Raise our taxes!!!
Home > Home Recording Forum > Talkin' Smack > Raise our taxes!!!
Posted on Oct 28, 2010 02:49 pm
Quincysan
http://www.unitedmusicians.info
Contributor Since: Nov 11, 2007
...polishing up some numbers real quick sorry. I didn't crunch correctly...
[ Back to Top ]
Oct 28, 2010 02:56 pm I am opposed to any government subsidy of most any business. If a business can not survive without gubment help, said business should go out of business.
However, I do believe what would be MORE fair would not be a tax, but a subscription service for people to purchase such things as a music channel or two on their cable system, then, those using the service pay for it.
Taxing across the board for any such focused project is a bad idea.
TadpuiI am not a crook's headMember
Since: Mar 14, 2003
Oct 28, 2010 03:02 pm But I love paying for US car makers' inability to manage their money or build cars that work! I also love paying for the schools that my non-existent children attend. You'd think that imaginary schools wouldn't cost anything but they're expensive!
Oct 28, 2010 03:04 pm Imaginary schools still have little competition or reason to live within their means, since anyone that doesn't want to fund schools as labeled as a loser.
Quincysanhttp://www.unitedmusicians.infoContributor
Since: Nov 11, 2007
Oct 28, 2010 03:20 pm Digital distribution is a problem for musicians who have hung their hats on physical sales (everyone who makes it a career, right??) Now that recorded music sales are not viable to the extent they were in the past, the old 'music as a product' idea just doesn't hold up very well. Now music as a service is a concept I like, but I don't believe it will stand the test of time. Free ownership will always look better than a $15 dollar monthly rental fee; and the world is not full of honest people.
Personally, I think most people are going to opt for P2P even when subscription services are available. I used to be a huge proponent of Micro$oft Zune, but the license battles for the libraries must be fierce. It seemed like every time I updated my zune playlist some albums were pulled. Frustrating to say the least.
To make things worse, artists make a fraction of a penny per download. I know this is going to vary widely from place to place, but let's say that $46,500/yr is a good, livable, happy middle class wage (keep in mind artists have to find their own insurances and still save for retirement). All else equal, at the peak of recorded music business, physical sales typically made up about 30% of a professional musicians income (don't have the source for that number at the moment). 30% of 46,500 comes to $13,950. A streamed song makes anywhere between $0.00029 and $0.0022. That's a huge gap, but let's assume the best case scenario (Rhapsody) @ $0.0022/play. That means it takes 6,340,909 plays to make ~$13,950/yr which is approximately what the artist needs to achieve to make his subscription downloads account for 30% his annual income. If you get over 5 million streams on a song over the course of a year, you're practically a household name for a dominant demographic. Achieving even a fraction of the best case streaming scenario isn't likely for the average artist. Personally, I'm now back to streaming music on Pandora and buying physical CD's. If I were not a musician with a soft spot for common sense transactions, I'd be back on the P2P bandwagon with the rest of my generation. If it looks free, tastes free, and you get away with it like it's free...it might as well be free.
Let's say a good, hard working artist with professional output puts out an album every year. Let's also say that $13,950 is his budget. A convenient number, obviously, but not unreasonable and certainly not too high. How can the artist afford to make recorded music if recouping the costs to produce it isn't an option? If you can't have the artist make $13,950 in recorded music sales, how else to you make it work? You could remove the cost to produce recorded music.
How about taking music as a service a step further and consider music as a utility?
How do you feel about an additional tax paid with your cable internet bill ( > 1.5 Mb/s down) anywhere from 3-5 dollars. The tax would be distributed by some form of government (hopefully local) in the form of grants to those who might offer production services to artists for free. I WANT to download unlimited lossless audio files and I WANT to feel good about it. This could be a solution, and it's an idea I've heard brought up many times in my research.
I'm going to talk with the SBA on Nov. 10 about starting an NPO to prepare myself for such a situation. If nothing else, setting up the NPO would be a good learning experience.
This solution isn't without problems. What about developing countries where enforcement would be a nightmare? More importantly, the cost of living in these countries does not align with the artists cost to produce. According to Neilson Soundscan, between 67.6 and 79.5% of paying music consumers are in the US, Japan, UK, Germany, France, and Canada. Obviously not a solution, but a relevant statistic in my opinion.
Quincysanhttp://www.unitedmusicians.infoContributor
Since: Nov 11, 2007
Oct 28, 2010 03:21 pm "If a business can not survive without gubment help, said business should go out of business."
^^^ This is what concerns me. I don't want my generations musical footprint to be saturated with Biebers and Britneys. This wouldn't be an across the board tax. It would be a > ~1.5 Mb down ISP tax on non-business customers.
Oct 28, 2010 03:34 pm Well, I'm not saying I like that idea either, but I stand by my statement. As long as art is a business, which it is, it should be treated as such...the initial subject of your post was how they can make money...which immediately labels it as a business.
Gubment should not subsidize and private venture, not musicians, not stadiums for sports teams, nothing...they should be worried about civil infrastructure (roads, power, law enforcement, fire and rescue), laws and defense.
Of course, you realize if a tax would run thru the gubment like you suggest it would only serve to create yet another profitless, bloated beaucracy that only gives a small amount of what it takes in to said service providers as it would have to pay for it's own bloat, like any other gubment program...it would only serve to exacerbate the problems we already have.
Oct 28, 2010 03:38 pm For the record, in my experience, the most music is streamed over corporate networks...
Be aware, however, I am a small "l" libertarian, as such, if anyone suggests most anything that has "and let the gubment..." in it, I will object to, they are already involved in too much of our lives that is none of their business.
Quincysanhttp://www.unitedmusicians.infoContributor
Since: Nov 11, 2007
Oct 28, 2010 03:44 pm How many consumers with > ~1.5 Mb down connections do you suppose download music? Should they go about their theft unpunished? How do you suppose we will correct that problem in future generations?
Oct 28, 2010 03:47 pm Ah, so everyone should be punished for their crime, yeah, that fixes it.
Cuz when something gets to be a problem, illegalizing or taxing always fixes it.
I will say I do appreciate the goal you are trying to achieve, but putting this burden on ISP's for yet another comm tax isn't right at all...
In my opinion, the music industry did this to itself with they way they have conducted their own business in the beginning, all they did was piss everyone off, now people have grown accustomed to rebelling. Karma is a *****.
Quincysanhttp://www.unitedmusicians.infoContributor
Since: Nov 11, 2007
Oct 28, 2010 03:54 pm Not everyone, every non-business customer with > ~1.5 Mb down internet connection. And in my opinion, it's not punishment if the tax subsidizes creative efforts. Also, this tax assumes that downloading music through the internet would no longer be a crime. $4-$5 extra /month on your ISP bill and you can download to your heart's content.
A big part of me agrees with some of what your saying, Dan (especially anything laissez-faire related). But there's another part of me that wonders if this is a good idea for the sake of undefinable value in developed, meaningful music that builds on what's been done to create something new.
If those big evil companies you speak of weren't so big and evil, I doubt we'd know much about Zeppelin, Pink Floyd...etc etc. They certainly created business for many retailers for a long time (including today and beyond).
I'm not a liberal. I'm a believer in the value of music that pushes boundaries and identifies with new listeners who become music consumers. This can be done laissez-faire style and the most predictably profitable artists will succeed, in the short run, for as long as the market cares to pay attention (probably a fiscal year or 2). To me, that = Bieber fever. Think of this as a green intitiative, sustainable music, hah!
J-botByte-MixerMember
Since: Dec 04, 2007
Oct 28, 2010 08:26 pm While I like the line of thinking you're taking to help combat the piracy and all, I don't really like the idea (as a non-business customer) of paying for something I probably won't use, especially on a subscription-based model unless there's the option to do without. I don't like subscription-based models, granted in a lot of cases they are a necessary evil (like me having internet access)
I generally stick to music that is available under the creative commons licensing. Stuff that indies like me put up for free just to get heard and to hopefully brighten up someones day with our work. People who run sites like overclocked remixes are all based around the open community concept, and they stay alive because of it.
If you started restricting mp3 downloads and streaming/playback to subscription/service access only, then sites based around the creative commons/open source concept for music would shrivel up and die, because even if they're not putting stuff up for sales ....someone is making money off of it regardless under that kinda system, just because the standard consumer would have to pay for the subscription service to even access and listen to the legitimately free stuff.
Maybe I'm thinking too far between the lines though.
Oct 28, 2010 10:36 pm Quincy, it's that thinking that got this world in the mess that it's in, you say you agree with what I am saying, OK, cool, but then disagree because it happens to be an art/cause/issue you appreciate, so you suddenly think "OK, this is valid, tax for it"...then the next lawmaker really likes, say, sports, and feels the same way, and passes a new tax to support a new stadium for his sports team, cuz it's his cause, then the next guy wants to help his buddy that owns some big store chain and gives some subsidy to it to get his store into town...then the next guy...well, you get the picture.
Either you believe in business welfare or you don't, and if you don't, you need to stick by you guns even when it hurts a little...
Oct 28, 2010 10:49 pm ya know, settlin' down and havin' a family to come home too has officially shifted my gears politically from i hate it all, to i don't care anymore....i still have core views, but now i no longer have the urge to "convert" others. call it gettin' old, call it a phase (which i think it is, i'll be back) and not to mention (or am i?) i don't gotta splain why the country isn't completely on track with the dem's in charge....apparently things move slowly, i have not seen first hand "change" or anything resembling it directly affect my life....so i'm thikin' i'm officially on the i don't give a **** anymore boat politically speaking....i'm gonna take a dive into local politics as they DO directly affect my life in a much more effective way. fwiw it takes a community of ppl to raise a child, always has, always will.
Oct 28, 2010 10:53 pm Interesting, settling down and having a family to support is what got me to actually give a ****...complete opposite of your experience.
The one thing I am tired of is the dem/repub tags...I just know what I believe, some falls left, some falls right, some falls center...like most Americans I suspect.
Oct 28, 2010 11:12 pm i used to say hatred was a form (or atleast required) of caring, and to not care was in effect worse than hating (depending on the subject)....and yeah i do listen to both sides of the political dial (cuz freakin' NPR insists on playin' classical) sill, but i find myself not gettin' worked up about any of these "hot button" issues, campaign fundraising, tea party takeover, what's your prediction for next week, it all has blurred into mush, white noize...we, as a nation, have lost our innocence and altruistic ideals long before i was born.....and i ain't gonna change it.
Quincysanhttp://www.unitedmusicians.infoContributor
Since: Nov 11, 2007
Oct 29, 2010 02:00 pm I see your point with the sports stadium analogy. However I'm not sure that a sports stadium will create the same consumer spending over the course of say 75 years.
I do feel that certain music will create value indefinitely. The music publishers I most respect base almost their entire catalogs off of music that continues to find value in advertising, film, merchandise licensing, swap shops (used cd sales), and physical re-releases. (Used CD sales is only one example of benefit that doesn't necessarily create value for the artist or publisher, but it does create value for the market.) These publishers do have stakes in fashionable pop music, but I'd guess that it's less than 20% of their catalog. That other 80% is the type of music that is endangered in my generation. You build a stadium and it attracts consumers from the city it's in and visitors who may come into town to see a game. Certainly not an insignificant market force; but songwriters like Paul Simon or Don Henley create value for retailers for generations in every city in the United States. That said, I would have a difficult time measuring this value.
Do you feel that music created as art and music created as entertainment are worth separating? I do, and I believe that like any other art, some artists err on the entertainment side without specifically intending to. Music as art, to me, is building on what's been done to create something new; basically innovative music. I feel that this type of musicianship needs some kind of subsidy, public or private. This is a big part of why I record for free. That said, I've yet to meet the songwriter that strikes me as the one that will write songs my grandkids will want to hear sync'd to Rambo XVII. Everyone I've recorded so far is 'practice' more or less. But this practice is practice for both of us, and they may improve significantly during the course of our recording relationship. I've heard some songwriters that I believe could create market value for generations: Annie Clark from St. Vincent and Jesse Lacey from Brand New come to mind off the top of my head. Will they write songs that will last for decades? I don't know, but I'd like to build equity in that possibility by offering a premium recording experience on their terms.
Recording equipment is relatively cheap though...DIY musicianship might be more practical.
I see the danger in creating more government; that does concern me. Like WYD mentioned, I believe in the power of local government first (though certainly not always). If I were to pursue getting something like this accomplished I would work at the municipal level. Of course, I couldn't make downloading content legal at the municipal level...so that would make it more of a punishment than a tax. That won't fly...perhaps donations are the way to go. I also wonder if there's grant money I could get my hands on.
I really do appreciate the dialogue. In my limited experience, ideas are rarely very good until they've been challenged and revised a few times. So many Internet discussions fail in this way...
Oct 29, 2010 06:06 pm Personally, I don't believe it's worth separating, in the end, I stand by my original statement, if, financially, it can't survive on it's own, it should go away...if it does stand the test of time (recording, movies, commercials, etc) then it will support itself.
Any venture meant to earn money should stand on it's own merit or go away.
Quincysanhttp://www.unitedmusicians.infoContributor
Since: Nov 11, 2007
Nov 01, 2010 07:11 pm Alright, I agree. Adding a tax could be and likely is a bad idea. Whether I like it or not, I imagine plenty of tax payers are content to go through their lives without listening to and appreciating a masterful song. The standards for 'great' music are subjective and it makes no sense to impose subjective wants on taxpayers. I think there's a glimmer of plausibility in the argument to fund music that is a sustaining economic contributor...but to prove this would take more time and resources than I have access to. There's really no logical defense for my initial position without more data.
What about the National Endowment for the Arts as a source for funding? Do we know anything about that? I only know as much as their website and Wikipedia tells me...almost sounds like this endowment does exactly what I suggested.
PS- If I were to win grant money for this, I swear I won't pee in any jars containing religious icons. (I wouldn't say it if it hadn't happened before, ha)
Nov 01, 2010 07:17 pm That sort of grant would be possible, of course, that is still tax money...I disagree with such endowments as well, but hey, at least that one is already in place, and not another one tossed on us taxpayers.
The real money is figuring out a happy medium of price of the product, quality of the product and delivery methods...there is an answer out there.
Nov 01, 2010 07:28 pm A breath of fresh air to see the consistency db maintains here. Now if you could just get that into our political system. It seems everyone is consistent until it affects them.
Nov 02, 2010 12:54 am Db for Senate? hmmmm he just might be the only conservative i'd consider volunteering for on the campaign team...i think you just blew my mind, politically.
Nov 02, 2010 06:30 am I'd run as an independent, repubs would never have me anyway, too many skeletons in my closet...but thanks for the props, guys.
As I see it, it's really quiet simple, people start businesses, be they product makers, service providers, art producers or whatever...if people like their offering, they make money, if they manage it wisely they succeed, if they don't, they go away...just like individuals, every able bodied person should sink or swim on their own merit...any entitlement program or charity assistance should go to only the handicapped or otherwise unable...not people that made stupid choices, don't feel like working, or grossly mismanage what they do have.
As far as taxes go, everyone pays a flat percentage of income, my breaks for this, penalties for that, dedications for this or rebates for that...flat percentage, across the board.
Nov 02, 2010 10:29 pm I suppose I lean toward a flat sales tax, it catches all the cash flow. But tweaking that one to work properly would be a job for sure.
Nov 03, 2010 05:48 am In total honesty, I think we should only have consumption taxes, not income taxes, but that will never happen, so I default to flat tax, maybe flat tax starting at like 20k a year earners to give the most poor a break.
cooloFrisco's Most UnderratedMember
Since: Jan 28, 2003
Nov 03, 2010 12:19 pm Hmmm, consumption tax really puts disproportionate stress on lower income people over higher income people as lower income people spend more of their total income than wealthier people do. Flat income tax, super simplified as db mentioned might be the best option in my opinion too. I actually agree with almost everything db said in this thread which is kind of scaring me...
Nov 03, 2010 01:31 pm Don't be scared of agreeing with common sense, coolo.
The issue of consumption tax that you state is a valid concern, I never looked at it that way, but, not looking at percentage, just flat consumption, the rich still spend exponentially more...not by percentage, but by total...it would be a way to "tax the rich" like everybody cries about.
Taxing income I find personally unfair (though flat taxes make it more fair), or short sighted, by my way of thinking taxing what you spend would serve the greater good in indirectly promoting savings, which is something Americans are grossly ignorant of...at least my generation and younger.
Nov 05, 2010 03:11 pm www.nowpublic.com/tech-bi...er-2708763.html
^^ long overdue step towards straitening things out a bit. I suppose the same thing happened with napster, and that didn't change much. but its a step at least
cooloFrisco's Most UnderratedMember
Since: Jan 28, 2003
Nov 05, 2010 08:36 pm Fragile, trying to stop the technology will never work. More, and different tech will pop up if that's what people want to use it for. The only way is to change people's attitudes, so they won't want to do it. But that is very hard.
Nov 06, 2010 08:05 am I agree with coolo, however, the industry going after them is a lot smarter of an idea than their insane lawsuits against people doing it like the lady here in Minnesota that was fined 1.5 million dollars this week...that is just going to make people hate them more.
I used to think that they couldn't stop the technology, they had to embrace it and use it, make distribution for a decent price and easy...but they have...there are/have been places to get high quality downloads for a dollar a song, low cost per album, and they say piracy is still an issue...which is sad, but still understandable, nothing beats free...so failing that, coolo's right, it's all people's attitudes, and the 1.5 million dollar fine, which this lady will never, ever be able to pay off in 3 lifetimes is a message, shutting down things like limewire is a message, but not a cure.
As we all know, changing people attitudes ain't easy.
cooloFrisco's Most UnderratedMember
Since: Jan 28, 2003
Nov 06, 2010 02:12 pm Fear and intimidation never work in the long term...
$1.5 million fines won't work. The chance of getting hit with that fine are extremely slim. Same as the chance of dying in an airplane accident exist but is extremely slim. People still fly. People will continue to download media. Changing people's attitudes usually take at least 1 generation, in my opinion...
I don't know what the short term answer is for record labels, and I don't think they do either.
Quincysanhttp://www.unitedmusicians.infoContributor
Since: Nov 11, 2007
Nov 08, 2010 02:50 pm @ Coolo: The short term and long term answer for the record labels is to downsize and serve music that is a predictable investment. This is happening/already happened. You have a point that the consumption tax would be unfair across different American economies. However, my idea is conceptually flawed, not just on a functional level. It's simply a bad idea.
I'm thankful for the NEA, even though it's a bad idea, and it is now the focus of my efforts. Thanks Dan for your thoughtful responses.
cooloFrisco's Most UnderratedMember
Since: Jan 28, 2003
Nov 08, 2010 02:59 pm I only have a second, but just wanted to pop in with, I don't think the NEA is a bad idea. If something is supposed to be a money making business, it should not be subsidized. However, there is some societal benefit (I think) in having art for arts sake; art whose purpose is not to make a profit. I think it is valid to have an NEA for this purpose. I think it is nice that as a society we have chosen to encourage and support art.
Nov 08, 2010 03:00 pm Quincysan, you hit on the main problem with corporate America on the whole...almost ALL big business in America is top heavy, and could use LOADS of fat trimming...I have worked in a few places as an employee or consultant during periods of heavy layoffs...more often than not, the first round or two of layoffs people hardly even notice...which means they were never needed...most places have far too many middle and upper management for the amount of "worker bees" they have...many are 1 manager to every 2 or 3 workers...WTF?
If America could knock off that trend, maybe we could compete in the global marketplace a bit better.
Quincysanhttp://www.unitedmusicians.infoContributor
Since: Nov 11, 2007
Nov 08, 2010 04:37 pm So which is it Coolo? Do you or don't you support American's being taxed so the gov can subsidize artistic creation? Art is subjective, so I'm inclined to believe that the logical answer is no. Why is it the Gov/NEA's right to make a statement on behalf of society? NEA is making the statement that meaningful art is important, and we agree with that, but the NEA acts on our belief by taxing those who may disagree. In a macro sense, everyone here has disgreed thus far, including myself. How is the NEA different than my tax idea?
That said, I also intend to apply for NEA grants. In my circumstance, to be honest is to be a hypocrite. I agree that the grounds for providing taxpayer funding via the NEA are shaky at best; but I personally think it's a good thing to subsidize artistic innovation. It isn't a good idea, but I like it.
At Deebs: I agree, the record industry is a comparable caricature of American business in general. 我就学中文。
Nov 08, 2010 04:45 pm Well, there are a few theories, some of mine are hypocritical as well...I totally don't believe in tax subsidies for any thing, any one at any time..., that said, these subsidies do exist, and as stupid as they are, if they go to someone, I am happy if at least they go to somebody I know is passionate and using it for it intended purpose, as opposed to just leeching off the system.
Taxes pay for a few things...infrastructure (roads n' such), law enforcement, rescue, defense, and gubment...personally, I would like to see some of that even privatized...it'd likely save a lot...
Quincysanhttp://www.unitedmusicians.infoContributor
Since: Nov 11, 2007
Nov 08, 2010 04:56 pm Deleted By Quincysan
Nov 08, 2010 05:29 pm I have no appreciation of tax subsidies...it's a nice term for "bribery".
Quincysanhttp://www.unitedmusicians.infoContributor
Since: Nov 11, 2007
Nov 08, 2010 10:29 pm One more deletion for the evening. That'll be all. Sorry. Thanks for the input guys.
cooloFrisco's Most UnderratedMember
Since: Jan 28, 2003
Nov 08, 2010 10:46 pm Quincy, I appreciate your passion on the subject. Unfortunately, it is easier to serve up vagaries and platitudes than to to discuss details. And when it takes a long time to type up a whole well thought out post, it may seem for many not worth the time because everyone else is just going to respond with simplistic ideas because they also do not want to take the time.
With that being said, you "deleted" your orginal post before I read it, so I don't fully understand what your original proposal was.
But, I will restate my previous idea... I don't believe in subsidies for money making operations... I do believe in spending some tax revenue for the improvement of society, whether that be better roads or giving artists the ability to create without having to make sure it's suitable for the next Coca Cola commercial. I understand that art is subjective, and accept that some money will go towards art projects I think are stupid. But hell, there's lots of money getting spent in ways that I don't agree with. But that's part of the agreement we make with being part of this society. If I got to choose how my tax money got spent, CA would not give out more tax money then it receives in benefits from the federal govt. But this is the system we live with.
Money for roads is also a tax subsidy... we subsidize roads... money for defense is a subsidy... we subsidize our defense...
