Dallas Opera).
I mean… This happened primarily because of where it existed, I suspect. I know there are probably other examples, but this is probably one of the best known ones of what is essentially a punk club having non-profit status. I think stuff like this happened primarily because the earlier waves of punks grew up and wanted to create spaces that they remember positively impacting their lives.
I’d say that it’s less likely to get that public support an opera or ballet is going to get. The ability to do so when you don’t know the right people, the right things to do, or how to do grant writing, is limited. That shit is hard for people who are well-educated and connected, much less for many mere mortal artists.
There is a great difference between a tax haven and a tax deduction. Conflating the two words doesnt help make a point. There is nothing underhanded about funding a civic opera or hospital. The resulting deduction has nothing to to with the intent of the donation, its a simple recognition of the individual’s contribution to the community.
Berkley… OK. That does possibly explain it.
I remember some art gallery managing to do this in Austin in the 80s but cant remember the name well enough to look it up. IIRC the gallery owner was not of the literate class but once she succeeded, she did help some other local arts organizations to try the same. I heard this second hand so cant vouch for the truth of the story but there it is.
I didn’t say there was. But it would be naive to think that getting a tax deduction wasn’t part of the calculation, either. And when you’re talking about thousands of dollars vs. a few hundred dollars, that matters in the equation too.
The fact that it could happen is down to it being in Berkeley. That doesn’t mean that other punks in other places wouldn’t have also liked such status, considering that all-ages spaces tend to struggle financially, even though they’re providing something of a public service (keeping kids “off the streets” and giving them a place to hang out and express themselves). I imagine that the two coffee shops and the one attempt at a punk club in my hometown (all of which failed) would have been incredibly helpful place for us to have and would have dealt with the problem that authorities decided we had with kids hanging out on the streets.
IMO, Marx’s greatest insight was his philosophical treatment of the concept of money. I’ve shared this before, but I find it worth revisiting.
That which is for me through the medium of money – that for which I can pay (i.e., which money can buy) – that am I myself, the possessor of the money. The extent of the power of money is the extent of my power. Money’s properties are my – the possessor’s – properties and essential powers. Thus, what I am and am capable of is by no means determined by my individuality. I am ugly, but I can buy for myself the most beautiful of women. Therefore I am not ugly, for the effect of ugliness – its deterrent power – is nullified by money. I, according to my individual characteristics, am lame, but money furnishes me with twenty-four feet. Therefore I am not lame. I am bad, dishonest, unscrupulous, stupid; but money is honoured, and hence its possessor. Money is the supreme good, therefore its possessor is good. Money, besides, saves me the trouble of being dishonest: I am therefore presumed honest. I am brainless, but money is the real brain of all things and how then should its possessor be brainless? Besides, he can buy clever people for himself, and is he who has [In the manuscript: ‘is’. – Ed.] power over the clever not more clever than the clever? Do not I, who thanks to money am capable of all that the human heart longs for, possess all human capacities? Does not my money, therefore, transform all my incapacities into their contrary?
The essay certainly touches on foundations and arts patronage and other such things the truly wealthy congratulate themselves with in the name of “doing good.” For truth, they are only buying good they themselves can’t give to their world in their own skin.
I have seen both, but thought Imitation Game was a better film. I am, however, a big Redmayne fan. I really enjoyed Pillars of the Earth, but I will watch about any of his work.
But those two films did try to show introverted scientists who had social issues but were nevertheless people worth emulating.
Also- Bones
I don’t know anything personal about Claude Shannon, but I expect he’s the kind of model referenced. He’s at the top of the heap, but it’s a heap many of us are delighted to be part of. As far as I know, he had a boring superficial personality and had no interest in putting himself out there. Within his intellectual community he was a rock star in his lifetime, and he will be referenced up to the end of technology.
The few times he’s on film, his dry prescient humor comes through (“Incidentally the things we learn for the telephone system have other applications.”). Reading his master’s thesis is astonishing; it is clear and illustrative and this allowed immediate recognition and use of the ideas, and to this day they are used in more and more ways. That alone is inspirational and I can and do use them. I want to be like him, and I can be to a degree because he explains his ideas with clarity.
Boltzmann, Gibbs, Noether and others fall in the same category; relatively ordinary lives and maybe not movie material, but the stuff of intellectual legend, with accomplishments that we can understand and aspire to.
Why? Are you thinking here of some moral code like Maimonides ranking of tzedaka or imagining that intent should play a factor in tax law when it comes to a result of civic good?
How so? I really dont understand.
Possibly this is dependent on time and place because when I had first hand experience with the scene no one would have taken private or pubic funds even if it meant the difference between keeping the doors open or not.
Its possible we agree but for completely different reasons.
I wont try and pick apart meaning from that Marx quote. I’m not qualified and from what I’ve seen even trying to do so starts fights.
why is “doing good” in quotes? What do you mean by the last sentence? It looks to me like you are making a moral judgement which I dont understand if the result is that good is done anyway. Am I misreading?
Well, I won’t fight you, but I’d suggest reading the essay in it’s entirety if you’re not sure of the meaning.
To clarify, by truly wealthy, I mean the Davos set, as in, the few thousand or so with hundreds of millions or more. By the The Economist’s measure, 98 billionaires possess more wealth than the bottom half of the global population. The share of wealth held by the truly rich then necessitates the rest having much less to split among themselves. Or to put it another way, the Davos set, possessed of far more than they could ever need, or their children need, or their children’s children need, mandate by that possession alone billions having much less than they need. No amount of philanthropy well-intentioned or otherwise, could overcome this basic arithmetic. Do foundations cure poverty and food insecurity in the poorest parts of the world? The short answer is no.
The Cleveland Foundation, long one of the U.S.'s larger charitable ventures, has been lauded for things such as keeping the lights on for the Cleveland Orchestra- which can certainly be counted as one of our greatest cultural products. Courtesy of the foundation’s largesse, many children who would not otherwise are given the chance to experience the Orchestra. On it’s face, of course this is a good thing.
But this experience doesn’t exist in a vacuum- many of those children will return home from their visit to the orchestra wondering if there will be anything to eat when they get there. Wondering if the power will still be on. The next day, they will return to their schools, overstuffed, understaffed, without enough books to go around for everyone, and the majesty of the Orchestra fades from many if not all of their memories because more pressing demands lay greater claim to their thoughts. So has good been done? If so, was that good anything more than temporal, a single moment breaking the otherwise unceasing grind of poverty?
Are you of the belief that wealth is a zero sum game? If so thahs not only wrong but a conversation ender.
Foundations certainly arent a cureall for the bad governance which is often the cause of food insecurity in many parts of the world, Cleveland or otherwise. Similarly hardware shops are generally not the best source of doughnuts.
I am not saying that. However, if money can be anything, one of those things can be broadly classed as access to resources, and winnowing further, the material goods needed to survive. If that is the case, than the mere fact that the majority of wealth is beyond reach for the majority of the people, then they can’t possibly see their needs met- therefore, poverty is a condition necessitated by wealth.
Or to turn the question around, if the wealthy had less- much less, even, and thus less claim to or power over available resources, wouldn’t it follow that the poor would have greater access to and power over resources?
I’m certainly no fan of most of the world’s governance, but aren’t you being at least a little disingenuous with this sideline? Of course, one could easily argue that any government’s failures are tied to their relations with the wealthiest of their society. To return to Cleveland, where the public schools have long been drastically underfunded, what responsibility do the rich have for that condition? Did they not close up their factories, stripping the city of tens of thousands of jobs or more, only to re-open them elsewhere so that they could be even richer? Do they also not fight vehemently against property taxes, hamstringing the city’s ability to fund the schools? Do they not also leave themselves for greener pastures?
Whose words reach closest to the inner ear of government? Those whose money, whose wealth buys them that speech? Or those with little or no voice? Why do governments fail? Is it simply because governance is fallible? The wealthy suburbs of Cleveland have excellent public schools. Do governments in wealthy communities perform better because wealthy people are superior at governance? Could it be possible that the wealthy simply prefer to share only among themselves, while giving hardware store doughnuts to the poor?
Just noting that people are benefiting in multiple ways from supporting the arts.
You don’t understand that people who have a lot of extra cash have more ways in which to not pay that money into taxes? That people with more money make conscious decisions to save as much as they can on paying taxes (as do we all, so I’m not judging, really) and that a lack of tax dollars has real world consequences?
All punk scenes are different. You’re experiences aren’t others.
