Suchergebnisse

Most government support of arts institutions is indirect—the result of charitable deduction provisions of the federal income tax, property tax exemptions extended by local governments, and other tax provisions. The money that government forgoes through these provisions must be made up by higher taxes for all taxpayers. The public, however, has little say about how these funds are spent. By its very nature, the income tax deduction places the decision-making power over arts institutions in the hands of those with high incomes. Those with high incomes receive a greater tax benefit for each dollar they contribute, increasing the amounts they donate, which increases the likelihood of their influence over those who run arts institutions, and they are allowed to place restrictions on the use of their gifts. Moreover the property tax exemption encourages arts institutions to invest heavily in real estate, which is not necessarily in the public's best interests. Replacing some indirect subsidies with direct subsidies and granting tax credits for donations in place of tax deductions would go a long way toward making the system more equitable.

Most government support of arts institutions is indirect -- the result of charitable deduction provisions of the federal income tax, property tax exemptions extended by local governments, & other tax-incentive provisions. The money that government foregoes through these provisions must be made up by higher taxes for all taxpayers. The public, however, has little say about how these funds are spent. By its very nature, the income tax deduction places the decision-making power over arts institutions in the hands of the economically advantaged. Those with high incomes receive a greater tax benefit for each dollar they contribute, increasing the amounts they donate, which increases the likelihood of their influence over those who run arts institutions, since they are allowed to place restrictions on the use of their gifts. Moreover, the property tax exemption encourages arts institutions to invest heavily in real estate, which is not necessarily in the public's best interests. Replacing some indirect subsidies with direct subsidies & granting tax credits for donations in place of tax deductions would go a long way toward making the system more equitable. 2 Tables, 3 Figures. HA.

A TRADITIONAL VIEW OF UTILITY AND RIGHTSAccording to a conventional view, no project could be more hopelessly misconceived than the enterprise of attempting a utilitarian derivation of fundamental rights. We are all familiar – too familiar, perhaps – with the arguments that support this conventional view, but let us review them anyway. We may begin by recalling that, whereas the defining value of utilitarianism – pleasure, happiness or welfare – contains no mention of the dignity or autonomy of human beings, it is this value which utilitarianism in all its standard forms invokes as the criterion of right action. Worse, insofar as utilitarian policy must have as its goal the maximization of welfare conceived as an aggregate summed over the utilities of everyone affected, legal and political utilitarianism seems bound to have a collectivist bias, trading on the dangerous fiction of a social entity and ignoring the distinctness of separate selves with their several incommensurable claims.It seems that, if individuals can appear in the utilitarian calculus at all, it will only be as ciphers, abstract place-holders for units of welfare. For, as an aggregative value, utility must be indifferent to distribution, and insensitive to the preeminently distributive considerations marked by claims about rights. So, if whatever has utility can be broken down into units or elements which are subject to measurement or at least comparison by a common standard, then it will always be possible that a very great loss of welfare for one man or a few men can be justified if it produces a great many small increments of welfare for a vast multitude of men.