[NEohioPAL]Public funding for the Arts?

[Kate & David Duffield]

--0-390118246-1155423360=:97382
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

>From what I can tell. economists (the presumed experts) can't agree whether taxation helps or harms growth, but it seems to me both logically and ethically dubious to tax one minority for the benefit of another minority-and it would seem that if a general tax levy would fail, then yes, people who think the arts are important are, indeed, a minority.  I personally think public funding for the arts is important, but I also can't say I trust the administration of any funds raised to people whose imagination fails to find any alternative to the same old dubious tactic that failed to fully fund the stadium, even after the supposedly temporary measure became permanent.  It's one thing for the sports people; after all, their paternalistic world view is presumably shaped by following someone else's rules of whatever game; but if we as a creative community believe we are in danger of dying altogether if we don't get our allowance from "Big Daddy"(i.e., the government), can we really
 consider ourselves creative enough to be worth saving?
   
  That said, you can, in fact, tax food.  There is a tax on all food consumed in restaurants.  Take-out food, however, is exempt.  Do we really think that a McDonald's meal consumed in a car is a necessity that should be exempt from tax?  How is it that if we're too busy or lazy to make our own food, we're not taxed on it (if only we make sure we also add to the landfills)?  Lifting the tax-exemption status of take-out would solve many budgetary woes, and if there is a not-so-hidden "health" agenda to taxing smokers, certainly there are many of the same arguments to be used for many fast-food products!
   
  For the record, I am not a smoker and I rarely eat fast food - just putting it out there.
   
  Respectfully, 
  Kate Duffield 
    

--0-390118246-1155423360=:97382
Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

<DIV>From what I can tell. economists (the presumed experts) can't agree whether taxation helps or harms growth, but it seems to me both logically and ethically dubious to tax one minority for the benefit of another minority-and it would seem that if a general tax levy would fail, then yes, people who think the arts are important are, indeed, a minority.  I personally think public funding for the arts is important, but I also can't say I trust the administration of any funds raised to people whose imagination fails to find any alternative to the same old dubious tactic that failed to fully fund the stadium, even after the supposedly temporary measure became permanent.  It's one thing for the sports people; after all, their paternalistic world view is presumably shaped by following someone else's rules of whatever game; but if we as a <STRONG><EM>creative</EM></STRONG> community believe we are in danger of dying altogether if we don't
 get our allowance from "Big Daddy"(i.e., the government), can we really consider ourselves creative enough to be worth saving?</DIV>  <DIV> </DIV>  <DIV>That said, you can, in fact, tax food.  There is a tax on all food consumed in restaurants.  Take-out food, however, is exempt.  Do we really think that a McDonald's meal consumed in a car is a necessity that should be exempt from tax?  How is it that if we're too busy or lazy to make our own food, we're not taxed on it (if only we make sure we also add to the landfills)?  Lifting the tax-exemption status of take-out would solve many budgetary woes, and if there is a not-so-hidden "health" agenda to taxing smokers, certainly there are many of the same arguments to be used for many fast-food products!</DIV>  <DIV> </DIV>  <DIV>For the record, I am not a smoker and I rarely eat fast food - just putting it out there.</DIV>  <DIV> </DIV>  <DIV>Respectfully,
 </DIV>  <DIV>Kate Duffield </DIV>  <DIV>  </DIV>
--0-390118246-1155423360=:97382--