And some people are just having fun…fur-free fun at that.
How about your contribution to the symphony is tax deductible only if it goes into a fund that pays the “normal” ticket price for “normal folk” ?
Higher income people who don’t happen to be patrons can buy their own tickets.
Here’s another thought. Americans shell out huge amounts of dollars every year for music, and in particular live music (before covid). Why is it that certain types of music deserve taxpayer funding or subsidies? And, does performing Mozart really count as risk taking or inventiveness?
1 Like
“TAX THE RICH!” 
2 Likes
The people who enjoy the exhibit could buy enough tickets at high enough prices to support it.
Or, rich people can donate without the party, and go to the party without donating.
Where’s the status flaunting in that?
1 Like
Yeah, I see that as a particularly bitter joke. The absurdity is the humor. But I can understand why it might not work for everyone. I would like to know her own argument behind it, but not as much as I feel like playing video games now. 
2 Likes
Indy, money is fungible. This particular event was to support Costume Design, an element in all opera. It makes no difference how the subsidy is formed. Your suggestion merely adds on a layer of bookkeeping, administration, and bureaucracy. Poor choice. Your suggestion just leaves it to the bureaucrats to decide which normal folks get to attend. It will lead to argument, and the performances will only be lessened.
You ask if Mozart is worthy? Well one of the benefits, at virtually zero cost to the customers are children’s concerts. My own child attended one once. Did you know that Bach and Mozart are considered to be inspirations to some very successful and famous people. Radiohead comes immediately to mind. Even the Beatles,Pink Floyd, and Kurt Cobain. For those with talent, exposure like this is instrumental. So yes, it is risk taking. You are hoping it will inspire someone, though there are no guarantees.
Thru out history, the arts have relied on patronage. You know this. This is the modern, capitalist version of that practice. Nothing more.
2 Likes
They could… but would they?
I think there’s a reason that charities (and politicians of both parties, FWIW) have these high-price events. They get coins into the coffers.
I doubt your way raises nearly as much money. If it did, organizations would abandon the galas.
Just another politician more interested in building and promoting her own brand than governing.
1 Like
No, it’s not entirely fungible. There would be a layer of not-poor people who would pay the full price, that’s more than they pay today. Contributors can always say their gifts are contingent on the organization adding or continuing some program.
But, you are correct, it adds complexity. The entire “charitable contributions” deduction adds complexity. What organizations are eligible? What types of gifts are eligible? How do you value noncash donations? (used clothes donated to goodwill?)
I would much prefer that we drop the entire charade. If rich people want to donate money to “the arts”, go ahead and donate. Don’t expect the other taxpayers to help you out.
If you think your children benefit from a live classical concert, I’m sure you can afford tickets. Maybe the wealthy people will support the orchestra because it may inspire someone, and will insist that their contributions are contingent on continuing cheap childrens’ concerts, or on distributing tickets in schools with lots of low income kids, without asking the other taxpayers to share the cost.
If taxpayers should pick up some of the cost, it seems it should be the local taxpayers. My kids aren’t going to the symphony in your city.
Here’s another option, I’m sure you’ve done this comparison before:
A tax deductible contribution is financially equivalent to a matching gift subsidy. A $1,000 deductible contribution by someone in a 25% tax bracket leaves the taxpayer, the organization, and the gov’t is exactly the same financial position as a $750 contribution that earns a 1 to 3 match from the gov’t.
That program would be easier to administer because the organization would simply total up its contributions and send one form to the gov’t for everyone. Why don’t we do that? Well, the rate would probably be fixed. That’s a positive for me, if the gov’t is going to match contributions it should be the same for everyone. But, I expect rich people wouldn’t like it.
That’s a fine result to me.
I can think of three sources of funds for the Met Costume Institute – fees for people who visit, gifts from patrons, taxpayer subsidies from state and local governments. The institute needs to live on those three sources of funds.
There are lots of “nice to haves” in this world that ordinary people pass up every day because they can’t afford them. In my mind, the Costume Institute definitely ranks as a “nice to have for some people” rather than a “necessity of life”. I don’t think rich people should be able to unilaterally decide that the federal gov’t should add some dollars to that pot.
I view it the same way I view corporate matching gifts programs.
With a matching gift program the corporation outsources (at least a portion of) the decision-making of who will benefit from their corporate giving to their employees who are themselves willing to put their money where their mouth is.
The charitable gifts deduction is not quite as tidy due to things like graduated tax rates and the standard deduction*, but the charitable gift deduction is essentially the federal government doing the same thing. And for states that give you charitable gift deductions then those state governments also.
*I don’t think that getting rid of these things is the answer either. But I suppose you could change the deduction to a tax credit: reduce your tax by 20% of the amount donated irrespective of income. Should it be a refundable or non-refundable credit? Could go either way on that. Same rules as now for what “counts” as a donation. Now the government is ponying up the exact same amount for a $1,000 donation whether the giver is a CEO or a secretary. I’d support that change.
1 Like
I gather this a central point for you.
Unfortunately, it is the world we live in. You would have to eliminate money in politics, and that will be really,really hard. Because I guarantee you that today, Jamie Diamond has more influence and access to how government works than you and your closest 100 friends have all combined.
I am not unsympathetic to your libertarian-leanings. I too am upset when I see a NFL team owner get a 9 digit “incentive” to place/keep his team in town. Drives me nuts. But the principle of everyone stands alone is not always a good path. The Arts are a prime example. Your kids my never see a symphony, but they may listen to Radiohead. Perhaps they already do now.
Museums and national parks are subject to " I don’t like everyone paying, when everyone doesn’t use it" arguments. I guess my point is, that’s not a valid argument for not funding them in a collective manner.
2 Likes
Last I saw the symphony it definitely had the oppressive feel of rich-old-white-guy club. It would be a more convincing “charity” if minorities or children or poor people were regularly in the audience.
1 Like
I think symphonies do a lot more than play in front of rich old white guys.
LA Phil is having a gala in a few weeks.
Proceeds from the Homecoming Gala will support the LA Phil and its community programs, which bring the joy of music and music-making into the lives of 150,000 children and families each year.
And, shit! Cynthia Erivo will be singing!!
1 Like
Good analogy. And, yes, I’d prefer the flat 20% “above the line” for everyone. And, yes, it should be refundable. If the gov’t outsources decision making, it shouldn’t give rich people extra leverage over and above what they get from just being rich.
But, again, I’d prefer nothing at all. I’d rather that the gov’t not outsource decision making. I don’t like credits for contributions to expensive prep schools, for example. And, I’d prefer getting rid of all the regulations required to make this work.
Our local Philharmonic does kids concerts. They’re actually pretty fun. They often have hands on displays. I remember taking one of my kids and she got to try to play a French Horn. Prices were reasonable.
1 Like
This is true. It still makes sense to get rid of big money in politics. Why give him more clout than he already has?
So rich people have clout even without the charitable deduction. I get that. But, why give them more?
I think it is a valid argument, at least for museums, symphonies, operas, and live theater. Government has a roll in funding things that are subject to the free rider dilemma. Museums … can charge admission fees. I’m fine with developing a way for unusually low income people, especially children, to use them. But, tax deductible generic contributions to the opera, given that I believe the opera crowd isn’t especially poor, strikes me as gov’t subsidy for rich people’s entertainment.
Mine triiiies to do some outreach, but it’s definitely not their bread and butter.
Maybe if the charity was separate organization from the old-rich-guy concerts it would make more sense to me.
As it stands, it sort of reminds me of church as a charity that looks after itself first.
Maybe the hybrid model is the only way it can function at all, but it certainly is suspect.
I think that arts organizations are ones where you kind of WANT “free riders”. ie people who would like to hear/see the symphony/opera/theater/ballet but can’t afford to pay what it really costs.
That’s kind of the whole point of donating money to them and having government support for doing so.
I used to go walking at lunch right by the art museum, and halls where the symphony, ballet, opera, and ballet performed. I’d see quite a few school busses outside and sometimes kids (more often than not majority minority kids, FWIW) piling in or out. They’re obviously doing tours/performances for school groups and I think it’s good for those kids to have that kind of exposure.
And I very much doubt that those school groups are capable of paying their share of the expense to put on the performance.