Comments on: Experts say Garrett’s art resale royalty proposal is a dud http://www.crikey.com.au/2008/11/07/experts-say-garretts-art-resale-royalty-proposal-is-a-dud/ now with extra source Tue, 24 Nov 2009 16:23:56 +1100 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: steve http://www.crikey.com.au/2008/11/07/experts-say-garretts-art-resale-royalty-proposal-is-a-dud/#comment-14837 steve Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000 #comment-14837 Bob Brown and the Greens can consider themselves lucky that they didn't get stuck with this lemon. Bob Brown and the Greens can consider themselves lucky that they didn’t get stuck with this lemon.

]]> By: Venise Alstergren http://www.crikey.com.au/2008/11/07/experts-say-garretts-art-resale-royalty-proposal-is-a-dud/#comment-14838 Venise Alstergren Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000 #comment-14838 Has Peter Garrett done anything at all-unless one could call making big business happy-to merit his inclusion in the Labor Government?<br />If he has, I would like to know about it. Please list from 1 to 99. Has Peter Garrett done anything at all-unless one could call making big business happy-to merit his inclusion in the Labor Government?
If he has, I would like to know about it. Please list from 1 to 99.

]]> By: James Guest http://www.crikey.com.au/2008/11/07/experts-say-garretts-art-resale-royalty-proposal-is-a-dud/#comment-14839 James Guest Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000 #comment-14839 Have a look at my 28 October Perspective<br />http://www.abc.net.au/rn/perspective/stories/2008/2402511.htm - 10k - [ html ] - 28 Oct 2008<br />Copyright is a scandal for reasons explained. And Garrett's scheme, if it avoided the avoidance mechanisms of lawyers with tax specialists' ingenious minds, would be both paternalistic and absurd; e.g. 40 sales of an artwork @ $100,000 mean that the artist and his heirs for 70 years after his/her death get $200,000. No death duties of course. The heirs of Tiger Woods and Warnie won't be cashing in on their talent for decades, and nothing goes to the heirs of those who invent a life saviing drug unless it happened less than 20 years before the inventor died. Giving artists even a lifetime (or 25 years whichever is the longer) interest in their works, and no resale royalty, is more than enough to stimulate the public benefit from their creativity. Everything else is a gift to make some worthies feel good. Read my Perspective argument and help get up a campaign for reform of the scandal. Contact me at jvcguest@bigpond.net.au if you have reasoned arguments against me or would like to help get the bandwagon rolling as I suggest. Have a look at my 28 October Perspective
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/perspective/stories/2008/2402511.htm - 10k - [ html ] - 28 Oct 2008
Copyright is a scandal for reasons explained. And Garrett’s scheme, if it avoided the avoidance mechanisms of lawyers with tax specialists’ ingenious minds, would be both paternalistic and absurd; e.g. 40 sales of an artwork @ $100,000 mean that the artist and his heirs for 70 years after his/her death get $200,000. No death duties of course. The heirs of Tiger Woods and Warnie won’t be cashing in on their talent for decades, and nothing goes to the heirs of those who invent a life saviing drug unless it happened less than 20 years before the inventor died. Giving artists even a lifetime (or 25 years whichever is the longer) interest in their works, and no resale royalty, is more than enough to stimulate the public benefit from their creativity. Everything else is a gift to make some worthies feel good. Read my Perspective argument and help get up a campaign for reform of the scandal. Contact me at jvcguest@bigpond.net.au if you have reasoned arguments against me or would like to help get the bandwagon rolling as I suggest.

]]> By: Bob Gosford http://www.crikey.com.au/2008/11/07/experts-say-garretts-art-resale-royalty-proposal-is-a-dud/#comment-14840 Bob Gosford Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000 #comment-14840 Rachel - you are the second person today that, unprompted, has made that comment about Big Pete's nocturnal habits...and I really do wonder if this policy has either been just dusted off from 2004 & 2005 or someone has had a fresh look at it. <br />Perhaps most disturbing is that the legislation is due to be introduced in the current session of parliament (and presumably passed then as well) so there are only 12 sitting days left in the year and then the House doesn't sit again until February.<br />And they want to have this very complex system put to tender and up and running by the new financial year 2009/10.<br />If I were an staff member in whatever the place that Garrett hides his arts bureaucrats I wouldn't be betting on a lot of time off this Christmas & New Year... Rachel - you are the second person today that, unprompted, has made that comment about Big Pete’s nocturnal habits…and I really do wonder if this policy has either been just dusted off from 2004 & 2005 or someone has had a fresh look at it.
Perhaps most disturbing is that the legislation is due to be introduced in the current session of parliament (and presumably passed then as well) so there are only 12 sitting days left in the year and then the House doesn’t sit again until February.
And they want to have this very complex system put to tender and up and running by the new financial year 2009/10.
If I were an staff member in whatever the place that Garrett hides his arts bureaucrats I wouldn’t be betting on a lot of time off this Christmas & New Year…

]]> By: Rachel http://www.crikey.com.au/2008/11/07/experts-say-garretts-art-resale-royalty-proposal-is-a-dud/#comment-14841 Rachel Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000 #comment-14841 I presume the 'big end of town' opposing this outrageous burden on the art investor would be the same end of town which unblushingly slugs both vendors and buyers of artworks with a 12.5% 'premium'. <br /><br />I don't know how Garrett sleeps at night - he must realise that he is has been totally marginalised and prevented from making a worthwhile contribution in any of his portfolio responsibilities. What a waste. I presume the ‘big end of town’ opposing this outrageous burden on the art investor would be the same end of town which unblushingly slugs both vendors and buyers of artworks with a 12.5% ‘premium’.

I don’t know how Garrett sleeps at night - he must realise that he is has been totally marginalised and prevented from making a worthwhile contribution in any of his portfolio responsibilities. What a waste.

]]>