So what you’re saying is, such renovations obviously could only take place with government tax dollars, since as a private enterprise there’s no way they could make it work? And this relatively small amount of spending in the grand scheme of the tax system helps keep the local arts flourishing?
Sounds like the tax system is working!
Edit: forgot to add, it also supports the construction workers, restoration workers, the places of business where materials were sourced, pumps money into the local economy, and preserves the buildings as cultural landmarks.
Oh no no, don’t worry. Your pennies only paid for the art you like, other people paid for that weird stuff. That’s the best part of money, once you throw it all in a pile Scrooge McDuck style, it all looks the same!
This money is not provided by the federal government, or even the state. It is paid for by the city of Cologne.
1.5B€ is quite a burden on the finances of a city. Even if it is a large city. All for the benefit of a small elite, as normal people don’t watch operas.
The cost was spread over several years. And at 25€ a ticket this doesn’t just serve the elite. The building is also a cultural landmark, so preserving it is of social interest, and the money spent went straight back into the local economy, where it was swiftly taxed again.
That a private enterprise wouldn’t be able to make this work should give us a hint that it doesn’t benefit enough people for it to be worthwhile, opera is a luxury good consumed by relatively few, relatively affluent people. Why should the taxpayer subsidize their hobby? Actors don’t need a billion dollar opera house to perform, they could do it in a school auditorium if necessary. Those tax dollars could have been spent on any number of other things like healthcare and education.
When the tickets are only €25 it’s not just for the rich. The opera house is a cultural landmark, preserving it serves the public. And it was 1.5B spread over several years, not all at once.
Honestly, the ‘money on art bad’ argument is not a good line here.
Making it cheaper doesn’t change people’s taste, it’s still mostly for the rich, now they’re just getting a subsidy they didn’t need from the taxpayer. If people want to spend their money on art that’s perfectly fine, what I’m objecting to is the taxpayer being obligated to do so.
So what you’re saying is, such renovations obviously could only take place with government tax dollars, since as a private enterprise there’s no way they could make it work? And this relatively small amount of spending in the grand scheme of the tax system helps keep the local arts flourishing?
Sounds like the tax system is working!
Edit: forgot to add, it also supports the construction workers, restoration workers, the places of business where materials were sourced, pumps money into the local economy, and preserves the buildings as cultural landmarks.
But what if that money goes to art I don’t personally like?
Oh no no, don’t worry. Your pennies only paid for the art you like, other people paid for that weird stuff. That’s the best part of money, once you throw it all in a pile Scrooge McDuck style, it all looks the same!
This money is not provided by the federal government, or even the state. It is paid for by the city of Cologne.
1.5B€ is quite a burden on the finances of a city. Even if it is a large city. All for the benefit of a small elite, as normal people don’t watch operas.
The cost was spread over several years. And at 25€ a ticket this doesn’t just serve the elite. The building is also a cultural landmark, so preserving it is of social interest, and the money spent went straight back into the local economy, where it was swiftly taxed again.
These arguments are lazy, find better ones.
Have you ever seen the people who go into the opera?
Yes, if you would spread it over 30 years, it would still be €300-400 per ticket.
Find better excuses for wasting taxpayers money on a handful of peoples entertainment.
That a private enterprise wouldn’t be able to make this work should give us a hint that it doesn’t benefit enough people for it to be worthwhile, opera is a luxury good consumed by relatively few, relatively affluent people. Why should the taxpayer subsidize their hobby? Actors don’t need a billion dollar opera house to perform, they could do it in a school auditorium if necessary. Those tax dollars could have been spent on any number of other things like healthcare and education.
When the tickets are only €25 it’s not just for the rich. The opera house is a cultural landmark, preserving it serves the public. And it was 1.5B spread over several years, not all at once.
Honestly, the ‘money on art bad’ argument is not a good line here.
Making it cheaper doesn’t change people’s taste, it’s still mostly for the rich, now they’re just getting a subsidy they didn’t need from the taxpayer. If people want to spend their money on art that’s perfectly fine, what I’m objecting to is the taxpayer being obligated to do so.