tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6695658736641735994.post6497556912382516091..comments2011-01-13T23:06:48.601+10:00Comments on yves & piet: Artful PoliticsNadia Buickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17979890037131651685noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6695658736641735994.post-37111656694410014772010-08-03T14:54:04.057+10:002010-08-03T14:54:04.057+10:00The royalty scheme is one of those ideas that is ...The royalty scheme is one of those ideas that is intrinsically a poor idea. The current scheme is not nearly as very bad as the Viscopy scheme.<br />CAL is very much a preferable option.<br /><br /> 'Retro' was never on.<br />Anybody who today buys an artwork makes a free choice to enter into the sales contract to pay the royalty on future resale. <br /><br /> A retrospective application of the royalty would make payment of the royalty by people who bought art years ago, a compulsory duty.<br />The constitution makes this very unlikely ( with a real risk of an an unknowable total amount of compensation hanging on a high court ruling). Australia is famous for almost never doing retrospective laws.<br /><br /> The Libs rejected the scheme , apart from being a authoritarian: anti liberal idea in principle, it is also intrinsically un-viable. <br /><br />The Total gross value of indigenous art sold at auction is about 5-8 million per year . This equates to about 250-300 thousand in royalties,<br />collected at great publicly subsidised cost (1.5 million and rising). And for many traders the royalty will be a fully tax deductible cost of biz.<br /><br />The money would have been better spent buying art works for parliament house or kidney machines for Alice!john walkernoreply@blogger.com