NY Strip Club Denied 'Dramatic Art' Tax Exemption!

[Guest fountainhall]

What’s the difference between the American Ballet Theater, the Alvin Ailey American Dance Theater – and lap dancing? I’d have thought a huge difference, but not according to three judges on the New York State Supreme Court! For the Court has decided in a four-to-three vote that lap-dancing cannot claim the tax exemption for the performing arts because it does not promote culture in the community!!

 

These three justices apparently felt there was no distinction between “highbrow dance and lowbrow dance” and the case raised “significant constitutional problems”.

 

What problems, I’d be tempted to ask Their Honours? Lap dancing may find a great deal more paying customers, but to suggest it promotes cultural and artistic performances in local communities is patently absurd! Sex and sexual desire, more likely!

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20051455

[Bob]

As silly as it may be, I can see the dilemma; however, unless one wants to define sexual stimulation and/or simulated sex as an "artistic performance", guess I'd go with the majority this time.

 

Once in a while, the logical rules just don't work (oftentimes because everybody's trying to weasel around the rules) and one needs to insert a little common sense. Somewhat reminds me of Justice Stewart's one time definition of pornagraphy as "...I know it when I see it."

[Guest thaiworthy]

They should take away the tax-exempt status of all the churches in the world and give it to the lap dance clubs. Art or not, that would suit me just fine.

[Bob]

They should take away the tax-exempt status of all the churches in the world and give it to the lap dance clubs.

 

 

Hmmm.......excuse the analogy but the topic you raise is a most definitely 'nother kettle of fish.....

[TotallyOz]

I don't think there should be any tax exemption for anyone unless they are totally non profit and even then I would love to see this disappear.

[Guest fountainhall]

even then I would love to see this disappear.

 

In that case, you will at a stroke witness the disappearance of the world's opera, ballet and dance companies, virtually every major symphony ochesttra everywhere, to say nothing of the major theatre companies like Britain's National Theatre and Royal Shakespeare Theatre. Speaking of the latter, it was companies like these that nurtured the young Judi Dench, Ian McKellan, Anthony Hopkins, Maggie Smith and Helen Mirren, to name but a tiny few. And without the London Symphony Orchestra, movies like Star Wars and Superman would have sounded - well, shall be say, somewhat different!

[TotallyOz]

I am speaking of USA. I am a Socialist at heart and I believe in supporting many things. But, I don't like the tax code or those trying to play with it. I would love to see fully funded programs for art and music from the government and from individuals. But, I do not like to see people's taxes lowered based on their gifts to charity. I'd love to do away with the tax code completely and base everything on a flat rate. No exemptions. No exceptions if you make over a certain amount of income. Sorry, but that does include art and music as well as churches. There are too many ways to gain the system in the USA and I'd love to see it all disappear.

[Guest]

Art should never be given any form of special tax exemption or subsidies anywhere in the world.

 

Where such favourable treatment does exist, it tends to be supporting some form of art that some old duffer of an MP thinks is superior to other forms of art.

Such arbitrary, immoral and illogical discrimination is inevitable when MPS are involved.

As examples, they may subsidise upper class forms of art such as opera, yet not subsidise pop music, despite the latter being patronised by a younger and less wealthy client base.

Also, considering nudity in the theatre to be superior to that in a lap dancing club is just another piece of illogical discrimination.

 

Art should just be allowed to evolve naturally, according to market forces.

 

As for socialism, well that means politicians spending more of a countries GDP. However, politicians tend to possess considerable PR skill, but no management ability.

They are notoriously bad at allocating capital, which is why socialism always fails.

Politicians should know the limits of their capabilities and endeavour to spend as little as possible.

 

Socialism also tends to reduce incentives to work and to work efficiently, as it usually involves subsidizing the indolent and taxing the productive. Ideally, it would be the other way around.

[Guest fountainhall]

Art should never be given any form of special tax exemption or subsidies anywhere in the world.

 

I assume you mean the performing arts, rather than the art of painting which has rarely seen any form of public subsidy. And if you do mean the performing arts, then I wholly disagree.

 

If you look even briefly into the history of the performing arts, you will see that most of what we now term the classical arts were actually invented in particular places and at particular times. And it existed merely because it was brought into the European court system where it was paid for by the Emperors, Kings and what have you - in other words, by tax payers. None of it was ever intended to be a going concern economically. With the disappearance of monarchies, states took over the subsidy because they recognised the very considerable value to society. No subsidy - end of the classical arts, plus the end of all the influence the classical arts have had on pop music, the cinema etc.

 

As examples, they may subsidise upper class forms of art such as opera

 

I wonder when you were last in an opera house? Opera is the fastest growing art form, patronised far more now by youngsters and the ordinary man in the street than by the "upper middle classes". A study in the UK some years ago showed that more people attended classical music, opera, ballet, dance and other 'art' forms on a weekly basis than attend soccer matches.

 

Other studies have shown that the economic benefits accruing form arts subsidy far outweigh the relatively modest sums pumped into them. Plus, in this age when unemployment in many countries is at an all-time high, the arts in the UK provide direct employment for more than a hundred thousand citizens, and indirect employment for hundreds of thousands more.

 

The world would be a far, far more boring place if you got rid of arts subsidy.

[Guest]

Arts can evolve, with new art forms emerging and flourishing without any form of subsidy.

 

For example, the people dressing up and parading through Taipei this weekend provide a much more exciting & fresher form of art than just another subsidized art gallery.

[KhorTose]

I tend to agree with Z, but think tax deduction for Charity, and non-profits are okay. While Michael is correct in that there has been people who play fast and freely with this tax deduction, I would not eliminate it, but do my best to plug the loopholes to insure the recipient is truly a non-profit. I would rather have people who are moved by the arts, or by the needs of others to give their money and determine what is sponsored then some government agency.

[Guest fountainhall]

I think there is a danger of getting philanthropy mixed up with government subsidy. The former is basically the way the arts and other institutions have been funded in the United States; the latter has tended to be the funding system in Europe and many other parts of the world.

 

The problem is that if you had taken away tax exemptions in North America, there would certainly be no Metropolitan Opera in New York, for the Vanderbilt Foundation would not have created it. But then without that Foundation, there would also be no Vanderbilt University. You would also have denied Americans and others the 2,500 libraries endowed by the Andrew Carnegie Foundation. Similarly, the Getty Museum in Los Angeles would not exist nor be permanently endowed. Nor would the Gulbenkian Museums in New York, Bilbao and other centres.

 

If you look into it more carefully, the list becomes endless. What would happen to the Dolly Parton Imagination library for children or Oprah Winfrey's South African school for girls. Would we have a United Nations, if the John D. Rockefeller Jnr. Foundation had not bought the land and donated it to the UN, or a Lincoln Center if the the John D Rockefeller 3rd Foundation had not been the lead donor.

 

The fact is that many of those who contribute to educational, medical and other charities, also contribute to the arts. Take away the tax deduction for the arts, and you will almost certainly see a drop in what is then contributed in other areas.