Labour's Employment Rights Bill

[niall Y]

I've actually decided to quit selling my artwork because this whole world has left a bad taste in my mouth. I don't paint so have framers fees to pay but still after that 40-50% commission rate is taken away (to feed the owners vanity) then you sort of wonder why you are doing it at all?

Having started out my career in the Art World, this is an all too familiar story. Many subsidise their work by teaching. From being a post graduate student, you apply for scholarships, which for a set period gives you workshop space along with which you are required to do some teaching. You then try and secure a few days work at several colleges. Hopefully with ones foot in the door, one can expand these days to give enough to live on. During the summer holidays you have to find other temporary work.

This does favour those with some money behind them, or at least those with a very understanding partner. I came to the realisation, very early on , that this insecure lifestyle wasn't going to pay the mortgage. So,. I switched careers.

There is a quote - though I can't remember who by, the gist of which, is that you always end up with a job in something you are second best at. I take from this that you are a lot more "ego involved" in something you truly care about, and therefore less able to cope with the knocks and rejections, whereas doing something of lesser value , at least allows one to cope better with the inevitable ups and downs

 

[evildrome]

There is a lot of complete guff spoken about how a country is funded.

Primarily because 99.9999% of people have no idea about what money is, where it comes from or how it works.

Which is fair enough. We never think about *where* money comes from.

You do work, you get paid, there's the money.

Day 1... you are a new government. There is no money till you create it.

You decide to pay someone to do some work.

How do you pay?

You take zero and split it into +1 and -1.

£1 of money in the Consolidated Fund (CF) and £1 in the National Debt.

When HMG decides to fund a dept with say, £10m, it instructs Treasury to instruct the BOE to fund the CF with £10m.

There you go. £10m has been created and the National debt increases by £10m.

During the day tax receipts come into the CF and at the end of the day they are swept into the National Debt.

So if £1m worth of tax is collected, the National Debt is reduced by £1m.

Which means that in practice, the government creates & spends its own money and tax cancels the debt.

Note that SPENDING MUST COME FIRST.

Government cannot tax and then spend. It must first issue the currency to be able to tax it back.

Tax has NO FUNDING PUPOSE.

Tax is there to control the amount of money in the economy to make sure we do not have more money in circulation than there are goods and services to absorb it.

Tax expert Professor Richard Murphy is doing a series now on YouTube called "Economic Truths".

I would encourage everyone to watch them. They're typically 3 to 7 minutes long and the language used is not technical.

 

[Spectric]

It's true, Labour had a good majority but 4 years is long enough for them to revert to type and screw up.

This will depend on how much of the real labour party there is left within the starmer party, it might be a case that he cannot contain all the elements and the starmer party comes apart and ends up with a lot of in fighting as the effort to surpress the labour element becomes to much. He may have a lot of seats but many are not safe seats and were won on small majorities and with a very low turn out so he needs to understand this because he is not on rock solid ground and the way he is acting and treating people is going to cost him at the next election if he as the leader survives that long.

So if £1m worth of tax is collected, the National Debt is reduced by £1m.

That is great if we had a fully functioning working population but many have taken early retirement since Covid, many are fit to work but choose not to and then many wealthy people have simply left the country so reducing the overall tax available to collect and on top of that we have lost a lot of retail and businesses so more loss of tax. Now throw in the aging population and your accounts start to fall apart so you end up increasing tax, cutting services and potentially borrowing to keep your head above water whilst having made a lot of promises for change.

 

[Jacob]

There is a lot of complete guff spoken about how a country is funded.

Primarily because 99.9999% of people have no idea about what money is, where it comes from or how it works.

Which is fair enough. We never think about *where* money comes from.

You do work, you get paid, there's the money.

Day 1... you are a new government. There is no money till you create it.

You decide to pay someone to do some work.

How do you pay?

You take zero and split it into +1 and -1.

£1 of money in the Consolidated Fund (CF) and £1 in the National Debt.

When HMG decides to fund a dept with say, £10m, it instructs Treasury to instruct the BOE to fund the CF with £10m.

There you go. £10m has been created and the National debt increases by £10m.

During the day tax receipts come into the CF and at the end of the day they are swept into the National Debt.

So if £1m worth of tax is collected, the National Debt is reduced by £1m.

Which means that in practice, the government creates & spends its own money and tax cancels the debt.

Note that SPENDING MUST COME FIRST.

Government cannot tax and then spend. It must first issue the currency to be able to tax it back.

Tax has NO FUNDING PUPOSE.

Tax is there to control the amount of money in the economy to make sure we do not have more money in circulation than there are goods and services to absorb it.

Tax expert Professor Richard Murphy is doing a series now on YouTube called "Economic Truths".

I would encourage everyone to watch them. They're typically 3 to 7 minutes long and the language used is not technical.

He's a bit boring though, your man. Kind of "now you see it, now you don't" merchant! I lost interest (no pun intended) in a few minutes.
I think you'd get a better grasp on how the economy works if you just play Monopoly (the board game); wealth slowly accumulates in fewer hands until the game stops. At which point game over unless you share it all out again.
Some things are much simpler than the "experts" want you to think!

 

[Chris152]

So wrong! He was primarily an art dealer selling hundreds of works by many artists.

Of his own work, in his lifetime, he apparently sold only one piece.

Well, he was an art dealer for a while til he got sacked and subsequently turned to making art. Apparently he was pretty hopeless with clients. Jacob's statement isn't so wrong.

 

[RobinBHM]

but does this include the lazy, dissolute, drug dependant, dishonest etc etc

What % do they represent?

If you look at people on benefits, take out those who have serious disabilities, those waiting waiting for NHS, have dependents to look after etc etc, you are left with a pretty small subset

 

[Jacob]

What % do they represent?

If you look at people on benefits, take out those who have serious disabilities, those waiting waiting for NHS, have dependents to look after etc etc, you are left with a pretty small subset

..and they exist at all levels of society. Plenty of lazy, dissolute, drug dependant, dishonest, politicians, bankers, executives, landowners..... etc.
By and large a much bigger threat to life as we know it.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

What % do they represent?

If you look at people on benefits, take out those who have serious disabilities, those waiting waiting for NHS, have dependents to look after etc etc, you are left with a pretty small subset

The number of claimants of working age has increased materially since 2019 (pre-covid). Data underpinning the increase is deficient - it is unclear how large or small the increase in genuine claimants is speculation. IFS report

That some is due to increased waiting lists, long covid etc is likely true. That it all arises due to external factors, I personally doubt.

 

[Scruples]

..and they exist at all levels of society. Plenty of lazy, dissolute, drug dependant, dishonest, politicians, bankers, executives, landowners..... etc.
By and large a much bigger threat to life as we know it.

I can accept those who made their money. I can accept those who inherited money from those who made their money. I can accept those who have serious, non-self-inflicted, illnesses and, for, me, there is where I stop. Everyone else can do the same as the rest of us and earn their continued existence.

Why some people think that they have a right to money because somebody else is better off than them, puzzles me. That the wealthy contribute more to the coffers than the average taxpayer is a given, although the government are doing well from traffic fines boosting the CF more these days.

 

[Jacob]

I can accept those who made their money. I can accept those who inherited money from those who made their money. I can accept those who have serious, non-self-inflicted, illnesses and, for, me, there is where I stop. Everyone else can do the same as the rest of us and earn their continued existence.

Why some people think that they have a right to money because somebody else is better off than them, puzzles me. That the wealthy contribute more to the coffers than the average taxpayer is a given, although the government are doing well from traffic fines boosting the CF more these days.

It's not a "right" it's about needs.
The lefty assumption is that government and society should be run "for the many not the few".
The right wing assumption is that property trumps everything.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

The lefty assumption is that is that everyone is entitled to someone else's money.

 

[Doris]

Can't you by-pass the dealers and do your own promotions? Plenty of people do - website, appearances at shows etc. Post something up here?
Van Gogh also wondered why he was doing it at all! He only sold one painting in his lifetime.

View attachment 185409


PS I see you do have a website - "under construction"! Get it moving? Best of luck!

The art world as it is now in the 21st century is fuelled by social media. Every artist I know has a website and there's a sea of them without anyone really looking. Art buyers are become fewer and fewer, they are mostly retired people with a fat pension. The younger generation who can't even afford to buy a house can't afford to buy art. I've seen this for myself working at this particular gallery. It makes me question its future and do I want to be part of a sinking ship?

The whole "Van Gogh only sold one painting in his lifetime" a lot of artists throw about to make themselves feel better that they have sold 10 times that.
I used to see original artwork come through a Charity shop I used to volunteer at and once it crosses that threshold it is just another big canvas in the way. Many were binned. It's probably the same if a hand crafted oak table came through the door, it's just another table.

There are too many artists and too little buyers.

P.S I did rebuild my website earlier this year and got it finished, so thank you for reminding me to change the domain name on my profile page.

Having started out my career in the Art World, this is an all too familiar story. Many subsidise their work by teaching. From being a post graduate student, you apply for scholarships, which for a set period gives you workshop space along with which you are required to do some teaching. You then try and secure a few days work at several colleges. Hopefully with ones foot in the door, one can expand these days to give enough to live on. During the summer holidays you have to find other temporary work.

This does favour those with some money behind them, or at least those with a very understanding partner. I came to the realisation, very early on , that this insecure lifestyle wasn't going to pay the mortgage. So,. I switched careers.

There is a quote - though I can't remember who by, the gist of which, is that you always end up with a job in something you are second best at. I take from this that you are a lot more "ego involved" in something you truly care about, and therefore less able to cope with the knocks and rejections, whereas doing something of lesser value , at least allows one to cope better with the inevitable ups and downs

I know a few artists with a similar background to yours but many haven't left and teach. One told me he felt like a performing seal as a result.

I've been in the art world selling my work for the past 10 years and interest in my work has steadily been growing. I've had my fair share of rejections and you do develop a thick skin. I think what's made me rethink why I am doing all this is that many artists I know are not with reality, they're too wrapped up in their own egos and "the message" they want to get across thanks to the financial support they have. I think I was like this once too and then my Dad died 3 months ago and was told I was loosing my job at the gallery and it was a massive wake up call with reality.

I've actually changed careers into gardening work which I was doing on and off for about 20 years but decided to try it full time once I found out I was being made redundant from this gallery. The gratitude from my customers, being outside and of course the much higher pay has been a huge boost for me. I wish I had done it years ago.

I may go back to art in the future but I am waiting for the bruises to heal from my time and experiences at the gallery I have just left.

 

[Keith Cocker]

NO - that's the point I'm making. He specifically did not state that it was one of his own works - and NO it wasn't/isn't 'obvious' - It's a regular mis-quote.

Once I see the tabard & push-stick I normally skip the post but I just happened to see the van Gogh reference.

Get a life man!!!

 

[Rhossydd]

Art buyers are become fewer and fewer, they are mostly retired people with a fat pension. The younger generation who can't even afford to buy a house can't afford to buy art.

Nothing new.
The rich have always subsidised classical art and the young have never been able to afford it.

 

[Doris]

Nothing new.
The rich have always subsidised classical art and the young have never been able to afford it.

True but I think there are now far more artists per rich customer about now than in the times of classical art.

 

[MikeJhn]

The decline of art started with a baked bean can and progressed to an unmade bed, who in their right mind thinks any of that is art.

 

[Spectric]

Some of this so called art is really questionable, looks like a five year old has been let lose yet people still buy it, must be some reason that us mere mortals do not get.

Then has anyone noticed when you look at the portraits in the big old estate houses where they were apparently rich and well to do that they all look so miserable, not a smile to be had.

 

[niall Y]

.

Maybe it was the thought of having to pay the artist

 

[Phil Pascoe]

It amuses me when they find a painting was not painted by the famous artist but by his child/babysitter/neighbour/dog. The artwork is then no longer worth £50,000,000, it's worth £20. So effectively the signature is worth £49,999,980 and the painting twenty quid.

 

[Fergie 307]

The decline of art started with a baked bean can and progressed to an unmade bed, who in their right mind thinks any of that is art.

I think the banana stuck to the wall with duct tape was my personal low point. And there will always be some sycophant gushing away about how to interpret the artist's message