Should taxpayers be expected to prop museums that cannot survive on a commercial basis.
I think that it should be considered on a case-by-case basis. For instance, here we have a hotel tax that helps fund museums and the arts, and a committee decides how the funds are distributed.
That's not fair for the hotels!
Here in the UK, the biggest museums are funded by the government. That way, there are no entry fees, so attendance is not restricted to the well off.
Museums are an academic resource, so in my opinon yes. They are esentially a national archive of art and technology.
Some of them are quite good and update their exhibits to be interesting and relevant. Some... not so much. In a way I feel that museums should have to be held accountable for their own quality, meaning that if it's an incredibly boring museum with permanent, subpar exhibits, I don't think it should get a free ride just for being a museum. On the other hand, in an economy like this, it would be a shame to have perfectly good museums close down by the dozens forever simply because the current economic climate isn't very good. Either way, it's a tricky situation.
But lots of people are not interested in museums. I think it's immoral to force them to pay for it.
It's exactly these people who should be offered the opportunity to visit museums without any (noticeable) charge. Lack of interest is, for the most part, lack of education.
Playing devil's advocate but I bet there's a nutter out there who isn't very interested in public education, but he's paying for it. In a sense, the current system regularly makes people pay for stuff they themselves don't want/use/advocate (wars, welfare, etc). Expanding what it covers is questionable if one were to say it's immoral but it's hardly uncommon.
So then it's immoral to have to pay tax, I like your way of thinking, but it just doesn't work like that.
I only use about 1% of the roads in this country, but my tax money (apparently) goes to keeping them all maintained. the last tiem I went to the doctor for a check up was about 5 years ago. The last time I was in a hospital was about 20 years ago, but I still pay taxes to help improve and maintain healthcare. And do you know why? 'cos I have to, but also because I am fortunate enough to be able to afford these services and earn a living and it's my way of giving back to the community and those people who aren't as lucky as me.
I think museums should be free, but then someone will have to pay for it, hence, taxes.
Should the state steal money from them or not?
Can anyone tell me the fundamental difference between me knocking on your door and forcing you to pay me a significant sum of your income, and the government doing the exact same thing?
People like you are dangerous, because you are willing to trade their own and other people's freedom for comfort.
I agree, it's not fair. I suppose the tax was proposed because hotels gain direct advantage from having people come to the museums and supposedly stay at the hotels. But not just the hotels gain. Restaurants, other non-museum attractions, also gain directly. Indirectly, the businesses that supply the hotels and restaurants also gain. Indeed, it is hard to identify anyone that doesn't gain. Some people seem to think that the purpose of government is to interfere with the economy. In my opinion, it does so to the detriment of all. Just lately I am subsidizing people who have cars that guzzle more gasoline than mine so that they can trade them in sooner than they would otherwise have done, and some of whom delayed trading them in so they could take advantage of the $4500 kicker. Google the "broken window fallacy" for details.
Well done! This must be one of the most ridiculous, pointless and completely irrelevant statements I've come across yet on PF.
Pray tell, what has the notion of the government spending taxpayers money on education the general public got to do with removal of freedom?
My belief is that the government should provide only those services which are more efficiently run by a goverment than by competing entities (plumbing, electricity, roads...).
Museums could be considered educational, sometimes. I think they should be very loosely funded, and that funding should provide only stability, rather than be the museum's livelihood.
This should be taken to the politics forum.
Kasse, kindly start your threads in the appropriate place. Your OP was obviously political.
I don't know what I was going to reply to that statement, but thought I'd quote it for emphasis anyway...
Separate names with a comma.