Stephen Pilachowski on sat 3 jun 00
Nils Lou forwarded a message from Judy Onofrio advocating passage
of a bill (Bill HR3249) to allow artists to deduct market value for
donations of their work to charity
I am of the exact opposite opinion.
I ask people to contact their elected reps to urge them to vote this
measure DOWN. The purpose of tax deductions for charitable giving
is not to help the donor, but to encourage donations to charity. I do
not think that this measure will help charities all that much.
Under the present law, as described in the forwarded message, it is just
as
easy for an artist to sell a piece at a price reflecting market value;
then he
or she can donate the proceeds to charity, which can then, of course,
purchase
whatever art it deems appropriate, or can use the money for some other
worthwhile purpose. That's why is called "market value", not "potential
market
value".
The bill advocated by Judy Onofrio, and I guess by Nils Lou,
solves a problem that does not exist.
Stephen Pilachowski
http://members.bellatlantic.net/~spilacho/
Earl Brunner on mon 5 jun 00
And I disagree with you.
Artists are constantly being asked to donate "Art" to
various fundraisers.
I know that I have donated $300.00-400.00 retail worth of
pots this year to various worthy causes, where they were
then sold. My issue isn't with the worthy causes and I will
continue to support whom I choose.
This measure isn't meant to help charities as I understand
the issue, at least not directly. It is meant to give the
artist who donate works of art
to charities who in turn sell it to raise money, a more
equitable/realistic credit for what they have donated. The
fact remains that "Empty Bowls", the NCECA cup sale, and
other various fundraisers just wouldn't be the same with out
the bowls and mugs. At Empty bowls, you know exactly what
the bowl will sell for. If you make 10 bowls out of you
clay, time, glazes, firing, etc. and they all sell and they
make $8.00 off of each bowl, then your donation in effect is
$80.00.I can under present law donate my truck to charity
(which I did), get documents that show the Kelly Blue Book
value of the donation as over $3000.00 and the charity sold
it at auction for $650.00
Just because we are an affluent country doesn't mean that we
aren't taxed too much. It's not like the government is all
that responsible with what they do steal from us. Those
yahoos in Washington have had "surplus" revenue for the last
two or three years. They have gone on the biggest pork binge
in history instead of reducing debt. Why is it politicians
can overspend their income with impunity and I go to jail
for doing the same? Potters for the most part do not get
rich off of their pottery. Cutting their tax liability a
little wouldn't hurt.
Stephen Pilachowski wrote:
>
> Nils Lou forwarded a message from Judy Onofrio advocating passage
> of a bill (Bill HR3249) to allow artists to deduct market value for
> donations of their work to charity
>
> I am of the exact opposite opinion.
>
> I ask people to contact their elected reps to urge them to vote this
> measure DOWN. The purpose of tax deductions for charitable giving
> is not to help the donor, but to encourage donations to charity. I do
> not think that this measure will help charities all that much.
>
> Under the present law, as described in the forwarded message, it is just
> as
> easy for an artist to sell a piece at a price reflecting market value;
> then he
> or she can donate the proceeds to charity, which can then, of course,
> purchase
> whatever art it deems appropriate, or can use the money for some other
> worthwhile purpose. That's why is called "market value", not "potential
> market
> value".
>
> The bill advocated by Judy Onofrio, and I guess by Nils Lou,
> solves a problem that does not exist.
>
> Stephen Pilachowski
> http://members.bellatlantic.net/~spilacho/
>
> ______________________________________________________________________________
> Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
>
> You may look at the archives for the list or change your subscription
> settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/
>
> Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at melpots@pclink.com.
--
Earl Brunner
http://coyote.accessnv.com/bruec
mailto:bruec@anv.net
Nils Lou on wed 7 jun 00
I do indeed endorse the proposed law change, and I find it difficult to
understand why any artist would be against it. I think it will certainly
increase donations to chartity. Why wouldn't it?
Artists are generally among the first to be asked to contribute
their work to charity. I think people believe we have a lot of it around
and it is easier than asking for money.
The argument that no one can take a deduction for their time such as a CPA
or lawyer has no real bearing. There are wide differences in tax law
deductions for various professions already.
On the death of an artist the art works are suddenly valued at
market worth and the government is quite willing to tax the estate and
ignore the time factor involved in the making.
If Ford Motor Co. donates a car to Red Cross I doubt that the
deduction is only valued at the worth of the sheet metal and parts.
Another discrepancy is that you can donate my work at market
value, but I cant. I can donate yours, so if we swapped and donated each
others ( of equal value) we are essentially getting around the tax law.
You can donate at market value art purchased with your money
earned with your labor and time. Why cant I do the same with my own art?
As a matter of fairness, artists should be allowed to donate to charity
without discrimination.
So long as there are tax deductions for charitable donations of
objects of value what sense does it make to allow one person to take the
deduction only if they did not produce, fabricate or create it? The value
of the object has not changed and the charity is enriched the same to the
benefit of society.
Art is more than a commodity; it is the soul of our culture.
Historically, artists have not enjoyed the appreciation of their labors in
their lifetimes. To allow them to take a deduction on meager income is
meaningless to the larger economy, but can be extremely significant to the
individual artist.
I see no redeemable argument for not allowing market value
deductions for art work donated to charities by their creators.
I hope you will agree and endorse the proposed law (HR3249) which
will
change an unfair tax situation. I appreciate that you wrote to voice your
opposing opinion, but maybe I have explained my position better.
Sincerely, Nils Lou
On Sat, 3 Jun 2000, Stephen Pilachowski wrote:
> Nils Lou forwarded a message from Judy Onofrio advocating passage
> of a bill (Bill HR3249) to allow artists to deduct market value for
> donations of their work to charity
>
> I am of the exact opposite opinion.
>
> I ask people to contact their elected reps to urge them to vote this
> measure DOWN. The purpose of tax deductions for charitable giving
> is not to help the donor, but to encourage donations to charity. I do
> not think that this measure will help charities all that much.
>
> Under the present law, as described in the forwarded message, it is just
> as
> easy for an artist to sell a piece at a price reflecting market value;
> then he
> or she can donate the proceeds to charity, which can then, of course,
> purchase
> whatever art it deems appropriate, or can use the money for some other
> worthwhile purpose. That's why is called "market value", not "potential
> market
> value".
>
> The bill advocated by Judy Onofrio, and I guess by Nils Lou,
> solves a problem that does not exist.
>
>
> Stephen Pilachowski
> http://members.bellatlantic.net/~spilacho/
>
> ______________________________________________________________________________
> Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
>
> You may look at the archives for the list or change your subscription
> settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/
>
> Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at melpots@pclink.com.
>
| |
|
