Should films be governmentally funded?

[sophocle]

And as a soon-to-be receipient of SS

A-ha, hence the socialist agenda.

Stinking geezers, quit gouging my paycheck!

I don't wait to pay for other people's retirement any more!

I would much rather contribute to starving artists then stinking geezers.

[M'Lord]

All great Motion Pictures and Art high and low came from patronage and the Free Market System. Royal Patronage, the Patronage of Dictatorships good and bad, Wealthy Patrons looking to invest in Art, and well-founded capitalism. Socialism is a great evil on the world which is always corrupt and wasteful and unjust by design. I say, no films made funded by a socialist State were any good unless they bowed to the Free Market System or were Dictatorships disguised as Socialist States.

[moviemat]

About non-government-funded films often being better than funded ones and not having money improving your film making. I think this is a bit of a mystery but it is true. many mainstream, well funded European films are bland costume dramas and/or adaptations of classic literature - stunning locations - wonderful photography BORING. Not all but loads and loads.

British films right now are terrible. This goes back to the fact that money never comes for free, the government want you to make the country look good. Make it look like we know how to make a movie "properly" whatever.

My local film funding agency will not fund a film shot on film because they have an agenda to support a modern media workforce and they have swallowed digital hype. If you submit a script they will run it by script doctors untill it is no longer any good. "what, the script leaves unresolved questions in the audiences mind! change it". If you say you'd rather use a small crew or another "eccentricity" they think your a freak. Maybe We're unlucky over here but i think there is always an agenda and it's always damaging to expression, even if it's unconscious or worthy. So you end up making great bucket processed movies (or slick ones if you can afford it) and within those limitations you are free.

I think american movies have been great because in the mainstream the only thing that counts is making a film that people like and want to go to see (which brings out the best AND the worst). The rest is DIY by neccessity so you get great underground movies, networks, co-ops, festivals etc.

In Europe we get art centres - very institututional - with the good and bad that goes with it.

There are always of course exceptions to all this stuff.

And I'm very happy to live in a liberal democracy and pay high taxes to look after others and be looked after. I especially enjoy my money going to artists because I think they are low maintainance, they free the mind and do wonders for the economy without destroying the planet.

love

moviemat

[sunrise]

Socialism is a great evil on the world which is always corrupt and wasteful and unjust by design. I say, no films made funded by a socialist State were any good unless they bowed to the Free Market System or were Dictatorships disguised as Socialist States.

I am not quite shure I really understand this.. You think art that has been dictated by the financers are good while films produced freely isn't? Please elaborate.

My local film funding agency will not fund a film shot on film because they have an agenda to support a modern media workforce and they have swallowed digital hype.

Same here, but the objectivity is to cut costs and produce more films, i.e. get more value for money.

I think american movies have been great because in the mainstream the only thing that counts is making a film that people like and want to go to see (which brings out the best AND the worst). The rest is DIY by neccessity so you get great underground movies, networks, co-ops, festivals etc.

The market for english languaged films are, however, much bigger than any other language so getting an audience for your films is much more easy. I am making a Danish languaged science fiction film, which of course makes the potential audience very small.

michael

[steve hyde]

Free market capitalism is the dispossession of the masses for the benefit of the few. Anyone who thinks free market capitalism leads to increased freedom for the masses is just not evaluating the facts comprehensively.

I'm in favor of governmental funding for the arts in schools. We are losing it. Let's start with early childhood education. Here in my home city of Seattle we are closing down schools and debates are arising over the quality of our public educational system. Financial concerns and lack of tax revenue are shaping Seattle's public schools in ways that are literally eliminating arts education.

Microsoft and other local corporations are, of course, poised to save the day. They have computers and softwares at their finger tips ready to groom the next batch of young professionals and they donate these resources to public schools... In fact - I just left a classroom at "Mary Gates Hall" (yes, Bill's mom) the "public schools" in my city are quickly becoming privatized.

What does this mean? This means that the school curriculum is also being restructured. Schools do not deny the fact that their mission is now to *prepare students for global competitiveness* this means turning education into *job training* and this also means major cuts for arts programs. A liberal arts education obviously gives students much more than just hard skills for "global competitiveness" it gives them the faculties to imagine and be innovative.


...to sum up, yes I support governmentally funded arts programs. That is something I want my tax dollars to fund.

Steve

[David M. Leugers]

This whole conversation about taxes is pretty silly to me, but please, do not think that I am being abrasive or even defensive. I have devoted almost my entire free time of the past 5 years researching this issue and the truth is so far out there, that if I say it all no one would believe it. Simply put, the federal income tax is being criminally applied here in the USA. If you don't believe it, just try to ask the IRS just exactly which statute makes you liable for the income tax. Also everyone knows the IRS is part of the Department of the Treasury, right? Go to the Treasury Department website to their listing of internal departments and see if you can find the IRS... Not even the tip of the iceberg folks. And remember that every state income tax I am aware of is just piggybacked onto the federal income tax. I.E. your state income tax is based on your federal adjusted income from your federal return... Money well spent? Good grief, wake up America!

David M. Leugers

[steve hyde]

This whole conversation about taxes is pretty silly to me, but please, do not think that I am being abrasive or even defensive. I have devoted almost my entire free time of the past 5 years researching this issue and the truth is so far out there, that if I say it all no one would believe it. Simply put, the federal income tax is being criminally applied here in the USA. If you don't believe it, just try to ask the IRS just exactly which statute makes you liable for the income tax. Also everyone knows the IRS is part of the Department of the Treasury, right? Go to the Treasury Department website to their listing of internal departments and see if you can find the IRS... Not even the tip of the iceberg folks. And remember that every state income tax I am aware of is just piggybacked onto the federal income tax. I.E. your state income tax is based on your federal adjusted income from your federal return... Money well spent? Good grief, wake up America!

David M. Leugers

Unfortunately - we don't have a state income tax in Washington...I wish we did. There are more than 5000 millionaires from Microsoft alone here and I'm not one of them...

Steve

[Actor]

Basically, taxation is considered by legal academics to be illegal

it's illegal only if they're enforcing the taxation on people who don't use any public property.....

No that's not what I am talking about. Income tax did not come about here in the states until the beginning of the 20th century and was supposed to be temporary. I am paraphrasing the conditions but it was about creating revenue to pay for military, I believe. It was not supposed to continue forever.

Actually the first income tax in the U.S. was enacted during the Civil War, and it was temporary. Also, the income that it taxed was limited to dividends paid to stockholders by corportations. The corporations got around that by simply not paying dividends which made their stock worth more. Shareholders could get the profits by selling a portion of their shares.

The first 20th century income tax in the U.S. was supposed to apply to the rich only since the first X dollars in income was "exempt." We still have these "exemptions" today but, unfortunately, inflation has lowered their value to the point where almost everyone pays income tax.

Thus, most legal scholars see the continuation of taxation here in the states as legally unenforcible but, obviously, the govenment disagrees. ;)

Roger

Since the 16th Amendment to the Constitution specifically grants Congress the authority to levy an income tax how can anyone argue that it is illegal? Unless one wishes to argue that the Constitution itself is illegal?

[Actor]

And as a soon-to-be receipient of SS

A-ha, hence the socialist agenda.

Stinking geezers, quit gouging my paycheck!

I don't wait to pay for other people's retirement any more!

I would much rather contribute to starving artists then stinking geezers.

Ageism! Ageism! I'm being abused!! :lol:

I'm already retired and I'm not yet getting SS. I don't need SS. SS was never meant to be, and for most people is not, enough to retire on. I retired on my investments. But give me one good reason why, when I do start getting SS, I should not cash the checks. :twisted:

Wait until you get to be my age and see if you feel the same way. And you will get to be my age if you don't die first. :twisted:

Meanwhile, since I don't really need SS, I can use all the checks to buy film. In that sense the government will be funding my movie.

[sophocle]

I retired on my investments.

And good for you. I hope to do the same some day. You see, for you and me SS will not be good enough, and we will not need it in any case. Then why have it at all? Why government retirement is then "good" and "necessary" for some people and not for others? Are we smarter, harder-working and better-looking than "the people that need SS"?

I think not. This type of elitism inherent in amercan liberal "thinking" drives me crazy. As a former president once said "I don't need a tax break I have so much money...but there are people that need government money [because they are dumb idiots and we need them as a voting base].

Well, Mr. Money Bags, head to the nearest corner and start handing out $100 bills--leave me out of this.

Not that the current president is any better--he is going though the collected revenue like a drunken sailor.


Last year, I paid a bit less than 6.5 grand towards SS and Medicare, my employer over 20 grand. This is just insane. My only consolation is that Mr. Actor spends his share of my $25000 on super 8.

By the way, I am heading to geezerhood myself, which means that more of the SS distribution will be spent on film

[tlatosmd]

Ageism! Ageism! I'm being abused!! :lol:

*pushes Actor back into the mud* Bloody peasant!

[teadub]

Let's turn our lives over to the corporations because they can do the job so much better and cheaper than the government. What you'll end up is being under the control of corporations who only see the bottom line and if you don't fit into the bottom line, you are either pushed out of the way or not considered.

The corporation needs your land to expand it's factory and bam! the bulldozers show up and away goes your house. It's for the profits of the corporation. Everything becomes homogenzied because it's cheaper to make lots of the same thing instead of speciality items. We'll all drive grey cars, live in grey houses and eats grey food.

That sounds like a pretty accurate description of the world I live in.

[audadvnc]

Businesses don't make good educators, the business model only works if the point is to make money, which has little to do with running a school system.

A couple years ago Minnesota attempted to farm out some schools in Bloomington and a few other suburbs to a private education firm that was promising cost-effective educational solutions. The firm went broke and IIRC one of the execs was indicted for being overly creative with the funds. Minnesota reclaimed their schools.

[VideoFred]

OK,

I was thinking about this topic...

It was original about funding filmmaking.
But now it's about our system and our way of life.

Many people are not happy with our system,
but is there an alternative?

Would you prefer to live in a social or religious dictature? (goodbye freedom)
Or in complete chaos? (the jungle takes over)

Yes, our system is very (too) commercial.
But we do not have to worry about very basic things like water, food, etc.
Millions of people are having a very hard time, just to survive.
Millions of baby's are having not enough food..... etc...etc...

My grandmothers mother started working at the age of...7!
There was no social security at all in those days.
This was about 100 years ago.. 100 years is not much if you look at history.
So things are improving fast the last 100 years.

Take this forum as an example:
I hit the button and my message goes around the world.
30 years ago this would have been hard to imagine.

Imagine life without cars, electricity, TV etc..etc.
Yes, this is maybe nice for two weeks, but an entire life?

So my conclusion is:
The commercial system can be improved of cource,
but it works, and we all have the benefits of it.

We are a little spoilt by modern comfort, realy.
I know, because when I was a child we had to live without it.
Millions of people would love to be in our situation.

Father Fred. :lol:

[Scott Spears]

[quote=sophocle]Then why have it at all? Why government retirement is then "good" and "necessary" for some people and not for others? Are we smarter, harder-working and better-looking than "the people that need SS"?

I think not. This type of elitism inherent in amercan liberal "thinking" drives me crazy. As a former president once said "I don't need a tax break I have so much money...but there are people that need government money [because they are dumb idiots and we need them as a voting base]. [/qoute]

While some of the people who end up depending on Social Security are boneheads who just plain made stupid choices, but a lot of the money goes to people who had bad luck like a medical catastrophy where they or their child's illness has wiped out retirement funds, a divorces eats up that money, your company's retire plan tanks or your small business goes belly up. Also, a large part of SS money goes to survivors of the SS payee like his/her children and their spouse. I know several kids who got through school because of SS checks.

What the hell do we as society do with all the poor people if we don't have Social Security? Do just put them on an ice flow and let them freeze? The reason SS was started was because over 70% of retirees in the 1930s where living in poverty. Lots of old folks spending their golden years eating beans in a single room of a flop house. (I will say that back then, life was just plain harder.) So the legislators decided to do something about this and the Social Security program was born. Some opposed it, in fact a lot did, but now much of america supports it.

Some say it's a drag on society and some say it actually encourages innovation and spurs the economy because inventors and entrepenures because they are willing to take risks knowing there's a back up for them. I don't know if this is backed up by statistics, but I can see possible merit in it.

Scott