4 ms·

I would like to provide liveable wages for both artists and athletes. Who gets to choose which artists and athletes are funded? When do we start funding them?

I would like to provide liveable wages for both artists and athletes. Who gets to choose which artists and athletes are funded? When do we start funding them? In high-school, before? After they graduate? There are many people who identify as athletes at that age, football players, cheerleaders. I have a 6yo son who is really good at doing various crafts and he really enjoys it, does he count as an artist? How do we define art? Are we counting the preforming arts? Does someone playing the guitar in the subway count? What about my garage band that I have with my friends? On the flip side, are we also going to ensure Taylor Swift has a livable wage for life? Tom Brady?

anotherhue 2y ago
Al least you can race the athletes against each other to find out who is the best. Much hard to do that with artists. We could say we'll fund the fastest people but in all liklihood those will turn out to be people who have dedicated the most time to their sport, which is a pretty good proxy for being rich, because most people can't afford that level of time investment.
- amanaplanacanal 2y ago
  Many Olympic "sports" are judged on artistic merit. Which seems weird to me, but what do I know?
Y-bar 2y ago
> Who gets to choose which artists and athletes are funded? Preferably via UBI which would prevent cheating and inconsistencies and minimise the bureaucracy around it. > When do we start funding them? Smarter people than me have already answered this, but generally at 18 years of age or after graduation seems to be a common answer. > I have a 6yo son who is really good at doing various crafts and he really enjoys it, does he count as an artist? As far as I am concerned yes, he should be provided with UBI once he reaches a mature age (see earlier answer as well). > How do we define art? Are we counting the preforming arts? Does someone playing the guitar in the subway count? What about my garage band that I have with my friends? That's what's so great about UBI, no need for subjective/objective debates. Everyone gets it, nobody gets to gate-keep, no expensive investigations into what is art and so on. All these people are eligible for UBI. > On the flip side, are we also going to ensure Taylor Swift has a livable wage for life? Tom Brady? That's where the _Universal_ part of _Universal Basic Income_ makes itself reminded.
- chii 2y ago
  And how is such a UBI funded, pray tell? Will you agree to a 90% tax rate for your regular job, so that UBI could be had?
  - Y-bar 2y ago
    What you do not consider is that all serious UBI initiatives will see UBI as a _replacement_ to multiple other already existing welfare programs such as housing stipends, childcare benefits, maternity leave benefits, illness benefits, food stamps, veteran care... Not only will those be removed if UBI is implemented, the bureaucracy around those benefits will be eliminated or significantly reduced which means that more of the money paid in taxes will be distributed to people. As far as my own tax burden, I pay a marginal tax rate of about 33% and would have no issue increasing that. I also think I pay too little in property taxes for my house. I am also getting a tax write-off to my loan which means I can take on a higher loan that I maybe should have (this write-off is bad on a macro scale because of the increased risk), I think that write-off should be phased out. There are also other taxes to adjust such as Tobacco taxes, VAT:s (we have four tiers today: 0, 6, 12, and 25 percent VAT depending on the type of good), Wealth taxes, Carbon taxes, and Financial taxes such as those on dividends and transactions.
- nradov 2y ago
  No actual smart people think that UBI is an effective answer to anything. The math simply doesn't work. Those claiming that UBI is the answer are either innumerate or are making ideological claims at odds with objective reality.
  - khafra 2y ago
    UBI would have an expense comparable to the entire current welfare state, which is a large part of the federal budget even in America--much larger than defense spending, for example. However, GDP keeps going up, and many people would argue that "real" labor force participation keeps going down (e.g., bullshit service sector jobs, which mostly provide value to customers who want to feel superior to someone). At some point, UBI is going to be affordable; especially if it replaces most of the current welfare state. Is there any other part of the math that simply doesn't work?
yallpendantools 2y ago
First of all, funding arts/sports != livable wages for the artists/atheletes. There's an overlap but wage is just at the tip of the iceberg of funding. Provide livable wages to athletes and artists who represent your country (i.e., Olympians and national performers/artists). Fund development programs from as early as possible; this means grassroots efforts like summer camps, higher-level contests/tournaments, providing funds for national and international exposure, and providing for easy access to decent gear, among others. A lot of the participants in these programs wouldn't do this for life---won't make it to the Olympics or to the National Opera---but it will do a lot of other things like keep children off the streets and, not to mention, develop other skills/connections that could still come in useful later in life. If anything, sports could give them a love for exercise which, I heard recently, is the most potent medical intervention. And yes, your son is an artist as long as he imagines himself to be. Ideally he has access to these development programs that could pave the way for him to a professional art career if he's so determined. Your garage band is an artist group; what you may not be is a professional artist group. Same goes for the subway busker. Speaking of which, when you went to the flip side, you kinda went from oranges to, not quite apples but lemons. Professionals like Swift and Brady should be far far less the taxpayer's concern compared to Olympians and other amateurs.
- reshlo 2y ago
  > national performers/artists Who is in this group?
  - chii 2y ago
    So you hold a competition to see who is the best...
    - reshlo 2y ago
      Is this trumpet player better than that painter? Is this sculptor better than that beat poet?
- themaninthedark 2y ago

anotherhue 2y ago

Al least you can race the athletes against each other to find out who is the best. Much hard to do that with artists. We could say we'll fund the fastest people but in all liklihood those will turn out to be people who have dedicated the most time to their sport, which is a pretty good proxy for being rich, because most people can't afford that level of time investment.

amanaplanacanal 2y ago
Many Olympic "sports" are judged on artistic merit. Which seems weird to me, but what do I know?

Y-bar 2y ago

> Who gets to choose which artists and athletes are funded? Preferably via UBI which would prevent cheating and inconsistencies and minimise the bureaucracy around it. > When do we start funding them? Smarter people than me have already answered this, but generally at 18 years of age or after graduation seems to be a common answer. > I have a 6yo son who is really good at doing various crafts and he really enjoys it, does he count as an artist? As far as I am concerned yes, he should be provided with UBI once he reaches a mature age (see earlier answer as well). > How do we define art? Are we counting the preforming arts? Does someone playing the guitar in the subway count? What about my garage band that I have with my friends? That's what's so great about UBI, no need for subjective/objective debates. Everyone gets it, nobody gets to gate-keep, no expensive investigations into what is art and so on. All these people are eligible for UBI. > On the flip side, are we also going to ensure Taylor Swift has a livable wage for life? Tom Brady? That's where the _Universal_ part of _Universal Basic Income_ makes itself reminded.

chii 2y ago
And how is such a UBI funded, pray tell? Will you agree to a 90% tax rate for your regular job, so that UBI could be had?
- Y-bar 2y ago
  What you do not consider is that all serious UBI initiatives will see UBI as a _replacement_ to multiple other already existing welfare programs such as housing stipends, childcare benefits, maternity leave benefits, illness benefits, food stamps, veteran care... Not only will those be removed if UBI is implemented, the bureaucracy around those benefits will be eliminated or significantly reduced which means that more of the money paid in taxes will be distributed to people. As far as my own tax burden, I pay a marginal tax rate of about 33% and would have no issue increasing that. I also think I pay too little in property taxes for my house. I am also getting a tax write-off to my loan which means I can take on a higher loan that I maybe should have (this write-off is bad on a macro scale because of the increased risk), I think that write-off should be phased out. There are also other taxes to adjust such as Tobacco taxes, VAT:s (we have four tiers today: 0, 6, 12, and 25 percent VAT depending on the type of good), Wealth taxes, Carbon taxes, and Financial taxes such as those on dividends and transactions.
nradov 2y ago
No actual smart people think that UBI is an effective answer to anything. The math simply doesn't work. Those claiming that UBI is the answer are either innumerate or are making ideological claims at odds with objective reality.
- khafra 2y ago
  UBI would have an expense comparable to the entire current welfare state, which is a large part of the federal budget even in America--much larger than defense spending, for example. However, GDP keeps going up, and many people would argue that "real" labor force participation keeps going down (e.g., bullshit service sector jobs, which mostly provide value to customers who want to feel superior to someone). At some point, UBI is going to be affordable; especially if it replaces most of the current welfare state. Is there any other part of the math that simply doesn't work?

yallpendantools 2y ago

First of all, funding arts/sports != livable wages for the artists/atheletes. There's an overlap but wage is just at the tip of the iceberg of funding. Provide livable wages to athletes and artists who represent your country (i.e., Olympians and national performers/artists). Fund development programs from as early as possible; this means grassroots efforts like summer camps, higher-level contests/tournaments, providing funds for national and international exposure, and providing for easy access to decent gear, among others. A lot of the participants in these programs wouldn't do this for life---won't make it to the Olympics or to the National Opera---but it will do a lot of other things like keep children off the streets and, not to mention, develop other skills/connections that could still come in useful later in life. If anything, sports could give them a love for exercise which, I heard recently, is the most potent medical intervention. And yes, your son is an artist as long as he imagines himself to be. Ideally he has access to these development programs that could pave the way for him to a professional art career if he's so determined. Your garage band is an artist group; what you may not be is a professional artist group. Same goes for the subway busker. Speaking of which, when you went to the flip side, you kinda went from oranges to, not quite apples but lemons. Professionals like Swift and Brady should be far far less the taxpayer's concern compared to Olympians and other amateurs.

reshlo 2y ago
> national performers/artists Who is in this group?
- chii 2y ago
  So you hold a competition to see who is the best...
  - reshlo 2y ago
    Is this trumpet player better than that painter? Is this sculptor better than that beat poet?
themaninthedark 2y ago