A crafts forum. CraftBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » CraftBanter forum » Craft related newsgroups » Pottery
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Artist should be valued



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old March 3rd 08, 05:15 PM posted to alt.art,rec.crafts.pottery,us.arts
D Kat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 55
Default Artist should be valued

On Sun, 2 Mar 2008 14:16:41 -0500, Donna Kat wrote:

On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 16:36:02 -0800, Shula wrote:

I just heard this on All Things Considered and was excited. Then I

googled "artist fair value." That was very discouraging. Seems there have
been lots of attempts to pass such a bill, but I thought folks might be
interested anyway. This is from the All Things Considered website.:

All Things Considered, February 29, 2008 · Sen. Pat Leahy (D-VT) is

sponsoring the Artist-Museum Partnership Act, which would allow artists to
file tax deductions for the market value of works they donate to non-
profits. As Leahy tells Robert Siegel, artists are currently able to
deduct only the value of the materials used.

The measure has been brought up in the Senate more than once over the

past several years, but it still hasn't become law.

Shula
in sunny, beautiful (translated, that means the wind isn't blowing)

Desert Hot Springs, California USA


I recommend forwarding this to every artist/friend you know. It is the
squeaky wheel that gets attention and if we all call or email our
representative/senators this may get passed.

Donna


I sent out my request and a friend who is not a potter or artist sent this
link back. It is a real easy way to send in your comment.

http://www.capwiz.com/artsusa/issues...521951&type=CO

Donna



http://www.capwiz.com/artsusa/issues...521951&type=CO





Ads
  #2  
Old March 4th 08, 02:24 PM posted to alt.art,rec.crafts.pottery,us.arts
Bob Masta
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 96
Default Artist should be valued

On Mon, 3 Mar 2008 11:15:31 -0500, "D Kat"
wrote:

On Sun, 2 Mar 2008 14:16:41 -0500, Donna Kat wrote:

On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 16:36:02 -0800, Shula wrote:

I just heard this on All Things Considered and was excited. Then I

googled "artist fair value." That was very discouraging. Seems there have
been lots of attempts to pass such a bill, but I thought folks might be
interested anyway. This is from the All Things Considered website.:

All Things Considered, February 29, 2008 · Sen. Pat Leahy (D-VT) is

sponsoring the Artist-Museum Partnership Act, which would allow artists to
file tax deductions for the market value of works they donate to non-
profits. As Leahy tells Robert Siegel, artists are currently able to
deduct only the value of the materials used.

The measure has been brought up in the Senate more than once over the

past several years, but it still hasn't become law.

Shula
in sunny, beautiful (translated, that means the wind isn't blowing)

Desert Hot Springs, California USA


I recommend forwarding this to every artist/friend you know. It is the
squeaky wheel that gets attention and if we all call or email our
representative/senators this may get passed.

Donna


I sent out my request and a friend who is not a potter or artist sent this
link back. It is a real easy way to send in your comment.

http://www.capwiz.com/artsusa/issues...521951&type=CO

Donna


As I understand it, the old "materials value only" rule applies evenly
to *everyone*, not just artists. If you are a truck driver and agree
to drive the artist's pots to the museum, you don't get to deduct
for your time as if it were a regular paid-for delivery. Nor does a
carpenter who agrees to crate the pieces, etc.

And it doesn't apply just to museum donations, it applies to all
donations. It probably has to be this way to prevent abuse.
Consider the old scam whereby people donate their old books or junk
and claim a hefty market value. If they were allowed to claim a
value for their time, it would be even harder to verify.

And art is in a class by itself as far as being hard to assign
market values. Unless the piece has already been sold, it's not at
all clear what its value is. Certainly *not* the price the artist has
been asking for it as it languished in the last umpteen art fairs,
nor even what the posh uptown gallery is asking.

So, if you are an artist who is affected by this, the solution is
simple: Put your money where your mouth is and *sell* the piece, and
donate the money to the museum!

For the rest of us, the thrill of having a piece in a museum, not to
mention the boost in professional stature and the increase in the
market value of other for-sale pieces, would be more than enough
compensation.

Best regards,


Bob Masta

DAQARTA v3.50
Data AcQuisition And Real-Time Analysis
www.daqarta.com
Scope, Spectrum, Spectrogram, FREE Signal Generator
Science with your sound card!
  #3  
Old March 4th 08, 04:20 PM posted to alt.art,rec.crafts.pottery,us.arts
D Kat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 55
Default Artist should be valued


"Bob Masta" wrote in message
...
http://www.capwiz.com/artsusa/issues...521951&type=CO

Donna


As I understand it, the old "materials value only" rule applies evenly
to *everyone*, not just artists. If you are a truck driver and agree
to drive the artist's pots to the museum, you don't get to deduct
for your time as if it were a regular paid-for delivery. Nor does a
carpenter who agrees to crate the pieces, etc.

And it doesn't apply just to museum donations, it applies to all
donations. It probably has to be this way to prevent abuse.
Consider the old scam whereby people donate their old books or junk
and claim a hefty market value. If they were allowed to claim a
value for their time, it would be even harder to verify.

And art is in a class by itself as far as being hard to assign
market values. Unless the piece has already been sold, it's not at
all clear what its value is. Certainly *not* the price the artist has
been asking for it as it languished in the last umpteen art fairs,
nor even what the posh uptown gallery is asking.

So, if you are an artist who is affected by this, the solution is
simple: Put your money where your mouth is and *sell* the piece, and
donate the money to the museum!

For the rest of us, the thrill of having a piece in a museum, not to
mention the boost in professional stature and the increase in the
market value of other for-sale pieces, would be more than enough
compensation.

Best regards,


Bob Masta


The problem is Bob that few artist can afford to sell the piece and donate
the money earned. Even when they donate the piece they are not getting that
price in return in their taxes. We are talking about a deduction not a
credit - so if you are in the 20% tax bracket then you get 20% of the
estimated value of the item taken off of your salary that is taxed - then
add in the lovely AMT which limits even that. As far as scamming goes -
they are now pretty ridged about what they allow - you have to document your
donations and something such as this would have to be valued by the museum
not by the artist.

When I volunteer my time at the crafts studio, I would never dream of trying
to take a tax deduction for that time. That is something very different
from a piece of art that will not only hold its value but increase in value
over time. The museum if it needed the money could sell the work of art.
It cannot sell the crate it was shipped in or the time I took building that
crate.

Apples and Oranges. Donna



  #4  
Old March 5th 08, 02:27 PM posted to alt.art,rec.crafts.pottery,us.arts
Bob Masta
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 96
Default Artist should be valued

On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 10:20:42 -0500, "D Kat"
wrote:


"Bob Masta" wrote in message
...
http://www.capwiz.com/artsusa/issues...521951&type=CO

Donna


As I understand it, the old "materials value only" rule applies evenly
to *everyone*, not just artists. If you are a truck driver and agree
to drive the artist's pots to the museum, you don't get to deduct
for your time as if it were a regular paid-for delivery. Nor does a
carpenter who agrees to crate the pieces, etc.

And it doesn't apply just to museum donations, it applies to all
donations. It probably has to be this way to prevent abuse.
Consider the old scam whereby people donate their old books or junk
and claim a hefty market value. If they were allowed to claim a
value for their time, it would be even harder to verify.

And art is in a class by itself as far as being hard to assign
market values. Unless the piece has already been sold, it's not at
all clear what its value is. Certainly *not* the price the artist has
been asking for it as it languished in the last umpteen art fairs,
nor even what the posh uptown gallery is asking.

So, if you are an artist who is affected by this, the solution is
simple: Put your money where your mouth is and *sell* the piece, and
donate the money to the museum!

For the rest of us, the thrill of having a piece in a museum, not to
mention the boost in professional stature and the increase in the
market value of other for-sale pieces, would be more than enough
compensation.

Best regards,


Bob Masta


The problem is Bob that few artist can afford to sell the piece and donate
the money earned. Even when they donate the piece they are not getting that
price in return in their taxes. We are talking about a deduction not a
credit - so if you are in the 20% tax bracket then you get 20% of the
estimated value of the item taken off of your salary that is taxed - then
add in the lovely AMT which limits even that. As far as scamming goes -
they are now pretty ridged about what they allow - you have to document your
donations and something such as this would have to be valued by the museum
not by the artist.

When I volunteer my time at the crafts studio, I would never dream of trying
to take a tax deduction for that time. That is something very different
from a piece of art that will not only hold its value but increase in value
over time. The museum if it needed the money could sell the work of art.
It cannot sell the crate it was shipped in or the time I took building that
crate.

Apples and Oranges. Donna


It's not at all clear why artists should receive special treatment.
Consider the carpenter who builds a house for Habitat for Humanity.
All the same arguments about holding value apply here as well, and
the value is easily verified. Yet the carpenter can't claim that
value, only materials.

Having a piece in a museum is a benefit for the artist, much more
so than a Habitat for Humanity house is for the carpenter, since
the museum exhibit will be a continuing advertisement, with
prominent attribution. Any artist who feels they need added financial

incentive is being a tad greedy, IMHO.

I also wonder about the premise that few artists can afford to sell
the piece and donate the money. If your work is so good that
museums want it, you can't be hurting too badly.

Forgive me if it seems I have my hackles up over this, but I do
not think artists should be placed on any sort of pedestal.
If they can't succeed at doing the thing they love as a business,
they should find another line of work and do art as a hobby,
just like everyone else. Nobody owes them a living just because
they hang out a shingle and proclaim themselves as artists.
If a carpenter can't make houses that people want to buy,
he can change careers or starve... but he sure can't expect
charity just because he is no good at his proclaimed profession.


Best regards,


Bob Masta

DAQARTA v3.50
Data AcQuisition And Real-Time Analysis
www.daqarta.com
Scope, Spectrum, Spectrogram, FREE Signal Generator
Science with your sound card!
  #5  
Old March 5th 08, 07:12 PM posted to alt.art,rec.crafts.pottery,us.arts
DKat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 99
Default Artist should be valued

Should not it be the case that you argue for the carpenter being allowed to
deduct the value of what they have produced instead of arguing that artist
can't because carpenters can't? I understand not allowing 'salary' of
time served to be deducted. A famous movie star who hosts an event would
not get to deduct the hourly wage he would normally get. You can not resell
that time contributed. With art or a craft however you can continue to sell
the item donated.

What bothers me is the lack of value we as a country place on crafts, the
arts and intellect. We have become a nation of warriors that only cares
about how much bigger and badder we are than everyone else. Sports now
dominate TV while PBS/NPR are demonized. The first thing cut in education
programs are the arts and music (despite research showing that teaching
young children music vastly improves their ability to do math and that art
has great therapeutic value). You know I would be perfectly fine with them
having no taxes at all up to a certain level of income and then having no
deductions for anything. If you make money, you pay a tax on it and that
includes capital gains. That isn't how things work currently and believe
it or not poor people and lower middle class pay far more of their wealth in
taxes (sales, SS, Med, local, etc.) than the wealthy do.

Donna

"Bob Masta" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 10:20:42 -0500, "D Kat"
wrote:


"Bob Masta" wrote in message
...
http://www.capwiz.com/artsusa/issues...521951&type=CO

Donna


As I understand it, the old "materials value only" rule applies evenly
to *everyone*, not just artists. If you are a truck driver and agree
to drive the artist's pots to the museum, you don't get to deduct
for your time as if it were a regular paid-for delivery. Nor does a
carpenter who agrees to crate the pieces, etc.

And it doesn't apply just to museum donations, it applies to all
donations. It probably has to be this way to prevent abuse.
Consider the old scam whereby people donate their old books or junk
and claim a hefty market value. If they were allowed to claim a
value for their time, it would be even harder to verify.

And art is in a class by itself as far as being hard to assign
market values. Unless the piece has already been sold, it's not at
all clear what its value is. Certainly *not* the price the artist has
been asking for it as it languished in the last umpteen art fairs,
nor even what the posh uptown gallery is asking.

So, if you are an artist who is affected by this, the solution is
simple: Put your money where your mouth is and *sell* the piece, and
donate the money to the museum!

For the rest of us, the thrill of having a piece in a museum, not to
mention the boost in professional stature and the increase in the
market value of other for-sale pieces, would be more than enough
compensation.

Best regards,


Bob Masta


The problem is Bob that few artist can afford to sell the piece and donate
the money earned. Even when they donate the piece they are not getting
that
price in return in their taxes. We are talking about a deduction not a
credit - so if you are in the 20% tax bracket then you get 20% of the
estimated value of the item taken off of your salary that is taxed - then
add in the lovely AMT which limits even that. As far as scamming goes -
they are now pretty ridged about what they allow - you have to document
your
donations and something such as this would have to be valued by the museum
not by the artist.

When I volunteer my time at the crafts studio, I would never dream of
trying
to take a tax deduction for that time. That is something very different
from a piece of art that will not only hold its value but increase in
value
over time. The museum if it needed the money could sell the work of art.
It cannot sell the crate it was shipped in or the time I took building
that
crate.

Apples and Oranges. Donna


It's not at all clear why artists should receive special treatment.
Consider the carpenter who builds a house for Habitat for Humanity.
All the same arguments about holding value apply here as well, and
the value is easily verified. Yet the carpenter can't claim that
value, only materials.

Having a piece in a museum is a benefit for the artist, much more
so than a Habitat for Humanity house is for the carpenter, since
the museum exhibit will be a continuing advertisement, with
prominent attribution. Any artist who feels they need added financial

incentive is being a tad greedy, IMHO.

I also wonder about the premise that few artists can afford to sell
the piece and donate the money. If your work is so good that
museums want it, you can't be hurting too badly.

Forgive me if it seems I have my hackles up over this, but I do
not think artists should be placed on any sort of pedestal.
If they can't succeed at doing the thing they love as a business,
they should find another line of work and do art as a hobby,
just like everyone else. Nobody owes them a living just because
they hang out a shingle and proclaim themselves as artists.
If a carpenter can't make houses that people want to buy,
he can change careers or starve... but he sure can't expect
charity just because he is no good at his proclaimed profession.


Best regards,


Bob Masta

DAQARTA v3.50
Data AcQuisition And Real-Time Analysis
www.daqarta.com
Scope, Spectrum, Spectrogram, FREE Signal Generator
Science with your sound card!



  #6  
Old March 5th 08, 08:09 PM posted to alt.art,rec.crafts.pottery,us.arts
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Artist should be valued

When I heard this issue talked about on the TV, they said what was behind
this issue, was that the congressmen wanted to get a "deduction" for the
donation
of their personal papers , etc. to a library. The deduction for artists was
just a side thought, in that the old system of recording how much white,
red, paint you used in the painting, for deduction purposes.
also: Just think, most of us would be taken care of and work for the King
in olden days. ;-)
ren

"DKat" wrote in message
...
Should not it be the case that you argue for the carpenter being allowed
to deduct the value of what they have produced instead of arguing that
artist can't because carpenters can't? I understand not allowing
'salary' of time served to be deducted. A famous movie star who hosts an
event would not get to deduct the hourly wage he would normally get. You
can not resell that time contributed. With art or a craft however you can
continue to sell the item donated.

What bothers me is the lack of value we as a country place on crafts, the
arts and intellect. We have become a nation of warriors that only cares
about how much bigger and badder we are than everyone else. Sports now
dominate TV while PBS/NPR are demonized. The first thing cut in education
programs are the arts and music (despite research showing that teaching
young children music vastly improves their ability to do math and that art
has great therapeutic value). You know I would be perfectly fine with
them having no taxes at all up to a certain level of income and then
having no deductions for anything. If you make money, you pay a tax on
it and that includes capital gains. That isn't how things work currently
and believe it or not poor people and lower middle class pay far more of
their wealth in taxes (sales, SS, Med, local, etc.) than the wealthy do.

Donna

"Bob Masta" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 10:20:42 -0500, "D Kat"
wrote:


"Bob Masta" wrote in message
...
http://www.capwiz.com/artsusa/issues...521951&type=CO

Donna


As I understand it, the old "materials value only" rule applies evenly
to *everyone*, not just artists. If you are a truck driver and agree
to drive the artist's pots to the museum, you don't get to deduct
for your time as if it were a regular paid-for delivery. Nor does a
carpenter who agrees to crate the pieces, etc.

And it doesn't apply just to museum donations, it applies to all
donations. It probably has to be this way to prevent abuse.
Consider the old scam whereby people donate their old books or junk
and claim a hefty market value. If they were allowed to claim a
value for their time, it would be even harder to verify.

And art is in a class by itself as far as being hard to assign
market values. Unless the piece has already been sold, it's not at
all clear what its value is. Certainly *not* the price the artist has
been asking for it as it languished in the last umpteen art fairs,
nor even what the posh uptown gallery is asking.

So, if you are an artist who is affected by this, the solution is
simple: Put your money where your mouth is and *sell* the piece, and
donate the money to the museum!

For the rest of us, the thrill of having a piece in a museum, not to
mention the boost in professional stature and the increase in the
market value of other for-sale pieces, would be more than enough
compensation.

Best regards,


Bob Masta

The problem is Bob that few artist can afford to sell the piece and
donate
the money earned. Even when they donate the piece they are not getting
that
price in return in their taxes. We are talking about a deduction not a
credit - so if you are in the 20% tax bracket then you get 20% of the
estimated value of the item taken off of your salary that is taxed - then
add in the lovely AMT which limits even that. As far as scamming goes -
they are now pretty ridged about what they allow - you have to document
your
donations and something such as this would have to be valued by the
museum
not by the artist.

When I volunteer my time at the crafts studio, I would never dream of
trying
to take a tax deduction for that time. That is something very different
from a piece of art that will not only hold its value but increase in
value
over time. The museum if it needed the money could sell the work of art.
It cannot sell the crate it was shipped in or the time I took building
that
crate.

Apples and Oranges. Donna


It's not at all clear why artists should receive special treatment.
Consider the carpenter who builds a house for Habitat for Humanity.
All the same arguments about holding value apply here as well, and
the value is easily verified. Yet the carpenter can't claim that
value, only materials.

Having a piece in a museum is a benefit for the artist, much more
so than a Habitat for Humanity house is for the carpenter, since
the museum exhibit will be a continuing advertisement, with
prominent attribution. Any artist who feels they need added financial

incentive is being a tad greedy, IMHO.

I also wonder about the premise that few artists can afford to sell
the piece and donate the money. If your work is so good that
museums want it, you can't be hurting too badly.

Forgive me if it seems I have my hackles up over this, but I do
not think artists should be placed on any sort of pedestal.
If they can't succeed at doing the thing they love as a business,
they should find another line of work and do art as a hobby,
just like everyone else. Nobody owes them a living just because
they hang out a shingle and proclaim themselves as artists.
If a carpenter can't make houses that people want to buy,
he can change careers or starve... but he sure can't expect
charity just because he is no good at his proclaimed profession.


Best regards,


Bob Masta

DAQARTA v3.50
Data AcQuisition And Real-Time Analysis
www.daqarta.com
Scope, Spectrum, Spectrogram, FREE Signal Generator
Science with your sound card!





  #7  
Old March 6th 08, 02:47 PM posted to alt.art,rec.crafts.pottery,us.arts
Bob Masta
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 96
Default Artist should be valued

On Wed, 5 Mar 2008 13:12:37 -0500, "DKat"
wrote:

Should not it be the case that you argue for the carpenter being allowed to
deduct the value of what they have produced instead of arguing that artist
can't because carpenters can't? I understand not allowing 'salary' of
time served to be deducted. A famous movie star who hosts an event would
not get to deduct the hourly wage he would normally get. You can not resell
that time contributed. With art or a craft however you can continue to sell
the item donated.


My main objection was to preferential treatment for specific groups.
(Don't get me started on clergy!) So your proposal that everyone gets
a deduction based on value seems fair and reasonable. But I can't see
any logical reason why it should be limited to durable goods with
resale value, other than that it might be easier to get appraisals.
However, determining value opens a big can of worms.

It's also sad that people should need financial incentives to
make charitable contributions. My attitude is that the donation
itself is an investment toward the world I wish to see. The
investment "pays dividends" to the extent that the recipient
organization furthers those goals.

What bothers me is the lack of value we as a country place on crafts, the
arts and intellect. We have become a nation of warriors that only cares
about how much bigger and badder we are than everyone else. Sports now
dominate TV while PBS/NPR are demonized. The first thing cut in education
programs are the arts and music (despite research showing that teaching
young children music vastly improves their ability to do math and that art
has great therapeutic value). You know I would be perfectly fine with them
having no taxes at all up to a certain level of income and then having no
deductions for anything. If you make money, you pay a tax on it and that
includes capital gains. That isn't how things work currently and believe
it or not poor people and lower middle class pay far more of their wealth in
taxes (sales, SS, Med, local, etc.) than the wealthy do.


Donna


Agreed. As far as cutting school programs, it seems to me that
competitive sports should be the first thing cut. I don't think
schools need to teach competitiveness, and there are much better
ways to teach teamwork. Arts, crafts, and music are things that
will benefit people throughout their lives. I think one of the hidden
benefits of art, in particular, is that it encourages people to be
creative, by which I mean "think outside the box", not just "make
something pretty". It seems to me that the vast majority of people
are afraid to try different approaches to things (even music and
crafts!), apparently from lack of self confidence. "What if it turns
out bad?" With art, "turning out bad" means you learn
something about what works or what you like, and you can always
try something else the next time.

Best regards,


Bob Masta

DAQARTA v3.50
Data AcQuisition And Real-Time Analysis
www.daqarta.com
Scope, Spectrum, Spectrogram, FREE Signal Generator
Science with your sound card!
  #8  
Old March 6th 08, 04:47 PM posted to rec.crafts.pottery
DKat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 99
Default Artist should be valued


"Bob Masta" wrote in message Agreed. As far as
cutting school programs, it seems to me that
competitive sports should be the first thing cut. I don't think
schools need to teach competitiveness, and there are much better
ways to teach teamwork. Arts, crafts, and music are things that
will benefit people throughout their lives. I think one of the hidden
benefits of art, in particular, is that it encourages people to be
creative, by which I mean "think outside the box", not just "make
something pretty". It seems to me that the vast majority of people
are afraid to try different approaches to things (even music and
crafts!), apparently from lack of self confidence. "What if it turns
out bad?" With art, "turning out bad" means you learn
something about what works or what you like, and you can always
try something else the next time.

Best regards,


Bob Masta


Exactly! I am hoping that we are moving in that direction - Oddly Bush
meant to bankrupt the government out of social services (has said so
directly), but he may have bankrupted us out of the warrior mentality.
Physical activity that kids enjoy is great and important for their health -
resources to beat the crap out of the rival school... not so much. Donna


  #9  
Old March 8th 08, 12:54 AM posted to alt.art,rec.crafts.pottery,us.arts
Andrew Werby
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 49
Default Artist should be valued

If a collector buys a work of art, and donates it to a museum, they can
deduct the fair market value at the time of the donation, not just what they
paid originally. This can work out to a tidy profit for the donator. But if
the artist who made it donates it, all he/she can deduct is the original
price of materials. Is this fair?

When an artist dies, by the way, the value of their art in the estate is
assessed at fair market value - the big problem alleged in fixing value
seems to disappear. Often, the heirs are forced to sell it off at fire-sale
prices to pay the tax owed, and can't afford to donate any to non-profits.
Is that fair, or in the public interest?

Bob writes: "If your work is so good that museums want it, you can't be
hurting too badly." I wonder what planet he comes from. Here on earth, being
able to produce art that's good -even good enough for museums - does not
guarantee any monetary income at all. Yes, you can indeed be hurting badly.
While artists, I agree, should not be accorded specially favorable treatment
in the tax code, neither should they be singled out for specially
unfavorable treatment. Any other manufacturer who donates their products to
a recognized non-profit can deduct the fair market value, whether it is
computers for schools or food for the hungry, and this is generally accepted
as good for everybody concerned. Many industries get more favorable
treatment than that, like the oil companies (and they're not exactly
hurting), which get a "depletion allowance" for the petroleum that lies in
the ground (appreciating greatly as it does so). But artists, uniquely, are
arbitrarily limited to deducting the costs of their materials only; not the
cost of their overhead, equipment, foundry services, education, or any of
the other costs that went into producing their art. Is that fair, or even
consistent?

Nobody's talking about being "owed a living" here. A tax donation is only
useful if one has a tax liability in the first place; it does you no good if
you're too poor to have to file a return. And if the museum didn't think a
prospective donation was worth having, they are under no obligation to
accept it. The tax code is commonly used to encourage things the government
thinks are good (like owning a home, or digging oil wells), and to
discourage things it considers harmful (like smoking cigarettes, or buying
sugar from other countries). In this case, it would seem that art was in the
latter category, as far as the bureaucrats of Washington are concerned. Of
course, it's really just a matter of political clout - the mortgage, oil and
sugar industries have it, artists do not, and we are punished accordingly.
If we got together and lobbied for equitable treatment we might get it; the
status quo is the result of our not having a collective voice that reaches
the ears of our rulers.

Andrew Werby

www.computersculpture.com






"Bob Masta" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 10:20:42 -0500, "D Kat"
wrote:


"Bob Masta" wrote in message
...
http://www.capwiz.com/artsusa/issues...521951&type=CO

Donna


As I understand it, the old "materials value only" rule applies evenly
to *everyone*, not just artists. If you are a truck driver and agree
to drive the artist's pots to the museum, you don't get to deduct
for your time as if it were a regular paid-for delivery. Nor does a
carpenter who agrees to crate the pieces, etc.

And it doesn't apply just to museum donations, it applies to all
donations. It probably has to be this way to prevent abuse.
Consider the old scam whereby people donate their old books or junk
and claim a hefty market value. If they were allowed to claim a
value for their time, it would be even harder to verify.

And art is in a class by itself as far as being hard to assign
market values. Unless the piece has already been sold, it's not at
all clear what its value is. Certainly *not* the price the artist has
been asking for it as it languished in the last umpteen art fairs,
nor even what the posh uptown gallery is asking.

So, if you are an artist who is affected by this, the solution is
simple: Put your money where your mouth is and *sell* the piece, and
donate the money to the museum!

For the rest of us, the thrill of having a piece in a museum, not to
mention the boost in professional stature and the increase in the
market value of other for-sale pieces, would be more than enough
compensation.

Best regards,


Bob Masta


The problem is Bob that few artist can afford to sell the piece and donate
the money earned. Even when they donate the piece they are not getting
that
price in return in their taxes. We are talking about a deduction not a
credit - so if you are in the 20% tax bracket then you get 20% of the
estimated value of the item taken off of your salary that is taxed - then
add in the lovely AMT which limits even that. As far as scamming goes -
they are now pretty ridged about what they allow - you have to document
your
donations and something such as this would have to be valued by the museum
not by the artist.

When I volunteer my time at the crafts studio, I would never dream of
trying
to take a tax deduction for that time. That is something very different
from a piece of art that will not only hold its value but increase in
value
over time. The museum if it needed the money could sell the work of art.
It cannot sell the crate it was shipped in or the time I took building
that
crate.

Apples and Oranges. Donna


It's not at all clear why artists should receive special treatment.
Consider the carpenter who builds a house for Habitat for Humanity.
All the same arguments about holding value apply here as well, and
the value is easily verified. Yet the carpenter can't claim that
value, only materials.

Having a piece in a museum is a benefit for the artist, much more
so than a Habitat for Humanity house is for the carpenter, since
the museum exhibit will be a continuing advertisement, with
prominent attribution. Any artist who feels they need added financial

incentive is being a tad greedy, IMHO.

I also wonder about the premise that few artists can afford to sell
the piece and donate the money. If your work is so good that
museums want it, you can't be hurting too badly.

Forgive me if it seems I have my hackles up over this, but I do
not think artists should be placed on any sort of pedestal.
If they can't succeed at doing the thing they love as a business,
they should find another line of work and do art as a hobby,
just like everyone else. Nobody owes them a living just because
they hang out a shingle and proclaim themselves as artists.
If a carpenter can't make houses that people want to buy,
he can change careers or starve... but he sure can't expect
charity just because he is no good at his proclaimed profession.


Best regards,


Bob Masta

DAQARTA v3.50
Data AcQuisition And Real-Time Analysis
www.daqarta.com
Scope, Spectrum, Spectrogram, FREE Signal Generator
Science with your sound card!



  #10  
Old March 8th 08, 02:44 PM posted to alt.art,rec.crafts.pottery,us.arts
Bob Masta
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 96
Default Artist should be valued

On Fri, 7 Mar 2008 15:54:23 -0800, "Andrew Werby"
wrote:

If a collector buys a work of art, and donates it to a museum, they can
deduct the fair market value at the time of the donation, not just what they
paid originally. This can work out to a tidy profit for the donator. But if
the artist who made it donates it, all he/she can deduct is the original
price of materials. Is this fair?

When an artist dies, by the way, the value of their art in the estate is
assessed at fair market value - the big problem alleged in fixing value
seems to disappear. Often, the heirs are forced to sell it off at fire-sale
prices to pay the tax owed, and can't afford to donate any to non-profits.
Is that fair, or in the public interest?

Bob writes: "If your work is so good that museums want it, you can't be
hurting too badly." I wonder what planet he comes from. Here on earth, being
able to produce art that's good -even good enough for museums - does not
guarantee any monetary income at all. Yes, you can indeed be hurting badly.
While artists, I agree, should not be accorded specially favorable treatment
in the tax code, neither should they be singled out for specially
unfavorable treatment. Any other manufacturer who donates their products to
a recognized non-profit can deduct the fair market value, whether it is
computers for schools or food for the hungry, and this is generally accepted
as good for everybody concerned. Many industries get more favorable
treatment than that, like the oil companies (and they're not exactly
hurting), which get a "depletion allowance" for the petroleum that lies in
the ground (appreciating greatly as it does so). But artists, uniquely, are
arbitrarily limited to deducting the costs of their materials only; not the
cost of their overhead, equipment, foundry services, education, or any of
the other costs that went into producing their art. Is that fair, or even
consistent?


As I mentioned in my earlier posts, the artists are not now being
singled out for unfair treatment... it's the same rule that is applied
equally to all individuals, be they artists, carpenters, or truck
drivers. If, in fact, corporations don't have to abide by this same
rule is another question. They seem to be able to pick and choose
when they will be accorded treatment as persons (like demanding
"rights") and when they can hide behind the corporate veil.

It would be very interesting to find out just where the corporate
perks come into play here. Consider a corporation consisting of
assembly-line artists cranking out "starving artist originals" the
way they do in third-world countries. Could the corporation
claim market value if it donated its products? If so, then just
how small a corporation would be eligible? It only takes 3 people
to form a standard corporation, so artist's co-ops would seem
to be eligible.

Nobody's talking about being "owed a living" here. A tax donation is only
useful if one has a tax liability in the first place; it does you no good if
you're too poor to have to file a return. And if the museum didn't think a
prospective donation was worth having, they are under no obligation to
accept it. The tax code is commonly used to encourage things the government
thinks are good (like owning a home, or digging oil wells), and to
discourage things it considers harmful (like smoking cigarettes, or buying
sugar from other countries). In this case, it would seem that art was in the
latter category, as far as the bureaucrats of Washington are concerned. Of
course, it's really just a matter of political clout - the mortgage, oil and
sugar industries have it, artists do not, and we are punished accordingly.
If we got together and lobbied for equitable treatment we might get it; the
status quo is the result of our not having a collective voice that reaches
the ears of our rulers.

Andrew Werby

www.computersculpture.com


Again, I don't believe there is anything in the tax code that singles
out artists, so lobbying for "equitable" treatment won't help... it's
already the same treatment everyone gets. This may come down
to individuals versus corporate clout, but it's not about artists
per-se. We'd *all* like to be able to deduct fair market value
for donations of our labor or products!

Best regards,



Bob Masta

DAQARTA v3.50
Data AcQuisition And Real-Time Analysis
www.daqarta.com
Scope, Spectrum, Spectrogram, FREE Signal Generator
Science with your sound card!
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Who is the Artist? Bettina Jordan Beads 5 August 6th 06 04:42 AM
New Poly "Artist" Kim Polymer Clay 2 September 30th 05 11:26 AM
Who is the ceramic artist "Orr"? bmorisky Pottery 3 May 23rd 05 09:45 PM
Next to diamond, next most valued stone??? Lawrence Jewelry 4 June 5th 04 03:22 AM
You have to see what this artist does with dichro, oo la la! Marisa Cappetta Beads 10 January 26th 04 10:36 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:17 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CraftBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.