7 ms·
Simple fix? Restrict the tax writeoff to $100/visitor/year.
by discardorama 12y ago
Simple fix? Restrict the tax writeoff to $100/visitor/year.
- arjunnarayan 12y agoThat's a surprisingly simple fix that makes a lot of sense. There's clearly a public benefit to having more visitors (since the tax break is explicitly to encourage things that are of the public benefit). I like it.
- 2arrs2ells 12y agoStartup idea: Fake museum visitors at $10/pop!
- sitkack 12y agoImpressions! Virtual visitors.
- rdtsc 12y agoTo write off $1M you'd need 10000 visitors/year. Contract a startup that gathers & shuttles fake visitors in at 1000/day for 10 days a year.
- rbcgerard 12y agounintended consequence: important works are only sent to the largest museums in the largest cities where traffic flow can support it the tax write off.
- lhc- 12y agoSo, the most important works end up going where they are seen by the most people? I think that's a reasonable consequence. Much better than hiding them away on some billionaire's private property.
- rbcgerard 12y agoFirst, I'm not saying there is a right answer. Second, I'm only trying to point out that often seemingly simple solutions have unintended consequences. In this case the further concentration of art in the largest metropolitan areas. I think one could make a reasonable argument that major metropolitan cities already have a high per capita art quotient - and that there is a public good in ensuring people in Topeka and Wichita can see great art as well. I guess I'm really just asking the question - "Do we want to create a situation where art does not get donated to small museums in order to spite a couple of billionaires?"