Baby steps. Everyone deserves it, but getting there in one step is politically impossible almost everywhere in the world. Nobody’s saying only the arts deserve subsidies. It’s just easier to justify. But if we want everyone to have basic income, we need to applaud whenever it happens, even if it’s a small subset, and argue they deserve it and that we should have more of it. Complaining about the unfairness of artists being subsidized demonstrates and adds to the political difficultly. If we accept that it’s unfair for a subset, then we might never get basic income since the rich don’t need it and many don’t want it.
Why do you say that? Isn’t the fact that it got approved evidence that it was easier to justify subsidies for artists?
I don’t know what you mean at all, why is this “so polarizing”? A lot of the art world already runs on subsidies, and it’s well known that it’s more difficult to make a living as an artist than your examples of jobs that come with steady pay, even if it’s low. Solo artists don’t get any steady income at all, and many have to take other jobs in order to support their art work. The general public where I live (in the US) is absolutely more willing to fund the arts than to fund generally low paying steady-income jobs, especially steady-income jobs that are already funded via taxes like teachers and firefighters. This is why I claim it’s easier to justify subsidizing artists. What is the reason you claim it’s not easier to justify, and where is the evidence your claim is true?
Good question. The public consultation was 97% in favour, although half the respondents were receiving the pilot payment at the time.
Following the announcement of Budget 2026 last October, I think this expenditure came into sharp focus, as the budget was considered to be almost hostile to workers and families, and anecdotally I think it has become more controversial since.
There definitely isn't overwhelming consensus the above figure suggests, as the public consultations always heavily lean towards interested parties (I didn't learn of the consultation until after it closed), but any topic that sharply divides opinion can be polarising.
The cohorts at each pole don't have to be equal size, and for now, there are definitely more in favour than against in Ireland.
Far more in favor than against completely supports my speculation that basic income for artists is easier to publicly justify than basic income for all. You argued sharply with that, but have so far provided only evidence in support of what I said. I would love to hear why, exactly, you claimed this issue would somehow poison the idea of basic income, and why you don’t agree with the idea of getting it approved for small groups in stages.
Baby steps. Everyone deserves it, but getting there in one step is politically impossible almost everywhere in the world. Nobody’s saying only the arts deserve subsidies. It’s just easier to justify. But if we want everyone to have basic income, we need to applaud whenever it happens, even if it’s a small subset, and argue they deserve it and that we should have more of it. Complaining about the unfairness of artists being subsidized demonstrates and adds to the political difficultly. If we accept that it’s unfair for a subset, then we might never get basic income since the rich don’t need it and many don’t want it.