Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 04 Aug '10 19:08
    Arts are a luxury. With Governments having to cut back left and right, where should we cut? It seems to me that the first place anyone should cut back is on luxuries. Why fund people to play a musical instrument or create a painting when the money could be used to feed or educate a child?

    It seems to me that public funding of arts is little more than keeping up with the Jones's. If everyday people can do without, then it's about time the government starts doing without.

    Does anyone really believe that money should be taken away from a family trying to make ends meet (through taxes) so that it can be used to pay for a piece of art?
  2. 04 Aug '10 19:11
    Originally posted by Eladar
    Arts are a luxury. With Governments having to cut back left and right, where should we cut? It seems to me that the first place anyone should cut back is on luxuries. Why fund people to play a musical instrument or create a painting when the money could be used to feed or educate a child?

    It seems to me that public funding of arts is little more than ...[text shortened]... ily trying to make ends meet (through taxes) so that it can be used to pay for a piece of art?
    I would first eliminate farm subsidies.
  3. 04 Aug '10 19:12
    Originally posted by Melanerpes
    I would first eliminate farm subsidies.
    Farm subsidies were put into place to lower the price of food. It seems to me that it has worked. Food prices in the US are far lower than Europe.
  4. 04 Aug '10 19:20 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Eladar
    Farm subsidies were put into place to lower the price of food. It seems to me that it has worked. Food prices in the US are far lower than Europe.
    Is that the most efficient use of tax dollars? Why not have slightly higher food prices and only give the money to poor people who need help buying food?
  5. 04 Aug '10 19:24
    Originally posted by Eladar
    Farm subsidies were put into place to lower the price of food. It seems to me that it has worked. Food prices in the US are far lower than Europe.
    Ah yes, Europe, where they don't have farm subsidies.

    Or wait...
  6. 04 Aug '10 19:25
    Originally posted by Eladar
    Arts are a luxury. With Governments having to cut back left and right, where should we cut? It seems to me that the first place anyone should cut back is on luxuries. Why fund people to play a musical instrument or create a painting when the money could be used to feed or educate a child?

    It seems to me that public funding of arts is little more than ...[text shortened]... ily trying to make ends meet (through taxes) so that it can be used to pay for a piece of art?
    Don't you believe your government should invest in the culture of your country considering the great benefits it brings to society?
    It doesn't have to be one thing or another, tax money goes to other government activities that are arguably much more "useless" than public funding of arts.
  7. 04 Aug '10 19:27 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by Melanerpes
    Is that the most efficient use of tax dollars? Why not have slightly higher food prices and only give the money to poor people who need help buying food?
    Remember the topic of discussion. Farm subsidies lower food prices. I guess slightly is in the eye of the beholder. The less money you have, the more important 'slight' differences in prices becomes.

    How does the funding of the arts help the poor?


    generalisimo,

    Don't you believe your government should invest in the culture of your country considering the great benefits it brings to society?

    No I do not. I guess I'm not hoytie toytie enough to appreciate the arts. I'm just a guy who has always lived on a budget and lived month to month trying to pay the bills. I go to work and come home and don't do much more than that because I can't afford it. Even my internet connection is a luxury and is a relatively new aspect of my life.

    I've gotten past the "ramen noodles and hot dogs" portion of my life and have moved up to hamburger and chicken with the occassional steak when its on sale. When I get to the point to where I can afford going to places with $15 and higher meals, then I might be concerned with the arts, but somehow even then I don't think I'll really care about them. I'm not alone in this country when it comes to trying to make ends meet. As a matter of fact, I'm relatively rich compared to many of the people in my area.
  8. 04 Aug '10 19:35
    I guess the same argument would apply -- funding the arts reduces the price of art. Perhaps if people bought more art and less food, there'd be less obesity.
  9. 04 Aug '10 19:37 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by Melanerpes
    I guess the same argument would apply -- funding the arts reduces the price of art. Perhaps if people bought more art and less food, there'd be less obesity.
    Arts are a luxury. Why should the government be interested in lowering the prices of luxury items?

    As far as obesity goes, that's what you get when people eat things like ramen noodles which are very high in Carbs and have very high glycimic numbers.
  10. 04 Aug '10 19:44
    Here's an idea. Eliminate subsidies for art and agriculture and let the free market decide their value.
  11. 04 Aug '10 19:49
    Originally posted by Eladar
    Arts are a luxury. Why should the government be interested in lowering the prices of luxury items?

    As far as obesity goes, that's what you get when people eat things like ramen noodles which are very high in Carbs and have very high glycimic numbers.
    so we should levy a high tax on things like ramen noodles
  12. 04 Aug '10 19:49 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Here's an idea. Eliminate subsidies for art and agriculture and let the free market decide their value.
    that would certainly be a disastrous policy (at least regarding arts), we all know that the free market doesn't benefit that which is necessarily valuable or culturally rich, but that which is saleable. Ultimately the culture of the country would be at the mercy of the masses, who are incapable of appreciating the intricate delicacies of certain relatively unpopular art forms, the result is predictable.
  13. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Poor Filipov :,(
    04 Aug '10 19:58 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Eladar
    Remember the topic of discussion. Farm subsidies lower food prices. I guess slightly is in the eye of the beholder. The less money you have, the more important 'slight' differences in prices becomes.

    How does the funding of the arts help the poor?


    generalisimo,

    [b]Don't you believe your government should invest in the culture of your country c a matter of fact, I'm relatively rich compared to many of the people in my area.
    [/b]
    You don't need to be 'hoytie toytie' to appreciate art. Art is a peaceful way for the poor to express themselves. Revolutionary music from the American Revolution, to IRA music, to gangsta rap from Los Angeles...it's all art, and it's all extremely powerful. It allows angry people to express their anger without people getting hurt.

    I am indifferent as to whether art gets public funding.
  14. 04 Aug '10 20:00
    Originally posted by generalissimo
    that would certainly be a disastrous policy (at least regarding arts), we all know that the free market doesn't benefit that which is necessarily valuable or culturally rich, but that which is saleable. Ultimately the culture of the country would be at the mercy of the masses, who are incapable of appreciating the intricate delicacies of certain relatively unpopular art forms, the result is predictable.
    Wasn't culture at the mercy of the masses (or at least those who had money) at the time of Shakespeare, Mozart, Rembrandt, Gaudi, and so on?
  15. 04 Aug '10 20:05
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Wasn't culture at the mercy of the masses (or at least those who had money) at the time of Shakespeare, Mozart, Rembrandt, Gaudi, and so on?
    "masses having money" was not invented until the 20th century