Re: Alice's inheritnace tax proposals (a problem)

[Robert Charleston <rc3673@student.open.ac.uk>]

To reply to this message or start a new topic please email: BUPS-DIS@bups.org


Interesting ideas there, Keith.

I suppose what I'm trying to suggest about inheritance tax and funding of 
public works is something like this: It is just an empirical fact that 
many of our public institutions in this country in health, the arts, and 
even the military, were funded from hereditary wealth. That has dropped to 
a much lower level since the introduction of various taxes on hereditary 
wealth, which I think most people are suspicious (or perhaps jealous) of. 
We still have random and undeserving rich (I see the lottery millionaire 
rapist is on the newspaper front pages again today), and corrupt and 
mutual back-rubbing deals between a few power-brokers, government and 
industry. The governments of the last two premiers, ostensibly from 
opposite parties but connected to pretty much the same bunch of people 
[see Anthony Sampson's Who Runs This Place? for an excellent overview of 
this], demonstrate this. The only difference is that they no longer pass 
such influence from generation to generation of the same family to such an 
extent.

So what can be said of the state apparatus that has been put in place to 
supersede private (largely hereditary) funding of public works? Well, we 
know from the national statistics office that 50% of arts funding goes in 
London. Why 50% in a place that only a fraction of the country visit or 
can afford to travel to for the day? Whenever I raise this question with 
Londoners I usually get 'it's the capital' [yeah, but 50%?], 'you can 
travel down and see an opera for a tenner' [what? from Gateshead? or 
Cardiff?], or even 'but it's the centre of national culture!' [really? 
never been to Manchester, or Liverpool, or Edinburgh then?]

Similarly, the government of the day only fund certain types of work. With 
Thatcher it was only classicism, very little theatre. With Blair it is 
only modernism and Richard Rogers style architecture. Thatcher said she 
disliked funding for the arts because she thought spending tax money from 
low-income families to subsidise elite culture was unacceptable. Blair has 
repeated the message that state-funded art needs to be made 'relevant' to 
the people who are its market. I can see merits in both arguments, but one 
thing is sure: state-funding of arts has led to the priorities of the 
government of the day being reflected in the art that receives funding. I 
believe the situation is similar in most things that are moved from 
distributed to centralised funding.

I'd like to see more pluralism in what gets given money. To see some more 
opposition to whatever the official, sanctioned style or message is. I had 
been thinking that moving back towards the older model might help. First 
problem is of course that such a long inter-regnum of state funding (and 
therefore responsibility) for public works may have removed the social 
duty felt by the rich to pay for such things.

And the second is that you may be right to see companies as the new, 
abstract dynasties, not caring who their new sons and daughters were 
actually born to, but able to pass on immense wealth and power to each 
generation of executives. I'd certainly reject the idea that corporations 
are any more accountable or democratic than the old dynastic houses 
(NewsCorp? Enron? Halliburton?). In fact, being more international than 
the old, patriotic families, the largest tend to push governments around 
and not feel the old (ridiculous) nationalism that families often felt.

But I shall have to think about public works being sponsored by companies. 
Let's take a concrete example: would anyone here object to BUPS being 
sponsored by British American Tobacco?

I'd be genuinely interested to know.

Rab.


Browse or search the BUPS-DIS archives, or unsubscribe from the mailing list at: http://www.bups.org/mailinglist.htm