British Orchestras & the Cuts

[Philidor]

People will simply not work at what they do if they are going to pay around 90% of their earnings in taxes...

Well, they did for half the 20th century. Scroll up and look at the stats. They're eye-watering.

From the Roosevelt's New Deal in 1932 to Reagan's first budget in 1982 - fifty years - the dear old Yanks, leader of the Free World, scourge of the Communist International, taxed the rich until they squealed like stuck pigs.

But should the UK super-rich, faced with a fair taxation system, restored to historic levels, refuse to work, they can attend one of Iain Duncan Smith's new workfare schemes. Let them pick up litter and wash graffiti from public toilets. It would do them no harm at all. Fred Goodwin might care to join them.

Such moves would also be politically highly popular. It's not just a few wild-eyed Trotskyites who are fed up with the bankers, and the political class which enables them. Vast swathes of middle-of-the-road British public opinion have lost patience with them. The feeling's likely to deepen as the cuts bite.

A fifty year precedent, in both America and Britain, of taxing them at c. 90% is there for all to see. Would you really mind seeing slightly fewer Porsches in Notting Hill?

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

I once aspired to be an orchestral player, but I'm thankful I didn't go in that direction. Mind you, for the music graduate, the competition for any kind of music related job is quite significant. County music services are likely to feel the squeeze and not everyone wants to teach in a classroom. Private teaching is an option that supplements many a performer's limited salary, and many more may turn to this...

[ahinton]

Well, they did for half the 20th century. Scroll up and look at the stats. They're eye-watering.

From the Roosevelt's New Deal in 1932 to Reagan's first budget in 1982 - fifty years - the dear old Yanks, leader of the Free World, scourge of the Communist International, taxed the rich until they squealed like stuck pigs.

But should the UK super-rich, faced with a fair taxation system, restored to historic levels, refuse to work, they can attend one of Iain Duncan Smith's new workfare schemes. Let them pick up litter and wash graffiti from public toilets. It would do them no harm at all. Fred Goodwin might care to join them.

Such moves would also be politically highly popular. It's not just a few wild-eyed Trotskyites who are fed up with the bankers, and the political class which enables them. Vast swathes of middle-of-the-road British public opinion have lost patience with them. The feeling's likely to deepen as the cuts bite.

A fifty year precedent, in both America and Britain, of taxing them at c. 90% is there for all to see. Would you really mind seeing slightly fewer Porsches in Notting Hill?

I accept the precedent, but people are surely far greedier now than they were in those days. The stats do not in any case tell us what tax dodges these people used - only the tax rates to which they were technically subject. The Porsches would simply move from Notting Hill to somewhere else. In any case, the tax issue does not only concern individuals who are highly paid but corporations who, when corporation tax rates in britain get to be substantially higher, they simply relocate to a lower corporation tax régime as many companies have in recent times by moving their operational heads to Ireland, which benefits not only the Irish exchequer in particular but the Irish economy more generally (which is why their need for massive subsidy from EU and Britian revealed just how disastrous Ireland's economy has become). None of the super-rich individuals or companies will have any need to involve themselves with Mr Duncan-Smith's workfare schemes! Yes, many of us are justly fed up with the bankers, but they'll either get sacked or relocate and, if the latter, many will wish them good riddance.

[ahinton]

I once aspired to be an orchestral player, but I'm thankful I didn't go in that direction. Mind you, for the music graduate, the competition for any kind of music related job is quite significant. County music services are likely to feel the squeeze and not everyone wants to teach in a classroom. Private teaching is an option that supplements many a performer's limited salary, and many more may turn to this...

Not if people can't afford their fees, they won't!

[Tevot]

Apologies if this is already on another discussion board. However I have just come across this breaking news in the Guardian today regarding the BBC "willing to discuss Public Funding of (its) Orrchestras."

The link is here

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/16/bbc-public-funding-orchestras

The responses are also worthy of note - in that the original article transported the Halle from Manchester to Birmingham :-0

I must agree with one of the comments. The Arts are not a luxury but proof in troubled times that we are civilised and worth much more than the sum of a bean count.

Can you imagine a similar scenario in say WW2?... "Well Miss Hess, these piano recitals of yours are all well and good. But don't you know there's a war on? I'm sure the money can be better spent on tin helmets..."

Is the BBC announcement evidence that the licence fee is going to be scrapped?

How exactly are the BBC Orchestras funded?

What is to be done?

Comments anyone?

Best wishes,

Tevot

[Philidor]

Can you imagine a similar scenario in say WW2?... "Well Miss Hess, these piano recitals of yours are all well and good. But don't you know there's a war on? I'm sure the money can be better spent on tin helmets..."

From Monsarrat's 'The Cruel Sea':

[french frank]

Nice extract, Philidor, thank you.

[RobertLeDiable]

Never mind Myra Hess. What on earth do that bizarre article in the Guardian and Mark Thomson's remarks about the BBC and orchestral funding mean?? Very worrying, I should have thought.

[french frank]

Is the BBC announcement evidence that the licence fee is going to be scrapped?

How exactly are the BBC Orchestras funded?

What is to be done?

Well, getting back to the Guardian article, then: I didn't get any clue as to the future of the licence fee there. The orchestras are funded out of the licence fee, as a separate 'department'. They obviously have some revenue raising activities too (public concerts, commercial CDs). I don't at all know what Thompson had in mind, but I was at least heartened by:

'Senior BBC sources said that they were not aware of any active discussions taking place, but any proposal to close or slim down its orchestras would be controversial.

Thompson emphasised at the hearing that the BBC orchestras are "not a burden; they are a crown jewel".'**

I didn't read it that he was talking about 'public funding' of the BBC performing groups (in some way other than the licence fee) but in some general way assisting other orchestras that will find themselves in difficulties in light of Arts Council cuts.

** We were questioned about the performing groups by the Trustees as part of the R3 review. I didn't get the impression that what they wanted to hear was that the orchestras could be cut back.

[RobertLeDiable]

I hope you're right. The BBC orchestras are partly funded from the licence fee, as the independent orchestras are partly funded by the arts council. The rest of the income comes from ticket sales, hire fees, recording fees, etc as far as I understand it. There's a common misconception that they are 100% licence-fee funded, but that's wrong. There's a precendent for the BBC giving some funding to an independent orchestra in return for broadcasts in the case of the Ulster Orchestra. Maybe Thomson is thinking of extending that idea, but you wonder where he'd get the money from.

[french frank]

The BBC orchestras are partly funded from the licence fee, as the independent orchestras are partly funded by the arts council. The rest of the income comes from ticket sales, hire fees, recording fees, etc as far as I understand it. There's a common misconception that they are 100% licence-fee funded, but that's wrong.

Yes, that's what I meant in my first paragraph - these are 'revenue-raising activities'. Quite what the BBC's accounting practice is, I don't know, but the PGs have their annual budget guaranteed: what they claw back in income is a bonus - like any other services which have a commercial value.

[RobertLeDiable]

Not quite - the ticket sales, hire fees etc. help to fund the performing groups' concerts outside the studio - i.e., their public activities. That income isn't a bonus, it's essential to cover the non-broadcasting costs.

[french frank]

Not quite - the ticket sales, hire fees etc. help to fund the performing groups' concerts outside the studio - i.e., their public activities. That income isn't a bonus, it's essential to cover the non-broadcasting costs.

True, but surely the majority of the PGs performances are outside the studio, and other than things like outreach are broadcast on R3 (and R3 pays those specific broadcasting costs out of its own budget, as it would pay any other orchestra)?

There seems to be a certain amount of obscurity here as there is over the Proms: Radio 3's budget pays for the Proms and one assumes the resultant income reduces the net cost to Radio 3. So you could also say in the same way that Radio 3 isn't totally funded by the licence fee.

[RobertLeDiable]

By broadcasting costs I mean engineering staff and equipment and everything associated with putting the concert on the air. But who pays for the hall hire, marketing costs apart from staff, players' expenses including travel, maybe also extra players and numerous other costs involved in putting on a concert in a public venue? Not, as far as I know, Radio 3.

[french frank]

But who pays for the hall hire, marketing costs apart from staff, players' expenses including travel, maybe also extra players and numerous other costs involved in putting on a concert in a public venue? Not, as far as I know, Radio 3.

I assume that comes out of the PGs budget: last year they received a total of £24.1m out of the licence fee revenue, of which £20.3m was for 'Content' (a heading which is clearer when it relates to the radio stations) and £3.8m for Infrastructure/Support. They pay, like any orchestra, for their day-to-day running costs and they are in turn paid for any 'services rendered'. What Radio 3 pays for has varied depending on the BBC accounting policy (there used to be a single budget for R3 and the PGs).