Wizofaus “no professional orchestras or opera companies…. For the sake of your ideological belief (and a few cents out of your paycheque),”

If opera companies and orchestras were so popular, they would be able to generate the revenue needed.

If they cannot maintain themselves, then why should a clearly disinterested tax payer be stuck with footing the bill?

Why should we be left paying for a service which, by your own definition, no one wants or too few are prepared to pay the necessary commercial rate for?

It is no different to running public transport. Who decides when a railway branch line is no longer “viable”?

As for the sake of my idealogy and paycheque:

my paycheque is not the product of government grants. The only government funds in it are the product of arms length commercial negotiations on the basis of commercial need, not some subjective artistic judgment to cultural merit.

my “ideology” is the result of living in a general culture where just about every worthless minority interest both, cultural and commercial, was the beneficiary of government funding to the point consumers had very, very little personal choice, due to lack of discretionary income, as in UK in 1960s.

It is a matter of justifying, in your terms, how many cents from my paycheque are requisitioned to support indulgences which I would not otherwise pay for.

On the one hand, we could go on infinitely finding projects with diminishing right to call them selves “worthy causes” until no one spent anything for themselves and everything was run and funded by the state, all income being subject to very high taxes (say a marginal rate of 98%, like UK in 1960s).

On the other hand, art and cultural interests are not deemed “necessaries”, whereas, based on historic case law, a pair of trousers are. Since we do not give grants to tailors, we should not be giving grants to artists.

No government has any insight into my preferences for culture and thus should not seek, through selective funding, to provide for my cultural interests.

Col, if you seriously believe the world would be a better place with no orchestras, and a few more cents in the hands of each taxpayer, then fine - that's your opinion (certainly your CD collection would become more valuable, if no new recordings were ever to be made of great orchestral music).
But no government would ever get elected on such a platform, because the vast majority of the population would not agree with you. That's democracy.

I'm not sure you have represented the position correctly, wizofaus.

>>if you seriously believe the world would be a better place with no orchestras, and a few more cents in the hands of each taxpayer, then fine<<

You appear to be suggesting that it is the taxpayers' "few cents" that represent the only difference between the existence and non-existence of orchestras. I'm not sure that is a reasonable assumption.

If the government were to withdraw all public funding from the arts tomorrow and refund the moneys to taxpayers in the form of lower taxation, I suspect that two things would happen. First, there would be a rush of special pleadings - we must "save" this orchestra, or that opera company, or the other theatre. Then, businessmen would begin the process of arranging alternate funding - through trusts, appeals, sponsorships etc. - of those cultural "essentials" that deserve to survive, for whatever reason.

It is worth pointing out that 2MBS FM, a classical/jazz music station in Sydney, has been operating for over thirty years without any government funding. I am sure there are many similar instances around the country of the arts standing on its own two feet, and taking full responsibility for their existence.

It may also happen that cities decide that tourist attractions such as major opera houses or concert halls deserve additional incentives, in return for maintaining an iconic status and bringing the city identifiable benefits.

It is possible along the way that an orchestra may be disbanded, or a couple of theatre companies amalgamate in order to survive. But to dangle the vision of "no orchestras" as an alternative to government subsidy is not convincing.

You obviously see a more catastrophic outcome to the prospect of zero government financial support, but is it more likely to occur than the one I describe?

Incidentally, do not underestimate the power of a promised tax cut, given back to the people in return for privatising the arts.

The average taxpayer has less sympathy with grant-dependent luvvies than you might think.

>>You appear to be suggesting that it is the taxpayers' "few cents" >>that represent the only difference between the existence and non->>existence of orchestras. I'm not sure that is a reasonable assumption

Well it's a "few cents" a day per taxpayer, which adds up to ~100 million dollars a year. And yes, I am most definitely suggesting that without that money, Australia would have no professional full symphony orchestras. It's not just an assumption, it's based on the fact that these orchestras have already tried almost everything within reason to raise additional funds and rely less on government money, and that there no such orchestras in Australia (and quite possibly anywhere in the world) that are not dependent on government funding. Even the London Philharmonic, which derives a significant income from performing film scores, relies on government funding.

How are radio stations even marginally comparable to running an entire orchestra?

A tax cut that amounts to less than $1 a month isn't likely to win any votes. Polls even showed that the majority of those asked didn't want the tax cuts being offered as part of the last election campaign, and they're in the order of $50 a month.

Look, it's a silly discussion anyway - no government is about to strip away all funding for orchestras. Indeed, I'm willing to bet that within the next 6 years, funding will have been increased, hopefully back to pre-Howard levels.

Wiz “Col, if you seriously believe the world would be a better place with no orchestras,”

People, being free to support what ever cultural pursuits the wish, orchestras included will ensure their continuance. Lack of government funding will not see orchestras disappear.

“it's a "few cents" a day per taxpayer.”

How much should be spent on Peruvian mountain choral societies or Moldavian nose flute ensembles?

Some folk, had they more money in their disposable income (instead of it being taken in taxes to fund orchestras), would prefer to directly support Moldavian nose flute ensembles.

I would note the "multiculturalism's” demise is hastened by taxes being levied to fund “mainstream culture” eg classical orchestras at the expense of individual choices to support other cultural pursuits, like nose flute ensembles.

By the time the government bureaucracy has been paid to do “its thing”, for every dollar of taxes drawn away from private spending, half goes in bureaucracy, so the orchestra only get 50 cents, had they been competing in the market, they would have got 100 cents of those who thought they were worth it rather than 50 cents from those without a choice.

As for “How are radio stations even marginally comparable to running an entire orchestra?”

They both claim to “entertain”,

I would note the station in Melbourne on 103.5 FM (cannot recall the name) is a private classical station which I occasional tune to, it relies on advertising and private subscriptions.

If you are going to intervene to support classical music, why should the state not do the same for, say the Bee Gees, Silver Chair and any other mob who aspire to produce “pop” music?

“Look, it's a silly discussion anyway”

Not “Silly”

I am arguing the principle.

My principle is, “government” does not know what people want as “culture” and should, therefore, not levy taxes to fund what it does not know about.

Remember, in a democracy, government is there to represent its citizens (not to direct their cultural pursuits).

If the citizens are being moulded by government, we call it "dictatorship".

Col, while demand for live classical music isn't enough to support orchestras on its own, there is at least sufficient demand to keep the concert halls full for several performances a week throughtout the year, allowing that the ticket prices are heavily subsidised. Moldavian nose flute ensembles wouldn't fill concert halls even if they were fully paid for by the taxpayer.

If I were in charge of allocating arts funding to performance groups, my rule would probably be that taxpayer funds would subsidise ticket prices by a maximum of 50%. If a Moldavian nose flute ensemble can remain profitable with 50% subsidisation, then good on it.

That way you can't argue that government is "directing [our] cultural pursuits".