[BSDobelix]

>Go Ireland, great scheme. I wish we had it over here in the UK.

It's a bad scheme, it divide's your population into people who have to create "wealth", and people who create "art".

Yes creating art (or preserving rare potatoes[1]) should be supported by your government if it's not survivable in a capitalistic society, however having different rights because of your occupation is not better then the middle ages.

[1] https://irishpotatofederation.ie/varieties/

[the_gipsy]

> people who have to create "wealth"

most people don't "create wealth". They're forced to serve up half of their awake time to someone that is "wealthy", most likely through inheritance.

[int_19h]

Most people do create wealth. That is exactly how those wealthy people become wealthy - by having someone create wealth for them, and then appropriating most of it.

[1234letshaveatw]

And now they're forced to serve up some of their awake time to artists

[lucideer]

I agree with your sentiment but in practice that criticism only shows that this measure is insufficient, not that it's a net negative.

I think it should go a lot further than it does but it seems unambiguously positive even by your own framing.

[jimnotgym]

Or it divides them into people that create cultural wealth and people who create mere monetary wealth.

So you do agree that art should be supported by government I see, so how would you do it?

[BSDobelix]

>Or it divides them into people that create cultural wealth and people who create mere monetary wealth.

That's what i meant with the potatoes, the government pays for the field with the rare potatoes, and the standardized potatoes make wealth.

>So you do agree that art should be supported by government I see, so how would you do it?

With free housing (art community's), tax free stuff (for small to medium sales etc) like it's done today. And to be honest i think 99.5% of artist dont do a full-time-art-job, most of them do other stuff too...and that's good.

Is my friend who plays the didgeridoo in his free time now an artist if he declares it's suddenly his full-time occupation?

One example, why exclude people like Geo-scientists who sometimes dont even get any money (except they work for big-oil or the state).

On a base your are right, not everything that's good for societies is compatible within a capitalistic system. But this is just a complete wrong step.

[instig007]

> create cultural wealth and people who create mere monetary wealth

the wealth in this case isn't monetary, it's material production, the productive work of people who create material objects, including your food and shelter. If it was about monetary stuff the government would just print the artists whatever amount of money they need. But that money has to be spent to buy from those who produce the stuff the artists need to live. Who's sponsoring the wealth producers?

[elxr]

You get different rewards, not different rights.

It's the same as cities/governments spending on free public basketball courts/tennis courts/running tracks. I come from a country with none of those things, and the difference that makes on the average fitness/skill level of the population is massive compared to places where those things exist.

Both basic income, and public sporting infrastructure have a significant (but not unreasonable) upfront cost, but the payoff in even 2 years time will be massive. Provided the economics check out, there's no reason to not give it a shot.