artistic licence
I read in the sunday tribune today (can’t be read without subscription alas) that Irvine Welsh, author of Trainspotting, was added to the list of artists exempt from income tax last year.
Apparently, one of the factors in millionaire Welsh moving here last summer was the favourable tax breaks he would enjoy. I bet it was! Well I hope he’s settling in well in his humble abode in Ranelagh as I gaze into the future wondering in exactly what decade I may be available to afford my own place!
Irv was not alone. Other notable inclusions were such groundbreaking artists as The Thrills and Bellefire, and the struggling spearhead of chick lit, Cecelia Ahern.
In fairness, if the tax break is there, I’m not blaming people for availing of it. Furthermore, the article pointed out that over 400 applicants in 2001 had incomes of under €5000. Yet, it is ludicrous that multi millionaires can be let away with this. It is one of the schemes that is supposedly “under review” this year. Let’s hope that next year’s budget will announce a whole load of reforms. I’m sure that’s likely under this shower of muppets.
January 31st, 2005 at 9:56 pm
now you’re talking my area. there should clearly be thresholds for exemptions like this (that’s if they should exist at all) up to say an income of �14,500 or whatever the minimum wage is in annual terms. tis ridiculous that the likes of bono get away without paying tax on royalties, when they clearly can afford to. i remember not so long ago a certain mr. smith claiming one of the principles of taxation should be equity - i.e. that one is taxed according to their ability to pay. not so it seems. mr. marx would be similarly unimpressed i feel.
January 31st, 2005 at 9:57 pm
p.s. i had to try really hard not to turn this into a personal vendetta / rant against the *fabulous* Cecelia Ahern. thank got for comment moderation!
January 31st, 2005 at 11:22 pm
i don’t think they’ll go for a threshold. rather i suspect that they’ll apply a lower rate of tax to these earnings, similar to the way we use corporation tax to encourage foreign companies to come here. for that is the secondary purpose of the exemption - to encourage artists either to come here, or our own homegrown ones to stay here (unlike, say, the tony o’reillys and denis o’briens, who live abroad as far as the tax man is concerned). (that said, anything that’d encourage la ahrern to domicile herself somewhere else would be welcome.)
this really is the least of the schemes in terms of the damage it does. only the people who are actually contributing something cultural get the benefeit, unlike most of the other schemes - especially the film industry’s s481 - in which anyone can invest their income in order to avoid tax.
February 1st, 2005 at 2:27 pm
>> only the people who are actually contributing something cultural get the benefeit
Bellefire? You might want to rethink that one fmk. I personally find it to be an offence to culture that acts such as this (and Westlife, Ronan Keating and my least-favourite-”person”-du-jour, who I’m not going to keep naming everywhere) are actually *rewarded* for forcing their pathetic excuse for art on us all.
Surely inter-county GAA players contribute more to Irish culture than these plonkers, and they still haven’t been given *any* form of tax breaks.
/me rereads my comment and reaches for the tags.
February 1st, 2005 at 2:28 pm
That’ll teach me to post without previewing. I was reaching for the <rant> tags incidentally.
February 1st, 2005 at 5:17 pm
i hate being put into the position of defending the likes of bellefire and ronan etc, but no one’s *forcing* anything onto us. the consumer is still king. that the people in this country have shit taste? well what’s new. we only to have to look back at the likes of chris de burgh and david gray to see that.
now of course, if you want to get into an argument over what has cultural value and what hasn’t, and have the government define cultural for us, and say what is and isn’t allowed, well i think that could be an interesting form of government to try, for a while. as it is, the sort of society we have, we get to choose for ourselves, with our wallets.
February 1st, 2005 at 5:20 pm
“Surely inter-county GAA players contribute more to Irish culture than these plonkers, and they still haven’t been given *any* form of tax breaks.”
there are tax exemptions for sports people too, some of which are even more offensive than the artists’ exemption scheme in the way they allow the wealthy to avoid paying income tax. bujt few sports people have the stature or as soft a target as bono and the boys in u2.
as for inter-county gaa folk - they, dear boy, are amatures, as the gaa constantly points out, and so shouldn’t be making any money from the game.
February 2nd, 2005 at 11:05 am
This is fun!
>> the consumer is still king
).
You could also argue that the marketers are king. That that McFadden plonker for example. Last Sunday he was in the paper (IoS) because he went to see his sister in a play. This morning, he’s in the Indo because he was on MTV yesterday. Co-incidentally, his new single was mentioned both times. Similar stuff with Westlife. Their singles get saturation airplay before they ever hit the shops. Why not give their PR companies tax breaks too? (OK - I’m being needlessy inflammatory. I’ll stop now
For the GAA peeps, I realise they’re amateur but that’s all the more reason that they should be given some tax credit for their regular income in recognition of what they do. IMO anyway.
February 2nd, 2005 at 12:28 pm
Daithi, for your own peace of mind you need to let the McFadden obsession go!
I totally agree with the GAA suggestion, they contribute so much to the Country that I believe the majority of the population would rather grant them some tax credit than see Cecilia not have to bother with her tax returns!!
p.s ever thought how messed up it is that her name is closly linked with Daddy’s long term mistress!!!
February 2nd, 2005 at 2:07 pm
daithi - why do the media report so much about the likes of mcfadden? do you think it might have anything - even a teensy weensy little bit - to do with the fact that it attracts the punters? the punter chooses.
February 2nd, 2005 at 5:47 pm
True, that’s the case now. But there would be no punter demand for him if it weren’t for Westlife and the initial demand for *them* was down to the marketers, not the punters. Some PR folks with pull got every radio station in the country to play their songs to generate the demand that got them to number one. All that publicity is bound to result in extra sales, especially when you consider that there’s quite a significant “sheep-factor” when you’re talking about people of the age of your average Westlife fan. I refuse to believe that everyone that bought their first single did so because they’d carefully considered all the other new music that week and decided they liked that one the best.
@ Caoimhe - yes, yes I should. It’s getting unhealthy.
February 2nd, 2005 at 7:04 pm
we’re at a chicken and egg argument here. yes, marketing is evil and all that yada yada yada, but the fact is, the consumer has a responsibility too, and you seem to want to deny that. yet you accept that people have a sheep tendency. but whereas you want to blame the shepherd, i think the sheep have some responsibility too.
and westlife (like boyzone) got to number one because that little hobgoblin louis walsh has a bloody big boot in his car and knows how easy it is to manipulate the charts (you do realise how few copies of a single you have to sell - espcially in ireland - to get to #1, don’t you?). that of course doesn’t excuse the people who kept them at #1.
February 3rd, 2005 at 8:34 am
jeepers what a lively debate i started. it’s such a shame that i’ve missed all the fun!
i still think this scheme and a bunch of others, like the horse racing and film ones, are disgraceful. that’s an interesting idea about the gaa daithi - i’m not a fan at all, but i can see that as amateurs and with all the time and effort they put into sports which are enjoyed by so many, a little tax deduction could provide a little acknowledgement.
as for the marketing stuff, i agree with fmk. both sides are to blame. yes the marketers and the media weave their wicked webs and manipulate the tastes of the easily swayed but at the end of the day we buy the stuff. i’m fed up of seeing brian/kerry/delta on the front of every publication as much as everyone else but they are only doing it because they must sell more when they do it.