Ireland plans to make a $1,500 a month basic income for artists permanent
As Ireland's $1,500-a-month basic income pilot program for creatives nears its end in February, officials have to answer a simple question: Is it worth it?
With four months to go, they say the answer is yes.
Earlier this month, Ireland's government announced its 2026 budget, which includes "a successor to the pilot Basic Income Scheme for the Arts to begin next year" among its expenditures.
Ireland is just one of many places experimenting with guaranteed basic income programs, which provide recurring, unrestricted payments to people in a certain demographic. These programs differ from a universal basic income, which would provide payments for an entire population.
https://www.businessinsider.com/ireland-basic-income-artists-permanent-2025-10Open linkView original on lemmy.world1292
Comments231
For those, like me, that are curious how they decide who's eligible...
https://www.gov.ie/en/department-of-culture-communications-and-sport/publications/basic-income-for-the-arts-pilot-scheme-guidelines/#eligibility
Also:
So it's a lottery? WTF.
Lotteries avoid issues with the deciding committee handing these to their friends.
To an extent, it also can provide better data on outcomes. Instead of biasing for the most motivated, it includes a wider pool, so of whom may otherwise be seen as "unworthy". Then people do people things.
Not just "to an extent." Randomised Controlled Trials (lotteries) are the gold standard for evaluating policy. The political optics for the general public unfortunately aren't great, but the resulting data will be much more ironclad to refute anyone who argues for repealing such a scheme in the future.
Sure, it's not without advantages, but it waters down the concept quite a bit. Which may or may not be a bad thing, I guess - lots of people could use a basic income.
you see this a lot with these pilots. its funny because you don't really see the actual benefits until everyone gets it. Someone can breathe and take some classes to get into a profession or take some time to get into better shape to become a first responder or start a business.
also by the way what i find interesting is that UBI wouldn't actually have to pay for 100% of people's living expenses. imagine i get a $100, then i'm gonna spend $30 of that on food at a nearby restaurant, so the chef and waiters are gonna get money, which they then spend again ... what i'm saying is that $1 in UBI does far more than $1, because people are gonna spend it and then other people are gonna have it ... so you probably need to pay far less than 100% of living expenses, only like maybe 30% could be enough.
edit: this has nothing to do with your comment, i just wanted to write it somewhere.
oh yeah. its kinda like when people talking about a penny costing more to make than a penny but metal coins last much longer in circulation than bills. so if its actually used for its intended purpose then its not an issue as each penny realizes many pennies over its lifetime. The problem comes if the value is so desperate that people hold on to them as a value store. I firmly believe this type of understanding is lacking in our politicians who love half of what keynes said but like to ignore the other half.
How else would you handle distributing a limited resource pot without making judgment about what art is good/valid?
A competitive system is more what I was expecting. So, somebody who's a big name in Irish art but doesn't currently make a living would get priority above someone who just has an Etsy shop.
That is a judgement call, but not neccesarily about the worth of the art itself.
A lottery among pre-selected candidates. Just about anything can be considered to be art, so it is inevitable that there would be far more demand than fulfillment. After all, if they gave $1500 per month to anyone who claimed to be an artist, literally every single citizen would suddenly become committed to their "art."
I'm already a musician, but if I weren't, I'd become an artist today.
Yeah, exactly. If the selection isn't competitive it's vaguely art-themed more than anything, in practice.
This is kind of ridiculous and not even ubi. Universal means universal. And this is clearly not universal. So if only some people get the grant, there needs to be a talent competition and the 2000 best artists should be the winners. Otherwise imagine being objectively a better artist than someone else who got the grant and you didn't get it. 😡
Trying to rank who is the better artist objectively sounds like a nightmare
Well to start, it would be easy to weed out people who consider themselves artists but nobody, NOBODY likes their "art."
Nobody in the Irish government has actually used the label "universal" for this program by the way.
Good. Then people discussing it should stop saying "ubi."
Did you bullshit yesterday?
I've been struggling for years, living in poverty since I was 18 despite having just about the best education you can have in my field. I've made desperate decisions and risky moves to keep a roof over my head all while being spat on by all sorts of people and weathering wave after wave of politically motivated anti-intellectualism and it's 2AM and I'm exhausted from digging a fucking trench to install pipes for the shitty house in the middle of buttfuck nowhere that I've had to move to in order to be able to work from home...
And this piece of news made me cry a little. Even though I don't live in Ireland.
Cause I know how it is to feel like there's no way out and to watch how everyone consumes art daily like addicts all while saying artists don't matter and we should be grateful for the "privilege" we have and yelling "get a real job" anytime you complain.
And that's my piece. Bring on the logical arguments. I've laid out my feelings.
Also, UBI for everyone would be fucking amazing. Why we're not doing that is beyond me. It's like "they" think that without a "carrot on a stick" everyone will stop working. If I had a penny for everyone who practically can't think straight because of how worried they are about basic needs I'd probably save those pennies for my own basic needs. Fear is not a good motivator for workers.
Fear is a good motivator for committing crime. But not for getting a job.
The people who takes care of your sewage would likely also want to do something else fulfilling. But the difference is that they feel a sense of duty, the sense that those other lazy bastards that get to play music or do 'nothing' wont do it. Then they are left with the feeling of either doing something useful for others and get payed, or feeling useless and getting payed. Most people would rather feel useful in a practical sense.
Edit: spelling
If you expected a comfortable life as an unknown artist without a side hustle, that was naive as hell. Market doesn't give a fuck about your degree.
You can do it right now. Create a club to share a part of everybody's income as UBI.
Downvoters, you would have to pay for it anyways with higher taxes. Why not do it voluntarily among those who want it?
without the threat of destitution how will will force people to work shit jobs for shit pay?
That's why it will never be approved by a parliament.
It has to be done privately. That way, it would be like a union for everybody. That should lead to everybody earning more so that the membership fees pay for themselves.
But as the voting shows, it's a tough sell.
This exists already, it's called mutual aid, I'm participating in it when I can.
The reason why this won't work on a large scale without a societal shift is the same as why UBI isn't implemented already. It's capital leeching off a big share of resources from labor.
If we replace the capitalists with a fair sharing system, we could implement a generous UBI and also your effective net salary would go up.
Or, if you want to go a more reformist route, you can implement a very aggressive progressive taxation scheme (a-la FDR) to force rich people to contribute more. That way once again, we can implement UBI without your taxes going up.
Which is essentially communism and a goal too far away.
Why should the rich share with the average person if the average person doesn't want to share with the poor?
Start with the average person and the rich will join.
No, it's more like total welfare state socialism. Not yet achieved anywhere, but might happen within our lifetimes in China.
Only because most working-class people think that, with a bit of class conscience is totally within our grasp.
Because the average person, world-wide, is struggling to get by and doesn't have much in terms of extra resources, because the rich are stealing a significant portion of the labor value. Meanwhile the rich (who, again, are stealing the resources from the working person) are spending hundreds of billions of dollars on stupid bullshit that even they don't really need. It's pretty clear that we should indeed start with the rich.
Lol. No. The rich will never do anything other than short-sighted profiteering unless directly threatened with imprisonment or death. Otherwise they would be joining the mutual aid orgs which already exist almost everywhere.
Of course, because the average person in the West is already rich.
So there are the resources for an UBI.
Make it $800 billion. That would give each person $100.
It us not. The rich can prevent you from starting if you need them to participate but nobody is preventing you from doing it yourself.
Even if they do, it's just $100 more. You don't need them.
I'm not talking about just taking the bullshit money away. The combined assets of "big" capitalists worldwide is in high-double-digit trillions of dollars. That would be enough for a livable UBI for everyone, for some time at least. Redistributing the rest of the capital more equitably is trickier but also worthwhile.
As I've said, I'm participating in local mutual aid communities when I can.
Even $100 is considered an OK monthly salary in some places of the world. But redistributing all the wealth more equitably would mean a lot more than $100.
Stop defending capitalists, they will never appreciate it or give you anything in return.
That doesn't work. Assets are not recurring income so you can only handout them once.
What does prevent it from spreading?
They create the structure. People could already have the assets for UBI if they were structured. We don't have because groups don't have the discipline to maintain the structure all the time.
If the group can force the billionaires to hand out the assets then they could also create the assets on their own.
we have something like that in our tenant unions - we drop extra money to support lonely elderly
We have voluntary programs, they are called charities and they gave so little participation that they have to pick and choose their battles and ensure they spend money on those that care.
Also hard to know if the charity is efficient, competent, and free of corruption.
UBI needs universal participations on contributor and recipient to maybe work. Hard to say even then since the nature of it resists meaningful experiments, and the few actual programs tend to fall well short of even "basic" income.
Charities are not sustainable. There needs to be recurring income.
Why? Only honest people are needed who are willing to work if they can.
That attitude is why the wealthy will always insist on means testing to oppose progress...
The attitude we need is:
Influencers suck, pretty much as a rule.
But everyone deserves to live. And them being UBI proponents and constantly talking about it because they're genuinely happy they got it is a hell of a lot better than them taking cash from a billionaire to pit us against each other.
Right...
But first you posted a comment about how pissed you were that another group were getting it and they shouldn't.
Even if you know you meant "everyone should get it"...
You didn't type that, you were manipulated instead into only saying a group you don't like shouldn't get it.
No one reading your initial comment was/is capable of reading your mind. You did what the wealthy wanted, and may have influenced those who just read your first comment.
You’re giving the right fucks. UBI for all.
wtf even is an “influencer?” i am an online comedian posting my own material to an audience of 90,000-100,000 followers. i am not trying to be an influencer. i don’t want to be seen as even a micro-influencer. it seems that word is given to anyone who is trying to be an entertainer online.
is that how you’re using it too? how would we legally separate between artists like me and whatever an influencer is?
nah i get ya. i use the word the way you describe it as well. but i have seen commentary channels referred to as influencers which i didn’t think was right.
Thankfully the article lists everyone that's eligible and not eligible.
Not true! I'm definitely not eligible, and I'm not listed anywhere in the article.
The price of not only forming a conclusion, but expressing it before collecting information.
Low hanging fruit, and everything
A lot of gatekeepers in the comments who seem to love the idea of a UBI, but hate any attempt to test the viability of one.
I think this is a great step towards proving the benefits of a UBI for the greater population. I believe supporting the arts is always a positive endeavour, so using them as the pilot program kills two birds with one stone. I think that randomising who gets to enter the pilot program may allow some people to game the system, but the benefits outweigh the possibility of one schyster scamming a paycheque. The lottery system stops this becoming a bonus for established or famous artists, and supports creatives in all areas.
All in all, this is a good thing, and the people who want “all or nothing” are short sighted.
How many more before people are convince it works? I think this is one of those studies or referendums where the powers-that-be and its supporters keep running the test until they get the one result they want. Besides, with the burgeoning automation, UBI is needed. If not, at least universal basic services could be done instead, where we are provided with housing and utilities for free, if the concern that over-accumulation of capital through free handouts might lead to abuse or crash the economy or some vague similar notions
There's been lots of studies, it works.
You can't just do a "study' of UBI. Every single study attempt I've seen looks like: -They have funding from something or another, they do not model the taxation half at all -They end up means testing because they can't model taxation, so they fixate on those in need exclusively. -They tend to last maybe a year or two. The beneficiaries know this is a limited term benefit and need to make the most of it. -They do not target everyone, so the local market won't even notice the difference in base earning power. You still have lots of poor people excluded from the study. -They did not just force people into the program, participants had to actively seek out participation.
What the experiments have repeatedly proven is that welfare can work to give motivated poor people a needed reprieve to get their feet on solid ground, which we already knew. We haven't had an actual "study" of real UBI, just studies on welfare that they say is about UBI. About the only difference from actual welfare programs is that the participants are not audited to try to make sure the benefit shuts off the second they get a job. Which may be a good indicator at least that auditing the benefits could stand to be more lax.
UBI might work, but to date we haven't actually tried it in any useful way. We have universal income in some places, but it's generally well short of even basic.
Social Security for seniors is UBI, that's the biggest study you'll every find. Also, Alaska gets dividends. I think you're looking at it very narrowly for some reason.
Alaska is too small a payout. No one could have even basic needs meet there. It faiils the criteria for "basic".
To receive social security, you can't earn too much money. You generally have to choose either receive benefits or work. Also your payout depends on your specific pay in. You have to get paid during your younger years to "earn" your social security.
True, but Social Security is big enough to live on.
Still based on taxes, they know how to make it work. It's Basic Income regardless. I'm cool with that as a start.
The basic logistics or the least of the open questions.
If every one gets 2k a month, how do prices react? Social security participants are only a subset of participants in the economy.
If everyone's compensation is equal, guaranteed, and sufficient assuming prices didn't just screw up, can you still get people doing work like sanitation? Social security is from a mindset that no productive prior is no longer required. It pays more to someone that made 100k a year than someone that made 50k a year, so your get proportional to what you put in.
Has the concept of UBI been around long enough to fulfill your requirements? A 20-year study across a large population would of course be superior, but shorter-length studies with less people are necessary to prove/disprove whether those large scale studies should be funded. Not to mention the ethical implications of forcing someone into a large scale study like that before any results have been shown at all.
I think it's fine to be skeptical of anyone considering UBI to be "case closed", but small studies being done before large studies is standard practice. You can't give that kind of grand scale funding to every hypothesis that pops into someone's head, so it's a reasonable way of determining what shows promise and should be looked into more.
It's less a matter of needing years under its belt and more about paying out an actual basic income to everyone regardless of means testing or work requirements and without an expected end date for participants. We've just not seen it done at all.
This should be the default for anybody in the world. From there on work if you want more. We are social, economical and technologically capable of doing it. Is the 1% the ones preventing it from happening.
0.00004% (billionaires over world population), but yeah. Somebody please tell me why we're using technology to "make money" instead of progressing the human living standard
In Switzerland, 77% of the population voted against. Granted, the 1% may have influenced the voters by spending money on campaigns, or even by creating a narrative over decades. And maybe that proposal was too ambitious. But in the end, it was not just the 1% who voted against but 77%. There is still a lot of skepticism against UBI, despite all the positive evidence.
France is a tax haven for millionaires why do you complain ?
It is very swrious and it is a good reason to tax the rich. And they just decide they shouldn't.
You fail to mention how fair the taxes and redistribution are, and they are ever more unfair every passing year.
I wonder what the criteria are to define what an artist is, or what requirements are needed to qualify for such assistance.
https://www.gov.ie/en/department-of-culture-communications-and-sport/publications/basic-income-for-the-arts-pilot-scheme-guidelines/#eligibility
that's unfair. what classifies as "art"? am i an artist? I'm not sure.
i think a major point of the UBI scheme was the broad democratic support because everyone benefits from it. if only a specific group of people gets it, that's just another way to split the society. not what we need.
Crabs in a Bucket
This program has been terminated by Irish Arts minister Bucket O'Crabs.
haha yeah :) but no, actually, i want them to have UBI, i just want everyone else to have it as well :) that's a difference.
also by the way what i find interesting is that UBI wouldn't actually have to pay for 100% of people's living expenses. imagine i get a $100, then i'm gonna spend $30 of that on food at a nearby restaurant, so the chef and waiters are gonna get money, which they then spend again ... what i'm saying is that $1 in UBI does far more than $1, because people are gonna spend it and then other people are gonna have it ... so you probably need to pay far less than 100% of living expenses, only like maybe 30% could be enough.
Or less. Alaska's dividend program is a couple thousand a year and significantly reduces its poverty rate.
Defining living expenses is tough. If everyone is homeless, getting them a studio or tiny house seems basic, but if everyone is in a studio, getting them into a one bedroom seems basic. If everyone struggles to get enough clean water to drink, having water for drinking and washing seems basic, but if everyone has plenty of wash water then they want pools and irrigated golf courses. The way human brains are programmed with a hedonistic treadmill means we will never feel like 100% of our living expenses are covered. But every sustainable bit of help we can set up society to deliver makes our society richer.
*hedonic treadmill.
Well, our current system is unfair. So you can get on board with helping struggling artists, or you could rather more people struggle.
If this scheme works out, it doesn't take much to think this could be applied to more and more groups.
It has to start somewhere, and opposing this because it doesn't immediately include everyone is short sighted and selfish imo. Don't let perfect be the enemy of good here.
It gets even more unfair: participants get selected by chance (if they fulfill the criteria)
BUT it's just a pilot project. I hope it's successful and gets implemented for everyone - I mean everyone has the potential to become an artist if money isn't the deciding factor anymore.
Who knows how many great musicians, painter, etc. are stuck in a 9-5 job? I for example want to create a game... Not really "art" in the classical sense, but creative and prone to bring me next to no money unless I have a lot of luck.
Hell, even scientists might be more free in what they want to study if money is less of a problem...
UBI might be a great thing and I agree that art isn't the only thing that could benefit from it.
How many great artists, thinkers, and other potential geniuses are actually out there in the world, but they were unable to fulfill their potential because they had to struggle just to survive?
Imagine how many Ramanujans are actually out there, unable to do what they're great at because they're being crushed by the capitalist machine.
"Art" is such an interesting notion. I think it's safe to say that we currently call people "artists" if they're able to commodify their creative output. Whereas in reality, all humans are capable of creative expression. You are an artist. We all are. And UBI should be given to everybody!
I would guess, it means you have an art degree or something of the sort.
Reminds me of when Ireland uploaded one of the most ridiculous rap videos ever to their country's youtube channel:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljPFZrRD3J8
They've always prioritized the arts, mostly because the English have been trying to erase Irish culture for centuries.
It makes perfect since why Ireland would prioritize Irish artists.
One of those guys does the blindboy podcast now, it's well worth a listen.
That video is a work of art.
Absolute tune, the video is hilarious too.
“mostly because the English have been trying to erase Irish culture for centuries”
What on earth are you on about? Do you think anyone in England is waking up thinking about ways to suppress Irish culture? You do realise that England and Ireland are separate countries now?
...
When someone says Israel is committing genocide in Gaza, do you think that person is talking about every common Israeli citizen, or specifically the Israeli government?
Like, this confusion is a much larger problem than Ireland/England. So I want to put a good effort into explaining it.
But first we need to get on the same page that the English royal family isn't even eth ically English, they're a cadet branch of the old French royalty before the French decapitated all their royals...
So pretty much the only people who's had to put with the English royal family more than the Irish, are the English commoners. That's why the English language is such a mess, there was no upper society enforcing rules on it as it grew, because the ruling English didn't consider themselves English, they were the ruler of the English people.
Their culture was already pretty much erased by the time the English royals starting carrying about "England" and that was mostly just so the English royalty kept their heads. In private they likely don't see themselves as English so much as as they see England as a representation of them, which is why they try to erase every other culture.
I hope some of that made sense because like I said, it's important to understand when people criticize a country, they're almost always referring to the government of said country, and not every last citizen...
Have you read like….any history book in your life? Ever? This take is absolutely baffling.
Yes, I guarantee there's at least one person who wakes up and does have that thought
Mate I'm English and let me tell you, you have no fecking idea how badly our previous generations have treated the Irish basically from the 12th century up to 1996.
Also feel free to ask the Welsh and Scottish for their takes as well on English suppression of their cultures.
If Ireland wants to invest in it's cultural capital to expand it's horizons outside of Whisky, Guinness, St. Patrick, etc. that have been co-opted and stereotyped by the Anglosphere, then good on them!
A good place to start would be checking out Kneecap.
Can't wait for other new works that Irish artists will create from this investment.
As laudable as a program as this is, it stings a bit being in Ireland, which has essentially become a tax haven for multinational corporations. It is nice to support the arts, but it shouldn't come off the backs of shadily robbing world governments of billions in tax revenues. The cultural impacts of this have become extremely toxic, and hostile to the arts overall internationally.
It also seems like a strange job program. I'm close with someone who works for a US company that incorporated in Ireland. The company is required to have a number of Irish employees who live in the country. Those employees don't do anything.
Tax haven country gives artists some money to get by. The worst thing about it is the hypocrisy.
And crappy singers from mid-tier boomer bands.
Won't somebody PLEASE think of the world governments.
You do realize that it's mainly the poor people who are suffering when the rich don't get taxed, right? It's the governments getting robbed, yes, but that wasn't the main takeaway from that comment.
Everyone in here crying about artist getting money and trying to make me think it's a bad thing is summarily dismissed from my mind.
i think the problem is that it is Ireland that does that because Ireland is infamously a big tech tax haven so it makes any policy they make automatically bad because capitalism
The problem is people are crabs in a bucket. Same shit when minimum wages go up, or on a lower community level, when people's friends do well they get shitty too. People are the worst.
that is correct too.
The question is: Who or what determines if you are an artist?
This is why universal* basic is the proper way. We're heading toward a world where there will never be enough existing jobs for everyone who wants to work, let alone those who can't work, and finally the smallest cohort, those who don't want to "work" at all.
The administrative burden of means testing so many people is absurd. And when you do and they fail then what?
People who are against looking after the unemployed rarely say the quiet part out loud. That they don't care about homelessness, disease, violent crime, or whatever, since they can isolate themselves away from it. The law works for them, and so does the system, so they're safe. So let the peasants who refuse to tow the line figure it out on their own.
*universal Took me a minute 😅
Fuck, oops. Swipe typing on Android is a minefield of typos. But it's so fast one handed.
One day AI will properly fix my typos. Maybe.
I agree with this, but I want to ask a question as this has come up in topic recently in a friend group. Do you not worry that “universal” becomes “stipulated”?
I don't think there's a meaningful difference. If you're a citizen or permanent resident of a country with UBI you should get the UBI if you're of working age. No exceptions.
It's not the only progressive policy that's needed. Certain regulations over the cost of basic services and commodities is essential too. Housing/rent, food, and healthcare prices to name a few need to be controlled or there's a risk those dependent on the UBI will be priced out of the market. That's the biggest challenge to making it work, next to of course taxing the wealthy their fair share.
They’ve been saying this for decades and this was the birth of bullshit jobs.
You mean in Ireland?
So far I am unaware of a UBI policy having been appropriately implemented anywhere in the world.
It would be the end of "bullshit jobs" and make employment outside of specialist roles people actually want to do a sellers' market.
You'll have to raise the pay, benefits, and other working conditiona until it actually becomes a job people want to do, rather.
Right now there are enough desperate people, particularly immigrants in many countries, willing to do anything. That should be an ethical problem for all of us.
Immigrants probably wouldn't get the UBI and would still be more likely to take up unwanted jobs, so there would still need to be instruments like minimum wage (or better, guaranteed minimum income) that apply to all people engaged in full time work. The GMI should only be needed in industries with low profits or no profits so these employers can offer attractive and fair wages.
Here's the prior guidelines. You generally had to show your membership in an art organization and that you made an income selling art. Then they just randomly picked names of those people.
Hmm, a rather random approach, then.
What? How is it random? Having sold your art makes you a professional artist, by definition. Then they sampled at random because it's a pilot program
Well, I see a connection here.
Then you're daft.
You have to be a part of an art organisation (as in a governing body that requires paid membership to join), and to have proof of being paid, multiple times, for making art
And yes, in your own words: Then they [sic] sampled at random (emphasis added)
for the initial trial period, also in my own words.
It's no longer in the trial period. No random samples. Just have to be a member of the governing body (which does take effort and a nominal fee to join)
You do know the definition of Pilot Program, right?
Here it is;
The document linked is about the Pilot Program, the details of the Full Program are not yet known, but it can be presumed that it will be the exact same as the Pilot Program minus the Random Sampling (as the point is to cover everyone that is eligible)
Edit: spelling
Being paid to create art, that's the literal job description
And it's not a full UBI, it's got an assessment as part of it
You yourself?
Are you using most of your day being creative, or do you have steady employment? You don't need an authority to determine who is an artist
That would lead to loads of self-proclaimed "artists".
No, it would lead to loads of self-proclaimed artists. Successful and real are not the same thing
Wishing to be an artist does not make it so. There is a lot of human slop in "arts".
Here it is guys, found who's the authority on what is art and what is slop
Everyone is his or her personal authority on what is art and what is slop. That's what makes art subjective. Which also makes defining who is an artist subjective.
For my PERSONAL perception, quite a lot of what is sold as art is slop. If you consider randomly splattered paint or rusty heaps of steel "art", fine, that is also your PERSONAL decision.
So you are saying that no single authority can define who is or isn't an artist because art is personal? I agree.
Either UBI for everyone or UBI for no one. Lest we forget, money for this comes from of decades of collaboration in European tax avoidance by greedy multinational corporations to avoid paying their fair share in the other EU countries they operate in.
Otherwise, UBI is a great idea.
edit: "-excludes for example journalism or books for educational purposes, for example: textbooks, technical manuals, writing created for advertising or publicity purposes."
Yeah, you wouldn't want journalism or education to be freely accessible as an ocupation... This has to be the most ridiculous ubi experiment in the last decade.
Ireland has a history of supporting artists, mostly with large tax breaks for ARTISTS. While journalists and scholars use writing extensively in their careers, they are not "artists" in the way that people tend to think of that concept. They are not creating art, they are creating knowledge. That's an honorable endeavor, but it is not strictly art.
i mean yeah that barely costs ireland anything as artists are typically poor and therefore barely pay taxes anyways ... /s
Except that it has attracted major artists, with major fortunes, such as Rod Stewart.
I wasn't implying journalism is art, I'm implying no government is going to give you the tools to depose them.
Regarding "ARTISTS", let's see how many of the supported artists actually develop a craft rather than just producing content.
Many many many popular historical artists were not popular in their own time. The if it's be an artist or go work for a living, that's still people paying for things in their communities for however long that is. It's entirely worth it even if they just create content. It's a fair place to start imho
The overwhelming majority of the EU population works in services industries, whereas we lack specialized tradespeople like construction specialists. If forced to choose, I'd rather see that UBI go to them to support an early retirement plan for those underapreciated classes that have physically demanding work. Anyone can be an artist, especially if we don't need to have two jobs to make rent.
Perfect being the enemy of good.
Man it's gotta got to start somewhere. The full value of such a system will not be seen in our life times.
But if "anyone can be an artist" I'll argue then that is actually the very best place to start this.
Young, old, decrepit, disadvantages, anyone can claim an artist UBI? Fucking great! That sounds like a feature not a bug
Work on your own terms, your own needs, within your own choices. Fucking great.
I've lived where the first thing they gets cut from every budget is the Arts.
That certainly hasn't made the world a better place to live because "work" is always going to be a dog eat dog world where you don't collaborate you compete. Your usefulness is only determined by how much value can be extracted from you without a care for your well being.
Arts are useless? Can't make rent with an arts degree? Well guess what now everyone can.
I really don't understand why you are so pissed about this and seemingly(my interpretation, I could be wrong) uninterested in looking at how this can be good the way it is.
We already have basic income but just for some people. Would it be better to abolish those programs or keep them?
UBI for some.
Little American flags for others
I feel like this won't last long (maybe 10 or 15 years), because they'll end up prioritizing seniors.
Why would a politician prioritize artists when the majority of voters are seniors who want their pensions?
This. The only way this could possibly work is if it's universal.
This would fix me
I hate being alive.
I don't know if I would stop working, between my wife and I we currently make a little bit more than that both working full time.
But my mental health would just go through the roof, almost all of my anxiety and depression is rooted in financial instability because I am shit poor at saving and was more interested in skiing than college.
Being able to work part time when I need a break and not fall behind the stupid money driven eat race, I think I would be a lot healthier and happier.
"I'd rather be an out of work musician than an out of work pipefitter." -- The Commitments
Basic income AND a liveable minimum Wage should be mandatory. Our societies have evolved so that we have more than enough of everything already.
I want to become an artist and move to Ireland now.
I hope such sentiment on a broad scale doesn't overwhelm ireland, leading to capitalists saying such a system doesn't work and nobody ever implementing it again.
UBI has been tried since the 1960s with the results that you describe
Well shite.
Don't misunderstand, I am for UBI, but historically, it's been tried over and over, and never heard from again. I suspect the need of the ruling class to watch ants take public transit to perform ritualistic useless "work" is what really drives the economy.
Oh, I did not misunderstand, don't worry. Still though, shite. And what you're describing id just another angle on the problem of social construction of value. The thing is though, try a thousand times and it will work once and if people like it, it gets to stay in one form or another. We'll get there.
Feels like this is going to devolve into a bit of an Old Boys Club. As in, only 'recognised' artists get the basic income, and who decides who gets recognised? Art organisations, and those will very quickly restrict their membership or else be flooded by anyone who claims to be an artist and can get an AI to spit out some slop and get some moron to buy it.
Then, the government can go to those art organisations and go "Right, no more art critical of the government or we won't be recognising your organisation for the Basic Income scheme", thus cutting off the funding for the membership and, driven by the need to eat and survive, said membership will alter their art to be more comfortable to whoever happens to be in charge at the time.
This is basically what happens in Brasil. We have a government funding program for a few decades now. The big names (ie. Friends and family) get up to a million to make their bad movies and the small folk never get approved.
I worked in the ministry of culture. We were petitioning for funding on EU programs to open libraries in small cities (50k EUR) while singers got that from the ministry for a single performance. Not to pay for the stage and lights, that was just the singer.
Every publisher has to send copies of every book to the national archive. There isn't enough budget to catalogue or correctly store them, so they lay in gigantic warehouses gathering dust and being eaten by mites. It is so bad it is considered hazardous environment so it is super expensive to fix it.
But the famous director gets hundreds of thousands every year to make shitty movies nobody sees, because that one time 20 years ago he did something good.
To be fair, this is also how it works in Hollywood.
They should just give a basic income to everyone
Shift the zero
It makes sense
You’d reduce so much cost
Which is paid by the government
Which is paid by your taxes
Give your tax money to the people who needs them not the people who decide who needs money
Good news. I hope Canada gets there, but I doubt we will. We are too focused on oil expansion and infrastructure to pay any mind to the 'dirty poors' right now.
If we had kept Petro Canada as a crown corporation past the 1980s, we could be funding UBI NOW, but of course, conservatives fucked that up.
That was a Conservative + Liberal special, both of them selling off our assets all over the place.
We wouldn't have foolishly gotten rid of the railway in the country if our past governments weren't so corrupt.
Had this been the US our government and the Far Right would say artists owe them $1500 a month.
Ireland: do implement and study a program and agree it is working and they will continue it.
Users who are jealous: "this is unfair" "how that even work" "I am an artist"
Yeah, lots of sour grapes in here. It's kinda pathetic.
In case anyone wanted info from the Irish Citizens Information Board: [Basic Income for the Arts (BIA) https://share.google/BLpgqipdMH1y42mb1](Basic Income for the Arts (BIA) https://share.google/BLpgqipdMH1y42mb1)
Why did basic income fell of our radar? And were left with fasism everywhere?
Because wealth loves Fascism, and and has the propaganda power.
Imagine Irish homeless turn to storytelling as an art in order to be eligible for the pay? That would be incredible.
I wish, a country would finally decide to give general basic income and would flourish in many new creative companies of all sort fucking all the established big corporations only existing to hinder real progress…
The criteria for artists they provide is not good. Maybe Ireland is different, but I think broadly, we need more bridge builders than music bands. Both require skill, practice, hardwork and require "art" skills. The difference is, people tend to care about the oversaturated one more. We need both, but one is much more underutilized.
It is a good point, though I suppose the argument would be that it's easier for a bridge builder to find paying work than an artist
Exactly. It's laughable you were down voted
Frederick is finally getting the state's blessing to not gather food for winter.
Bravo Eire!
Soooo... Not universal?
The article explains.
Universal means for everyone no?
Doing trials is the way we get data to support UBI for everyone. Saying “If I can’t have it too, no one can,” is how we get a shitty world.
No...?
It's weird that doing this just for artists flew there. I can only imagine the uproar that idea would generate here.
It's not weird if you know Irish history.
For centuries the English has tried to erase Irish culture.
Something the vast majority of Irish aren't happy about...
This spreads Irish culture, so theres likely a lot of support for it. Like, think about how much 99% of the world hates the English for erasing their culture and centuries of human rights abuses...
The only culture that's been fucked with by English royalty more than England is Ireland. And there's a lot of culture pride there as a result because they've never given up.
For sure, it must be a more respected occupation there. The entirety of Ireland basically being the IRA, I'm not so sure about.
I wonder sometimes, if we all get UBI, what happens to home ownership? It might be enough to pay rent, but probably not save up for and afford a mortgage. Would the government then own all real estate? Which it would then farm out to private corporations to manage. Effectively making all of the property owned by corporations?
UBI doesn’t prevent you from earning money. It’s just that, no matter what, you get x amount of money every week/month.
I mean that's kind of how it works right now.
But UBI is just basic income, to make sure people can get on their feet. It works as a springboard to enable people to achieve higher goals, like home ownership.
Having corporations do basic functions is a mistake of neoliberalism, which literally cannot conceive of anything without a profit motive.
I do agree that government ownership is tricky because they have to act as both regulator and vendor, but it can be done.
Im not wholly knowledgeable on UBI but I imagine you can still make money on top of the basic income. Like as an artist you can still sell works, do commissions and whatnot you just dont have to stress nearly as much about covering the basics when works dont sell and there are gaps in customers. You still can have savings and the like. Best cases at some point housing would be cheap enough that one could realistically buy a house outright with good financial planning instead of it being owned by a bank
Looks like I need to start working on my Irish accent.
YES please!
1500 bucks. At least you'll eat while homeless
In China, some people mock the UK for its small size, but after seeing this news, I was speechless.
Ireland is not part of the UK
Forgive my ignorance and offense.
It is a little more confusing than that, because Northern Ireland is, in fact, in the UK. At least for now…It’s sort of similar to Hong Kong.
ireland fought a bloody war of independence from the UK as far as i know. i'm not an expert of irish history but the irish have hated england after being mistreated by england for a long time or sth.
As someone with a strong Irish heritage, this got my ire-a.
This is just the set up to Master and Margarita
I just dont get this thing with "artists", if you cant get people to buy your art, buy your albuns, buy a ticket to your show then you are not an artist, you are just an entertainer of yourself! If my company cant sell their product will the government give us 1500£ too? its the same thing, if my product is shit i wont sell, period
A ton of influential and world renowned artists were very unsuccessful during their life.
most people don't do art to make a living. it's a fun bonus and it is absolutely OK. Now when you're a professional commercial artist who does commissions and other stuff - yeah, that's a problem. However, you need to keep in mind that the infrastructure for culture commodification (making money from art) has been broken since the late 90s. There were short periods when the emergence of new tech made it seem like it is almost possible but the window was always too short to capitalize.
I'm not even sure if clarification came come to someone who's perceived view of "the arts" is already so negatively embedded into a capitalistic hellscape. I was fortunate enough to have an upbringing around artists and schools that encourage expression through the crafts (even in the south, it was a strange/beautiful time).
My suggestion would be to look into Graffiti art if you're trying to understand the non-commercialized sectors and the impacts they can have on society (link). It's not always about the work itself, but the inspiration it may cause others as well.
If that doesn't help, try to think of it in terms of another non-paid sector. Should the government promote FOSS creators with an income if the output improves society as a whole? This is an investment into a society you wish to see, such like education, not a financial statement which needs to show profits at the end of the quarter.
Biggest difference, if your company has a profitable year... who gets the extra income? An artists effect isn't valued in "capital produced" unless your an art dealer/corporation which is a whole different sector you might be confusing with an actual "artist". Art begets art, art inspires and motivates dreams and visions, it's such a long philosophical debate you can see it being drawn out by Plato in The Republic if you had the joy of taking any intro-philosophy classes (you should look into it, you might agree with some of the cases presented).
Lastly, an abundance of art has always been controlled by the wealthy (might be why you view it as a commercialized product).
Monarchy and aristocracy
Taxing said wealth, and allowing the people to freely express themselves without the moderation of the wealthy is a step forward from what was previously and currently being used for the artistic pipeline (you must produce the most valued or commercialize-able creations to continue existing). If the monarchs and wealthy of the world can't convince you that art is important (their art in this instance), I'm not sure how to reach you if it's just a stubborn personal take you refuse to budge from.
So an artists worth is determined by external, financial factors? What?
is determined by results! If you have a song and no one want to ear it are you an artist?
Well, there are plenty of famous artists who only became famous after they died. Contemporary popularity doesn't guarantee historic/cultural impact.
I'm not aware of the specific requirements of this program, but Iteland also has a case for cultural preservation, particularly with works in the Irish language, which may not have the international appeal necessary to make a good profit but are important for intrinsic reasons to Ireland.
There's also the case to be made that in order to become a great artist, you must first be a bad artist - and there aren't that many jobs for internships/apprenticeships in the arts, especially as some of the more "basic" jobs (cheap graphic arts, copywriters, muzak, etc.) are snapped up by AI.
I think there is an interesting discussion to be had about what an artist must have in order to qualify for something like this. I would also be concerned with "antiestablishment" works possibly being excluded.
Yes, thats just my point, i agree in some help if, and only if, the artist do some kind of work around their comunity or some pro bono kind of jobs, i dont know how to explain it exactly. But i cant agree pay to an artist that is trying to sell millions of records or have millions of viewers of any kind, because thats not art, its a product he/she is selling. Its and interesting debate indeed
I suppose you could do it a la "The Dispossesed" where you spend one day/week doing community service
so that they can express ideas without a profit motive?
That’s debate. It could be your ideas are of the least usefulness. Or mine.
Some people would say art is priceless.
I like art but hate this phrase
What does the phrase mean to you?
Under this logic Scientists are useless and just waste time with abstract ideas with no real applications. Money should go to blue collar workers who actually build and make the things we consume in an everyday basis. /s
UBI is the answer. More resources for the people, not less.
And what is "usefulness"? Who gets to decide? Art is an essential cure for societal narrow-mindedness.
What is the point of living without art and culture? That sounds like being a worker bee, without any honey.
Usually these people mean "profit". They can't see how money alone will not enrich a person.
You're not allowed to listen to music, watch movies, read books or look at pictures now. Because they are useless.
Or decorate your home, or paint your walls anything but flat grey, or even wear any clothes that are anything more than utilitarian. Because anything for style is artistic, and therefore useless.
It's the tech Taliban. Only engineering allowed.
Can I ask how old you are, and what your parents do/did growing up?
I don't want to come off as mocking, but it sounds like you don't understand the role art plays in a functioning society.
Artists explore ideas at the lowest level of a chain of creativity that extends up to scientists and decision makers. In the same way that rocket engineers rely on physicists and chemists to uncover the science that underlies engineering, and physicists and chemists require mathematicians the uncover the math that underlies physics and chemistry, artists essentially research the human condition to allow their society to weigh whether building a rocket is worth doing; where it should go; what it should do; who should be on it; etc.
Our collapsing society could in some part be blamed on the fact that our economic system has failed to fund research into the ideas and social technologies that we need to transition away from obsolete social systems.
I think you are abstracting and giving too much credit to art. I would define myself as an absolute noob in art though in other fields I am pretty capable and creative. It is all about the desire to do something. And it is not art and philosophy that should be leading our society but logic
(What no art education does to a mfer)
I'm actually an automation engineer!
Look: it's fine to be unfamiliar with ideas, but please don't be rude and stubborn about not knowing something.
You should read Einstein's writing. Sagan too. If you place technical knowledge as the highest (or only) form of intelligence then maybe they'll break through for you.
I'd hope no artist or philosopher would be as blinkered as this, or as arrogant. It's odd how some engineers decide that engineering is the only thing worth bothering with in life, and that all problems are engineering problems of one kind or another. It's very narrow-minded, and it leads to dangerous political positions with a complete unawareness of the ideology being bought into. I've also met engineers who can see more broadly, but it's definitely a mental trap some fall into.
Because making a living out of art is close to impossible, while society as a whole benefits from it
Inb4 random people drawing a dickbutt a month on some random piece of paper to qualify as "artist" and get free money from the government.
All these good sounding programs sound great in theory, until you find out that the lobbist controlling their actual enactment will make it a lot easier for CEOs to request the funds than actual homeless artists
And that's why the Basic Income should be Universal.
I see this as a clever step in that direction. Make it relatively easy to apply. Wait ten years, point to the lack of widespread abuse and then make it available to everyone.
No, means testing is so ignorant people switch from:
To
If people drawing one dick but a month gets this, it's only so people like you will be turned against UBI.
Shits too important to allow that ignorance to go unaddressed.
Because after it's explained, you either get back on the side of the people, or make it obvious that you're just against UBI for reasons other than you said
Artists... yes, because god knows, theres a shortage of those insufferable pricks running around... You ever meet an art student? You will never, in your life, meet a more entitled own fart sniffer.
Surely theres a better, more deserving group of people out there that could make use of this kind of program? Single parents? Kids from low income families, looking to get into higher education? Why, O, fucking why, is it "artists"???
well you sound like an enjoyable person
I dont "sound" like anything to you. And I actually can be quite fun, unlike art students who have had the reputation of being stuck up cunts for longer than Ive been alive. But sure, attack my character and not the content of the comment. That always make you look real fucking smart, and not at all like a fucking moron trying to get worthless internet points off a heavily downvoted comment...
you’re not disproving them tho.
And why should I? Why is my being fun or not have anything to do with other groups in society being more deserving of and offering more tangible evidence of, this being a good thing? Why am I the topic of conversation at all???
You dont have to answer that, we both know why. Because its only ever morons who attack the poster and not the post. The way to go was challenging what I said, not that I said it and that because Im "not fun" I should be ignored.
Honestly, imagine being this fucking butthurt because I said kids from underprivileged/poverty backgrounds would be better for something like this than fucking "artists". The utter fucking state of the world.
Imagine being this mad about pixels on a screen
Yes... imagine....
If every art student has a problem with you, I don't think the problem is art students
Fucking cringe.
Entitled? Nah, you're thinking of business majors.
No, Im not. The reputation of art students is well known, and has been for more than 50 years. Case and point, Hitler was a fucking art student.
Boy lemmy.world is really pulling in some winners these days
Why not just do a couple war crimes and comitt a couple genocides? That always leads to a bunch of art.
What in the never took art history trying to force a topic can't read the room off topic ass shit are you drinking?