4 ms·
It is interesting to me that something like this can have such a high value. It speaks meanly for the our shared cultural global connection when it comes to ite
by larusso 11mo ago
It is interesting to me that something like this can have such a high value. It speaks meanly for the our shared cultural global connection when it comes to items like these. For what purpose other than saying: “I have a …” would you buy this? Or is it the believe the price only goes up and it gets bought as an investment? I mean specifically this item with this high price.
I ask because I think the price is only as high if the item in question is still cultural relevant. So I assume you buy it and start shadow produce new Superman projects :)
- onion2k 11mo agoI ask because I think the price is only as high if the item in question is still cultural relevant. Les Poseuses Ensemble by Georges Seurat was sold for $149m. Very few people have heard of it, care about it, or even like it considering it's pointillism which no one buys modern versions of. The world of art and collectables is entirely rich people speculating that the price (not value) will go up in the future.
- saretup 11mo agoDon’t forget the tax savings.
- stavros 11mo agoWhat tax savings? How does that work?
- saretup 11mo agoDifferent tax loopholes depending on region etc, but basically like this: I’m a billionaire earning $100M this year. I owe $40M as taxes for that. (Too much!) I find a dumb banana painting by a starving artist. I buy it from him for $1000. I wait 6 months. I go to a museum to get it appraised by “professionals”. I pay the professional appraiser’s wife $50K as a gift. The appraiser says the painting is now worth $30M! Wow that’s awesome, I have such a keen eye for art. You know what, I’m gonna donate this painting to a museum instead because I’m such a patron of art and culture. Oh, look at that, I get a tax rebate for the value of my donated painting ($30M) Now I only have to pay $40M - $30M = $10M in taxes on my $100M income. There’s more nuance to it in practice, but that’s the gist of it. ----- Edit: For some reason I can't reply to the comments below so I'm gonna do it here. > That wouldn't explain the price here, since in your scam the whole idea is to buy cheap and donate dear. not buy for 139M Now we're getting in the details but it's very suspicious for an appraiser to appraise a work of art from an unknown artist at millions. But it's not that suspicious if they take Van Gogh's Starry Night which was previously appraised at $500M to now be valued at $1B. this way the deca-billionaire still gets to save his taxes while appraiser avoids suspicion. > As far as I know, that's not how taxes work. You can't get a rebate for the amount of taxes you would have paid, you can get a deduction for the amount of money you made. There are a lot of loopholes in the complicated tax system for the ultra-wealthy, not for us. This video (still a simple explanation in an animated way) covers a few more of them: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHy07B-UHkE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHy07B-UHkE
- stavros 11mo agoAs far as I know, that's not how taxes work. You can't get a rebate for the amount of taxes you would have paid, you can get a deduction for the amount of money you made. So: You made $100M owe $40M in taxes. Your painting is worth $30M! You have such a keen eye for art. Now you made $130M and owe $50M in taxes. You donate the painting, you're back at having made $100M and owing $40M. Otherwise we'd all choose not to pay tax and donate our tax money to charitable institutions instead.
- renewiltord 11mo agoI’m pretty sure he’s right in how taxes work. There’s no moment where the value of the painting is realized but you are allowed to deduct the FMV if you make enough and if the donation goes to the charity’s exempt use (which it will if it’s a museum or whatever). So if you buy painting for a dollar and wait a year then next year you make $3m and the painting is now worth $1m then if you donate it, your AGI is reduced to $3m-min($1m, 30% of income) = $3m-$900k. You don’t count the appreciation of the painting as income. You don’t even count it as LTCG if you don’t sell it. I think it also applies to stock option awards. When the startup I was at was acquired some people were talking about it.
- __s 11mo agoThere was a subtle mistake: the 30M would be deducted from taxable income (in Canada I was only able to deduct from capital gains)
- namdnay 11mo agoThat wouldn't explain the price here, since in your scam the whole idea is to buy cheap and donate dear. not buy for 139M
- bazoom42 11mo agoYour scheme involves getting a fake appraisal for a value higher than the market price. But this does not explain high prices at an auction.
- stonecharioteer 11mo agoDunno why I can't reply to your other comment explaining what you mean but hot damn. False evaluation of a cheap painting to save on taxes? That's mental.
- larusso 11mo agoAh damn. I forgot to add in the whole world of art collection which of course this item belongs in as well. Still baffles me how we humans can put such high prices on some items
- wahnfrieden 11mo agoIt’s mostly money laundering and loan collateral
- JKCalhoun 11mo agoI thought it was bragging rights for the terminally insecure billionaire class.
- wahnfrieden 11mo agoThey get stored in warehouses. No one sees most of this art
- JKCalhoun 11mo agoI assumed they were stored in yachts or "chateaus" in Jackson Hole, Wyoming.
- squigz 11mo agoSurely some of it is also the simple fact of... these people are very rich and want some art they enjoy. The same way a regular person might buy an autographed photo of a celebrity they like or something like that.
- zakki 11mo agoI would say something like this is an analog version of nowadays crypto currency.
- RobotToaster 11mo agoAnalogue NFT
- Lerc 11mo agoIt is, but only for thing people would legitimately like to have. The entire NFT thing would work if it were restricted to things people want, even if that only amounts to bragging rights. Somewhere along the way people lost track of the fact that being able to trade something doesn't denote value in itself
- _puk 11mo ago"only for thing people would legitimately like to have." Whilst that may be true for the most part, much of the art dealt nowadays is never displayed, just stored somewhere incredibly tax efficient until it's value has gone up enough to warrant selling. https://theswisstimes.ch/unlocking-the-secrets-of-the-geneva-freeport-a-haven-for-priceless-art-and-tax-evasion/ https://theswisstimes.ch/unlocking-the-secrets-of-the-geneva...
- Lerc 11mo agoIn that respect I suspect it is much the same as bored apes. The price can go up while there are people with funds to put into things they don't care about. When the time comes that they have less money than the cost of things important to them, the 'value' can swiftly evaporate.
- scotty79 11mo agoThe price is determined by the depths of pockets of buyers. High price for such items means only that too many stupid people have too much money in our time.
- ls-a 11mo agoReally? After all the bogus valuations on HN, this one surprised you
- amelius 11mo agoIt's valuable because we know with high certainty that it wasn't created using GenAI.