Should films be governmentally funded?

[monobath]

Hell no. What right does anyone, especially a government, have to forcibly take one persons property (money) and give it to another person? We have that here in the USA, sortof.

In the U.S. the government has not only the right to take your money (taxes) and give it to someone else, but the obligation to do so. The preamble of the U.S. Constitution requires the government to:

• "establish justice" -- i.e., make laws to keep the strong from overrunning the weak.
• "insure domestic tranquility" -- pay the cops to enforce the above.
• "provide for the common defence" -- pay the soldier/sailors all the way from the privates to the generals, and buy munitions so they can do their job.
• "promote the general Welfare" -- support of the arts comes under this one, as well as schools, roads, sewers, water systems, hospitals, etc.

All this stuff costs money. You can't opt out. The only other option is anarchy.

Government has no rights. The so-called rights of government you refer to are actually delegated grants of power that are enumerated in other articles and sections of the constitution, presumably by the consent of the governed. You are correct that you can't opt out and you don't get a choice to consent or not. Thus, consent of the governed is moot.

The preamble of the constitution states the goals of the founders, not a specific list of requirements for the government to fulfill. Article 1 section 8 grants the power to provide for the common defense and general welfare. Article III section 2 grants the power to establish justice. Ensuring domestic tranquility is implied thereby, but not explicitly stated.

Right now the average American pays about 25% of his income toward taxes.

It's a lot more than 25%, Actor. Much much more. I'm curious to know where you got that number. I'm not certain of the overall percentage, but I can show that mine, at least, is much higher.

My marginal income tax bracket is 28%. It has been as high as 33% in past years. On top of that, I pay full social security taxes to the statutory limit. I pay medicare/medicaid taxes based on income. I pay state property tax, county and city property taxes, school district taxes, local and state sales taxes, and the excise taxes on products like gasoline, tobacco, and alcohol. I don't pay state income taxes in Texas, fortunately, although I think our property taxes make up for it. And this doesn't include the monthly "fees" tacked on to telephone and other utility services that are assessed on service rather than usage, and thus are really hidden taxes.

I haven't ever really calculated the complete picture, but I'm sure my total tax burden is actually somewhere between 40 to 50 percent of my income.

And while I can quibble about the details of how it is spent, I think that the big picture is that we get good value for our money.

I don't feel that I'm getting good value for my money, Actor. Most of it is being spent on things I don't agree with, and which I would not consent to if I were given the option. But as you pointed out, I cannot opt out. Government exists by coercion of the governed, not by consent. This is what George Washington warned of in his farewell address. He said "How soon we forget history... Government is not reason. Government is not eloquence. It is force. And, like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."

Anarchism is a social system based on the voluntary interaction of free individuals. It refers to a stateless society, not chaos. It is the only system that permits a complete recognition of the self-ownership rights of every individual. It would certainly be a better system to live under than one in which the privileged few get to rule everyone else.

[sunrise]

310 million I´d think there is a better use for.
Peanuts? Well I guess it depends who you are asking, underfunded schools or film-makers who wants to make money.

You are completely missing the point. Should the money go to some new books for a spoiled kid in one of the world richest countries or should it be used to provide clean drinking water and save millions of lives in third world countries? The money IS there, it's only a question of how we spend them.

The main problem is, that governmental funding is necessary to maintain the European cultural heritage, whatever the arts. And as audadvnc pointed out, patronage is inherent in this tradition.

And please, Americans, do not pity us because we pay high income taxes. This should not be a taxpaying discussion, but a am happy that when I get ill, I can get good hospital treatment for free (payed via tax). And the junkies and social misfits in thye park across the street can get treatment for free also; that makes me feel very very rich!

Plenty of excellent films have been produced without government funding, so I'm not sure what your argument is trying to say.

In Scandinavia, NO film has been made without some government funding for the last thirty years or so. Same goes for most of Europe. The film industry here is hardly an industry and it would not exist without being helped financially.

i tend to think that since all other art forms are funded by at least 100 times as much no matter whether you count per artist, per audience or per whatever, it's more than fair to maintain competitiveness.

There is no competition between the film and the other arts.

the problem is that unlike other art forms it's not the quality of the art that determines the amount of support, but your commercial potential.

Correct, but most funding are also given out as loans to be paid back when the film becomes economical succesful. That, however, never happens since private investors make shure they get their money first.

michael

[etimh]

Anarchism is a social system based on the voluntary interaction of free individuals. It refers to a stateless society, not chaos. It is the only system that permits a complete recognition of the self-ownership rights of every individual. It would certainly be a better system to live under than one in which the privileged few get to rule everyone else.

Pleased to meet you, monobath.

Tim

[monobath]

Anarchism is a social system based on the voluntary interaction of free individuals. It refers to a stateless society, not chaos. It is the only system that permits a complete recognition of the self-ownership rights of every individual. It would certainly be a better system to live under than one in which the privileged few get to rule everyone else.

Pleased to meet you, monobath.

Tim

Likewise.

[Uppsala BildTeknik]

Mattias wrote:

(btw swedish income tax is 30%. add what your employer pays for your mandatory retirement and health insurance and you land at around 52%)

That is if you choose not to include VAT in the calculation. I think it should be included. from 125 000:- I charge my clients I get to keep roughly 50 000:- after VAT and tax.

If you are employed you don´t see the "real" amount of tax you are paying directly and through your employer. ;)

[VideoFred]

If you are employed you don´t see the "real" amount of tax you are paying directly and through your employer. ;)

I agree. Having a small company myself....
Once I had two eployees... Impossible to keep them.(for a small company like mine)

I was working all the time (7 days on 7) to pay for them.
Almost went bankrupt!! Learned my lesson.

Now I'm on my own again.. Much better :lol:
But the Taxman, here in Belgium..

And because I'm independent, I have no profit of the system
So I pay mostly for others.
And if I fail, no one is gonna pay for me.
It's the price we have to pay to be independent, I guess....

But my feelings about supporting art are mixed.
I understand some good artists can use it.
But if they are realy good, the suppose to pay for themselves.
I know a very good painter, he has an income from selling his work.
He's not supported by anything or anyone. He takes the risk.
He is realy independent, like me.

I also understand we need culture.
But sometimes I see terrible waste of money. My money :twisted:

Fred.

[Actor]

Yeh, yeh.

And all of this shoud and could be accomplished with a fraction of what is collected.

What fraction did you have in mind? And can you document that statement? I really doubt they could be accomplished for significantly less than what is being collected. In fact most government programs are underfunded as it is. And that's world wide, not just the U.S.

I can assure you, roads, defence, infrastucture, etc, are not a priority, and governments do them poorly.

Poorly compared to what? For the most part, governments are the only entities that do them at all. When private enterprise does them it's through a contract with government.

If government perfromed as advertised, the USSR would not have lost the cold war, Cubans would not die on rafts, and Westen Europe would not be a part of the Third World.

I was not aware the governments advertised. Politicians and pollitical parties advertise, but that's not the same thing.

But whether governments perform efficiently or inefficiently is not the point. The point is that governments are necessary, they need money to function and taxes are the logical way for them to obtain that money. Can you suggest any other way?

[timdrage]

Should films be governmentally funded?

Mine should.

[VideoFred]

But whether governments perform efficiently or inefficiently is not the point. The point is that governments are necessary, they need money to function and taxes are the logical way for them to obtain that money. Can you suggest any other way?

Of cource not.
But they should not waste the money.
Not on ambitious but useless projects, and not on people who don't need it.

And too may people are profiting from our social security, here in Europe.
I see to many 'sick' or 'without work' people, these days.
This is not good for real sick people, they need all the care they can get.

Fred.

[VideoFred]

Should films be governmentally funded?

Mine should.

Haha, I bet

But maybe 50/50 is a good idea.
Or 60/40 or something.
So the filmmaker has to do an efford, too.
Then we can assume he is serious about it.

If the government is sponsoring to much and to easy,
then the 'wierdos' are going to take over.

Then we gonna have lots of 'filmmakers'
Not good for real good art!

Fred.

[fritzcarraldo]

Uppsala,

You make me think that everything is related to economy,

Cinema must not survive unless it pays,

Industry does, but, let's think about separating things,

The most important things in life have no price,

I give my thanks to directors that didn't took that way of thinking has an example,

I even thank Coppola for his bankrupt "Apocalypse Now" his best film, and his worst seller

And there are many other directors that "didn't sell" that are very important too,

But i also admit that there are many artistic wannabe directors,

And between them and big selling directors, i prefer the second type,

It's better to be sincere than to be fake,

So, i agree with you in that case.

But i can't agree in the generality you presented here

It's not economy that dictates if a film is or is not important,

It's sensibility and instinct,

Otherwise, we all should become machines



regards

[sunrise]

But maybe 50/50 is a good idea.
Or 60/40 or something.
So the filmmaker has to do an efford, too.
Then we can assume he is serious about it.

This was tried by the Danish Film Institute in the eighties and to some extent the funding option still exist. As long as you can provide half of the finance for a film film you could get the other half financed by the Institute, no questions asked. That fostered some of the worst and unsuccesfull films ever made in the history of Danish cinema. It has now been replaced with other more controlled ways of funding.

In 2004 there was 22 feature films released in Denmark on a an avarage production budget of 2.2 mill euros. Out of this the governmental subsidy was 38%.

3.6 mill euros will be spent on experimental cinema on nesting new talent in 2005.

This is the only way to ensure that national cinema holds aprox. 25% of the domestic market and that new potential filmmakers can reach the audience.

Totally the government budget for Danish cinema activities is 50.8 mill euros. Share that between a population of 5.4 mill people and you see that figure is quite low. (source DFI)

I am shure you can find equal numbers for the Swedish Film Instute or other European countries. It does not cost much to keep the national cinema alive and it can not survive on free market principials as Kent suggests.

michael

[mattias]

In Scandinavia, NO film has been made without some government funding for the last thirty years or so.

might be true for denmark but not sweden. several major films are produced every year with zero government funding, plus a few indies.

There is no competition between the film and the other arts.

that's not what i meant. i mean that since art in general is supported, so should film.

Correct, but most funding are also given out as loans to be paid back when the film becomes economical succesful.

not here actually. it's the other way around: the more successful you are the more extra funding you get afterwards. sweden had the first modern film institute in europe thirty years ago and everybody was following. now all we have is the oldest and everybody is looking at denmark. ;-)

/matt

[Uppsala BildTeknik]

Totally the government budget for Danish cinema activities is 50.8 mill euros. Share that between a population of 5.4 mill people and you see that figure is quite low.

Ummm yeah. And I would settle for 0.5 million Euro per year for making artistic butter knifes from old shoe soles.

Divide that among 5.4 mill people in Denmark and you see that the figure is very low. I will of course give credit to the danish government on my butter knife webpage (I will set it up as soon as the first check from Denmark clears). ;) :roll:

50 million Euro is a lot of money, if Denmark is a rich country then by all means share the wealth among people who want to do whatever (movies, paintings, books, butter knifes) but cannot do it on their spare time (why) and cannot make a living out of it.

I say: If people want to be artistic let them be so on their spare time. If they can makle money on their art: fine. If they can´t make money on their art then it´s a thing to do on the spare time until they get good enough to make money on it.

In Sweden though the government doesen´t have a lot of money (well they do but it is spent on idiotic things, high wages for politicians, art, of course on hospitals and such but a lot is spent on idiotic things). An example of the need to cut costs: A retirement home for old people that needs to cut costs actually let the old people choose if they wanted an egg every other day for breakfast, or half an egg each day. It was too expensive to receive a full egg to the rest of the breakfast each day. True story. Make a movie about it and spend some tax money from filminstitutes doing so. :roll:

[npcoombs]

How about taking this to the filmmaking forum?

Btw: Count yourself lucky Mattias; under UK Film Council rules Jag Bara Undar would probably never have been made. That's a compliment.