Irish Basic Income Support Scheme For Artists To Be Made Permanent (www.rte.ie)
- Reference: 0179694744
- News link: https://news.slashdot.org/story/25/10/07/1548248/irish-basic-income-support-scheme-for-artists-to-be-made-permanent
- Source link: https://www.rte.ie/culture/2025/1007/1537249-budget-2026-basic-income-for-artists-scheme-to-become-permanent/
> The Irish Government's basic income scheme for artists is set to [2]become a permanent fixture from next year , with 2,000 new places to be made available under Budget 2026. Minister for Culture Patrick O'Donovan has secured agreement with other government departments to continue and expand the initiative, which had previously operated on a pilot basis. Participants in the scheme receive a weekly payment of $379.50.
>
> The pilot programme, launched in 2022, provided basic income support to 2,000 artists and creative arts workers across Ireland. It aimed to support the arts sector's recovery following the COVID-19 pandemic, during which many artists experienced significant income loss due to restrictions on live performances and events. The scheme provides unconditional, regular payments to eligible artists and creative workers, allowing them to focus on their practice without the pressure of commercial viability. It is not means-tested and operates independently of social welfare payments. An independent evaluation of the pilot, published earlier this year, found that recipients reported increased time spent on creative work, reduced financial stress, and improved well-being.
[1] https://slashdot.org/~AmiMoJo
[2] https://www.rte.ie/culture/2025/1007/1537249-budget-2026-basic-income-for-artists-scheme-to-become-permanent/
Why? (Score:4, Insightful)
What makes "artists" so special?
Everyone else should be outraged.
Re: (Score:2)
because they do something important that nobody thinks you need or wants to pay for.
see: your comment
Re:Why? (Score:4, Insightful)
If it was important, why would people not pay for it voluntarily?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
any view of the world that supposes humans are rational actors is busticated
it's not even a question, there are only a zillion different ways you can prove that people make choices all the time that are opposed to their own interests
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So therefor the government should take their money and decide for them what type of art they should be investing in? Is that, err, democracy or something like that?
Re: (Score:2)
Concede you lost an argument without saying it.
Well done sir, well done.
Re: (Score:1)
[1]https://theonion.com/area-man-... [theonion.com]
s/constitution/democracy in your case
[1] https://theonion.com/area-man-passionate-defender-of-what-he-imagines-consti-1819571149/
Re: Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
The market is not a reasonable measure of desire for anything other than profit.
Unless you think we all desire ads
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
A free and completely voluntarist market is the only real measure of value, and the only way to optimally allocate resources.
Any step away from this principle is a step towards communism.
If you dislike ads, then pay for the damn app or site you are consuming resources from, and then they will remove the ads. Don't be a freeloader.
Re: Why? (Score:2)
A completely free market inevitably becomes a renter economy.
The irony of your threat of communism is that a free market will mean you will own nothing. In a communist government the government owns everything and in a truly free market economy the industrialists and private equity types own everything.
How are either of these good things? How does either one lift up all of society?
Re: (Score:2)
How does freedom to decide for yourself what you want to spend your money on lead to a renter economy?
Re: Why? (Score:2)
If every place where you spend money engages in renter economy behavior, like creating impossible to repair products or requiring a paid membership fee or subscription, then where will you spend your money? If every property in your preferred neighborhood is bought up by a renter, then what?
The market loves recurring revenue.
Re: (Score:1)
If the all supply of product X is renter model, and there is a demand for a non-renter-model, then in a free market you can go out and create a company that produces a non-renter-model to meet the demand for that, and then you become wealthy because you are tapping a previously untapped market.
See free market always makes sense, if you just think a little harder.
Re: Why? (Score:2)
Why would I do that if I can make more money doing rental economics?
Where would I get the starting capital to create such a company if the lenders and investors all want me to engage in rental economics?
Re: (Score:1)
That is just a thing that you say without any basis in reality.
Re: (Score:1)
I find it rather enjoyable. Do you not like the videos of antifas getting slapped around coming out of Chicago, Portland, etc? If not, why? Explain why this is not something that you like.
Re: (Score:3)
> Any step away from this principle is a step towards communism.
"One day we're subsidizing the arts, the next we'll be living under communism!". Is that the stupid you're pushing now?
Re: (Score:3)
That is absolutely false, even in a theoretical sense. There are many examples of economic market theories that end in disaster due to the way resources are allocated.
For example: A free market's only stable condition is an absolute monopoly which theory also dictates will not operate optimally
For another example: A free market will allocate resources in a way that promotes Tragedy of the Commons which always leads in collective loss and non-optimal outcomes.
Additionally a concept of value fails on a collec
Re: (Score:3)
> If you dislike ads, then pay for the damn app or site you are consuming resources from, and then they will remove the ads.
I do have mod points but I don't think you intended that to be as absolutely hilarious as it is so I'll save my +1 Funny for elsewhere.
Re: (Score:2)
This is a free market. I have no idea why you think it is not. You do realize the government buys tons of things. Guns, cars, uniforms, food, real estate. Because the government picks 2000 artists and purchases their services (does not need to buy the art - they are paying for the art to be done, not to own it - no different than a Research Grant where they do not own the research), it does not affect the free market. Other people can still make art. Private people can buy it.
Why is it that you
Re: Why? (Score:2)
"A free and completely voluntarist market is the only real measure of value"
So the only real value is in libertarian fantasies?
Re: Why? (Score:2)
Right, like tv. You pay the cable company and not a single ad in sight. Amazing people even know what they are.
Re: (Score:2)
Leaving aside that this scheme is supporting an industry that got properly fucked by COVID and is still recovering now, you're assuming human beings act in their collective interests. They don't. They act in their self interest. They look for the cheapest thing, and then they bitch and moan when the things they enjoyed but never invested money in disappear upon the realisation that everyone else thought just like them.
Re: (Score:2)
And yet some moderators said it was "Insightful"? Slashdot has become part of the precipitate. Definitely not part of the solution.
Re: Why? (Score:1)
Ah elected government invents some way to make society better. Why would you want people to be outraged about that ? Oh I see. You want people to be outraged at each others. I know who you voted for.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If society becomes better when you let the government give money to people, why not have it give a lot more money to all people? That should produce the best possible society.
Re: (Score:3)
Or how about instead we give money to people who will make beautiful things as opposed to handing it to billionaires like we currently do.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It should be everyones prerogative to give money to whoever they like to give it to. And equally their prerogative to _not_ give money to someone who they do not want to give it to. For example an artist whose art they don't find beautiful.
Re billionaires they should obv go under the same rule. All money exchanges should be on a fully voluntary basis.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
So we should never use tax dollars to promote nice things for our society?
The problem with what you're saying is that there is always someone who will disagree with how our taxes are spent meanwhile an opt in or out system for taxation would never work.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Correct, taxes should not be used to promote "nice things" for our society, because no one can decide what "nice things" are for everyone.
If you think menstruation blood art (it is real) is super nice for example, then you can go pay to see it, or buy a nice painting to hang in your living room. Who am I to demand your money is spent on something else? No, it should be your absolute right to spend your whole paycheck on this every month, if that is your thing.
Just like it should be my right to NOT spend mi
Re: (Score:2)
> Correct, taxes should not be used to promote "nice things" for our society, because no one can decide what "nice things" are for everyone.
Yeah, who needs roads, schools or any of the other nice things government gets us?
Re: (Score:2)
The free market produces superior roads and superior schools to the government alternative.
Re: (Score:2)
That only has any truth to it if you don't think accessibility to incredibly important infrastructure doesn't matter.
Turns out the West ended what had been the very common practice of toll roads hundreds of years ago for good reason, the toll roads were massively hampering trade. Likewise for schools, good luck having the type of educated populace we have today with only private schools.
Maybe book up on your history before making such outrageous claims. It's like you people actively want to roll us back to
Re: (Score:1)
> the West ended what had been the very common practice of toll roads hundreds of years ago
You are actually not aware of the vast network of toll roads that exist in the US then?
> good luck having the type of educated populace we have today with only private schools.
Do you believe public schools are on par with private schools in terms of quality of education?
Do you believe there is something magic about forcibly confiscated money that makes it more effective at paying for a school building, teacher sa
Re: (Score:2)
> You are actually not aware of the vast network of toll roads that exist in the US then?
Vast? No. I am aware that there are some though. I'm also aware that if they ever became the norm they'd be a massive burden on trade.
> Do you believe public schools are on par with private schools in terms of quality of education?
> Do you believe there is something magic about forcibly confiscated money that makes it more effective at paying for a school building, teacher salaries etc, vs voluntary funding of the same?
Do you believe that education being available to everyone is bad?
Re: (Score:2)
You'd probably want to handle it the same way we handle scientific grants, with a grant committee selected to pick what to sponsor. Then they can split the pot between some sure things, some off the wall stuff, and some things that certain ne'er-do-wells would consider heresy, just like with science.
Re: (Score:2)
> Re billionaires they should obv go under the same rule.
No chance of that at all if you let them be the ones that make the rules. Nonetheless if I have to involuntarily give money to someone I would vastly prefer it be artists over billionaires, a billion times over. It's hardly even a real question.
Re: (Score:2)
> What makes "artists" so special?
I'm going to hazard a guess here and guess that it's the fact that they produce art that makes them so special.
> Everyone else should be outraged.
So promoting more art is bad? We give billionaires subsidies all over the place here in the US, I don't see how giving a relatively small amount of money to artists to promote the production of more art is somehow worse.
Re: (Score:1)
I guess, these money are somebody else's. Right? Why not to give the money to doctors? Or drivers? Are they inferior?
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
Doctors and drivers produce a service that people want and are willing to pay for voluntarily, so the government doesn't see any need to force people to pay them.
"Artists" (the bulk of them) do not produce anything people want or are willing to pay for voluntarily, so the government feels the need to force people to give them money.
Re: (Score:2)
If taping a bannana to the wall is art - then isn't everyone an artist? Where's my check for the art I left in the toilet this morning.
Re: (Score:1)
I support your right to fair taxpayer-funded compensation for your toilet art, sir!
Re:Why? (Score:4, Informative)
Why would those groups need to be subsidized? What would be the practical benefit for society?
This is about using a very small amount of money being used to promote something nice for society, not about free money.
Re: (Score:1)
It is a small amount of money, they (artists) do not have. This small amount is going to be taken from somebody and distributed by a a bureaucrat to somebody else. Small is a relative term, artist is a vague term. Obviously, this is going to end up as horrendous abusive hole for the society. And, it is not obvious what is a practical benefit of giving money to these "artists" is, either.
Re: (Score:2)
You have it backwards. You saw the words basic income and thought of this as a charity program.
It is not. In fact it is not really a basic income program at all. Sometimes politicians lie in order to get programs they like supported. Sometimes they try to get something done and watch it get twisted into something else.
This is more like a research grant program, but instead of being for scientists it is for artists. There is a limit of 2000 people, they must be established artists.
Re: (Score:2)
for one, artists are special by definition. then again this is highly subjective and depending on your definition of art and artists.
there is a tiny portion of the population that is able to think and act (and hence "produce") in a way that is not available to others, being able to produce "art" that inspires other people and enhances the colective culture of a society. this is very valuable. in turn, a portion of these are able to do that because external help allows them to focus on it, be it a patron, a
Re: (Score:1)
In Soviet Russia, to be an artist, you had to be a member of the artist guild, access to which was controlled by the government. Government could kick you out of the guild at any moment for any reason. You could be a member and get some official salary... provided your art is inline with the Communist ideas and goals. Be obedient and do the right thing and you are going to be fine. I think Irish took the idea from them. Very wise, very wise.
Re: (Score:2)
Or maybe, everyone should become an artist!
I mean, why not? If everyone can learn to code, surely everyone can learn to draw!
Re: (Score:3)
I know you've turned into a miserable sod in your terminal years, but human civilisation owes a world of debt to the arts. Even if you hate everything by now doesn't mean arts in general isn't of major general source of social good.
As for what makes it "special"? What makes anything "special"? If you don't want to define things as special then shut down the government. A government exists to enact policy for the good of the collective, be that funding arts or throwing billions at the oil industry to keep yo
Their soap box makes them special (Score:2)
The public (nearly all tech-illiterates, use is not literacy) are easily appealed to by manipulating their emotions which happens to be the purpose of art, secondary even to money laundering.
Artists have easy, low effort jobs and want to keep being paid to churn out kitsch images AI could vomit out at least as effectively at lower cost to the end user. There is nothing left to invent.
Many people cannot compete so they want free money to subsidize their increasingly outdated skills. There is nothing special
Re: (Score:2)
Artisan grants are a thing in a variety of nations that want to preserve their culture. E.g. Japan and traditional art, woodworking etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Because soon all your media will be filled with AI slop. Keeping arts and artists going will see them eventually do well in LIVE performances. We need to reconnect properly with real people, not AI, sot social media, not "on the net", but REAL people. It will seriously help reduce mental illnesses.
Great idea, in theory (Score:5, Insightful)
Art is good and I like the idea of supporting artists.
But I also suspect that a combination of scammers and government bureaucrats will make the idea suck in practice.
Define art.
Does it require skill?
Does it need to produce beauty?
Does it need to produce stuff that others like?
Does it need to conform to the political flavor of the month?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
you'll spend more money trying to define those questions than you'll save from rooting out "scammers"
it's the tragedy of modern American politics, where more money is spent on fixing waste (or programs unenacted) just because there's some inherent waste
A large portion of the American electorate would rather set their own lawn on fire than see somebody who doesn't deserve money get some, it's pretty funny
Re:Great idea, in theory (Score:5, Insightful)
> you'll spend more money trying to define those questions than you'll save from rooting out "scammers"
> it's the tragedy of modern American politics, where more money is spent on fixing waste (or programs unenacted) just because there's some inherent waste
> A large portion of the American electorate would rather set their own lawn on fire than see somebody who doesn't deserve money get some, it's pretty funny
Us Americans are flooded with propaganda making it out like we're being fucked by anybody below the poverty line every time they get the slightest bit of help from the government, at the same time, sometimes the same propaganda even, tells us that the only way to keep the country operational is to keep handing more and more money directly to the ultra-rich and the business class. There are, in fact, large swaths of the country that would gladly chop off their own limbs, so long as they knew someone they disagree with politically would have to witness it and be horrified by it. Hatred has been bred into us for generation upon generation, and it's now as foundational to our way of life as the worship of the monied classes as our new gods.
Re: (Score:1)
If the art produced was liked by others, then people would pay for it, as people pay for things they sufficiently like.
This is exactly why Gucci bags exists etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Gucci doesn't produce art, it produces massively overpriced consumer crap made in third world sweatshops
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
A billion women would disagree, but that is exactly why I support your right to _not_ be forced to have your money spent on Gucci bags or other stuff you don't think is nice.
Re: (Score:2)
> A billion women would disagree...
What on earth are you basing that claim on?
> ...but that is exactly why I support your right to _not_ be forced to have your money spent on Gucci bags or other stuff you don't think is nice.
So I don't want any of my taxes going towards paying for sending our military into our cities amongst a shit ton of other things our government is doing right now. It's totally practical for our government to accommodate all that, right?
Re: (Score:1)
> What on earth are you basing that claim on?
Conservative estimate of number of women who owns or wants to own a Gucci bag.
> So I don't want any of my taxes going towards paying for sending our military into our cities amongst a shit ton of other things our government is doing right now. It's totally practical for our government to accommodate all that, right?
Certainly not. I think that should all be done on a voluntary basis as well. You should be able to opt out of that, just like I should be able to
Re: (Score:2)
> Conservative estimate of number of women who owns or wants to own a Gucci bag.
So anything that has consumer demand is art? You didn't see how completely stupid that sounded when you wrote it?
> Certainly not. I think that should all be done on a voluntary basis as well. You should be able to opt out of that, just like I should be able to opt out of paying for anything Ukraine-war-related or welfare-related or anything else I don't want to pay for.
Oh, I get it. You don/t understand how the world works. People don't like to pay for things but like all the things that they get from their taxes. There is no way to make voluntary taxation work while maintaining first world lifestyles. You'll never get something that isn't trade discouraging toll roads if you leave road building to be paid for on a voluntary basis for instance. We'll "freedom o
Re: (Score:1)
> So anything that has consumer demand is art? You didn't see how completely stupid that sounded when you wrote it?
Anything can be art, it just depends on who you ask.
> "You'll never get something that isn't trade discouraging toll roads if you leave road building to be paid for on a voluntary basis for instance"
What are you on about? There are tons of well maintained toll roads all over the world, that many people gladly pay to use.
Re: (Score:2)
> What are you on about? There are tons of well maintained toll roads all over the world, that many people gladly pay to use.
And yet they arent the norm because lots of people realize they are bad for trade.
Re: (Score:1)
That is of course something you can believe, since you don't understand that better maintained roads and well policed roads are actually a trade boon, not a hindrance.
Re: (Score:1)
Agreed. One ingredient is the commitment to be an artist in spite of the financial adversities you face, and the hostility from the people who oppose you for the views that you express. Being in that frame of mind unleashes a certain authenticity of expression. The song "La Boheme" by Charles Aznavour comes to mind. Patsies of the government paid to produce stuff approved by a committee made up of people in a sharp departure from that tradition.
Trigger warning. (Score:2)
When is /. going to have a trigger warning icon for postings like this?
I’m ”an artist” (Score:1)
Now give me money!
Re: (Score:2)
No, you're not. I am - I'm a published writer. Buy my novels ( [1]https://www.barnesandnoble.com... [barnesandnoble.com] and [2]https://www.amazon.com/Becomin... [amazon.com]
[1] https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/11000-years-mark-roth-whitworth/1139584319
[2] https://www.amazon.com/Becoming-Terran-Mark-Roth-Whitworth-ebook/dp/B0DN6RTDBR/
Re: (Score:1)
I have self-released music which is sold on Amazon too but my royalty income is only 1 dollar per year.
Re: (Score:1)
Is that AI-slop?
May be I am an Irish artist too... (Score:1)
How do you become an artist there? Any exams?
Re: (Score:1)
Likely all you need to do is espouse extreme leftwing politics in your art.
Just a guess.
Is Rosie considered an artist? (Score:2)
Rosie O'Donnell moved over there, has no work.
This may have come just in time!
America used to do this as well (Score:2)
Although under different circumstances [1]Federal Project Number One [wikipedia.org]
Of the $4.88 billion allocated by the Emergency Relief Appropriation Act of 1935, $27 million was approved for the employment of artists, musicians, actors and writers under the WPA's Federal Project Number One.
In its prime, Federal Project Number One employed up to 40,000 writers, musicians, artists and actors because, as Secretary of Commerce Harry Hopkins put it, "Hell, they’ve got to eat, too"
This project had two main principles: 1)
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Project_Number_One
Re: (Score:1)
Communism is a game everyone can get in on.
Re: (Score:2)
It's 2025 are we really still on "communism when government do thing"
Re: (Score:2)
Idiots are gonna idiot in any year.
Not a basic income program (Score:2)
Money given to people that apply because of specific skills they have? Given by the Ministry of Culture?
If NASA gave a grant like that to scientists they would call that a Research Grant. This looks like an Artistry Grant program to me.
Basic income is given to people regardless of skill. Is an Artistry Grant program a good idea? I don't know - I have no opinion on it. But as this is an increase in the program it sounds to me like they have some data that claims it is a good idea.
Re: (Score:2)
> found that recipients reported increased time spent on creative work, reduced financial stress, and improved well-being
They believe that money can buy happiness here and are doubling-down on it. Where does the money come from and how is it sustainable?
I'm not unemployed (Score:2)
I'm an artist.
They're just buying artist's support (Score:2)
They're just buying artist's support for their agenda, whatever it is. With taxpayer's money, of course, not theirs (LOL).
And why artists? Well, they're natural influencers, digital or analog, since ever. They're really good at it, in fact they're the best electoral campaigners money can buy, bonus points if it's with other's money.
Actually it's a pretty classic move, at least in very corrupt countries like mine.
But they all live in England (Score:1)
You know someone's Irish if they live in England or America, and don't shut up about it.
Welfare Rebranded? (Score:3)
Basic income or welfare? I'm not so opposed in part because I don't live in Ireland and in part because being an artist is work, especially the sales part.
Is it much different than an agricultural subsidy? (Score:5, Interesting)
> Basic income or welfare? I'm not so opposed in part because I don't live in Ireland and in part because being an artist is work, especially the sales part.
In the USA, we have agricultural subsidies as well as a FUCKTON of subsidies given to oil companies at many points. It shows what a country prioritizes. We prioritize a reliable and consistently priced supply of food and fuel...they want to fund artists...I have no opinions one way or the other, personally. Give an artist $379.50, it's a MUCH better investment than giving Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg a tax break. We can guarantee a higher portion of the investment will get redirected into the local economy when given to regular individuals vs billionaires.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Hmm.....interesting.
"I'm Brian...err.....I'm an Artist ....and so is my wife!!"
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I produce twice the amount of units of arts per day as the average artist and shall therefor be entitled to double artist pay.
Re: (Score:1)
Your real name is "nocoiner" who is having fun staying poor, lol.
Re: Is it much different than an agricultural subs (Score:2)
Can't wait for it all to crash and you to lose your smugness with your shitcoins
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
> Hmm.....interesting.
> "I'm Brian...err.....I'm an Artist ....and so is my wife!!"
Replace "Artist" with "rich white asshole" and you'll see how America is subsidizing the rich already.
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
Tell us that you hold a liberal arts degree and is at least $100k in debt for it, without saying it lol.
Re: (Score:2)
LoL
Re: (Score:2)
-snip-
We prioritize a reliable and consistently priced supply of food and fuel.
- /snip-
NO! We prioritize rich, wealthy, profitable corporations that can afford to buy influence from ~our~ electeds to our detriment. So long as legal bribery, AKA citizens united stands, [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] , (equates political donation to the right to petition, or free speech), we the citizens have no chance of getting what we vote for.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC
Re: (Score:3)
IMO, one of our biggest issues is the size of our country. It's not easy to meet with a national representative, be it somebody in the House, the Senate, or the President. Each House district represents around 900,000 people. In a smaller country, a single representative represents far fewer people and are therefore far more accessible. This fact creates more accountability.
Re: (Score:2)
Art and cultural activity is a major sector of the US economy. It adds a staggering 1.17 *trillion* dollars to the US GDP. However that's hard to see because for the most part it's not artists who receive this money.
The actual creative talent this massive edifice is built upon earns about 1.4% of the revenue generated. The rest goes to companies whose role in the system is managing capital and distributing. Of that 1.4% that goes to actual creators, the lion's share goes to a handful of superstars --
Re: (Score:2)
Yup - sounds like there will soon be millions of artists in Ireland.
Re: (Score:2)
So obviously you will be going to live the glorious life of an Irish artist immediately!