Should governments provide subsidies?

Naomasa298

Forum Staff
Apr 2010
35,381
T'Republic of Yorkshire
There are certain things that governments provide subsidies for that cannot raise enough revenue for themselves. I'm not talking about essential services, but non-essentials such as museums, plays, certain charities and so forth.

But should it be the business of government to fund these things? After all, if they can't raise enough money for themselves, surely that means people aren't interested in them, and that money would be better off spent on things people ARE interested in, or want to donate to. Why should my taxes go towards something I will never consume or go towards funding a cause that I may disagree with?

The British government provides funding through the Arts Council to the tune of over £65 million a year. Shouldn't it be down to audiences to pay for the plays they want to see?
 

Toltec

Ad Honorem
Apr 2008
7,923
Hyperborea
The main recipients of subsidies in Britain are corporation's. It's worth noting while the arts council gave £65 in subsidy just one single industry, the Rail industry, received £2 billion in subsidy.

Your post is like complaining to someone spilt a single drop of beer from your pint wile ignoring the other person who spilt the lot.
 

Naomasa298

Forum Staff
Apr 2010
35,381
T'Republic of Yorkshire
Your post is like complaining to someone spilt a single drop of beer from your pint wile ignoring the other person who spilt the lot.
Irrelevant. The fact that other industries receive larger grants does not invalidate the question of whether arts or charity funding subsidy is right or not. If you want to discuss whether or not the railways or corporates should receive funding, feel free to start your own thread on the topic.
 

Toltec

Ad Honorem
Apr 2008
7,923
Hyperborea
Irrelevant. The fact that other industries receive larger grants does not invalidate the question of whether arts or charity funding subsidy is right or not. If you want to discuss whether or not the railways or corporates should receive funding, feel free to start your own thread on the topic.
It is not irrelevant, it provides perspective on just how large the subsidy is in relation to other subsidy.

You'r whining because you made a biased post showing only one statistic which you implied was large. What I have done is undermined your statistic showing it to be a drop in the ocean and any saving by cutting the subsidy utterly irrelevant.
 

jackydee

Ad Honorem
Jan 2013
4,569
Brigadoon
The main recipients of subsidies in Britain are corporation's. It's worth noting while the arts council gave £65 in subsidy just one single industry, the Rail industry, received £2 billion in subsidy.

Your post is like complaining to someone spilt a single drop of beer from your pint wile ignoring the other person who spilt the lot.
This doesn't quite address the fact that Arts receive all sorts of subsidies.Earlier this week the new Star War's film was announced to be filmed here in the UK. One reason for the UK being chosen was due to a tax break on movie production. A tax break for movies means another mug somewhere else are paying more tax. The tax break is the subsidy.
 
Last edited:

okamido

Forum Staff
Jun 2009
29,885
land of Califia
I generally have never had an issue with the subsidizing of art. It is hard for me to truly explain my thoughts, outside of the fact that I simply believe that we are better for it.
 

Pacific_Victory

Ad Honorem
Oct 2011
7,654
MARE PACIFICVM
I generally have never had an issue with the subsidizing of art. It is hard for me to truly explain my thoughts, outside of the fact that I simply believe that we are better for it.
I agree with this. Maybe I have a dark view of the general population, but I think most of what makes us remarkable would die if left in the hands of the masses.
 

Gudenrath

Ad Honorem
May 2012
2,626
Denmark
It is dangerous to reduce everything to mere money, human civilisation is so much more than that, and it seems has always been so, when one looks at what we have created of art and other cultural phenomena down through history.

I think that is part of our strange human nature, how much mind and heart means to our daily life, that we waste so many precious resources on something that doesn't immediately create any surplus or put food in our stomachs.

At least all evidence points in that direction, because if any era would be prone to get rid of something because it doesn't show a surplus on the charts then it is this current one. Yet here we are still educating historians, paying for research libraries, artists and other immaterial stuff, and that even during one of the worst economic crises we have ever experienced.

(It is an entirely different discussion regarding which artists should be subsidised. I don't myself haold high esteem of much of what passes as art these days, but that is a mere question of how to distribute, not if it should be distributed.)