353
submitted 9 months ago by floofloof@lemmy.ca to c/news@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Rapidcreek@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Oh, are you a museum curator? Do you know why they do that?

[-] glimse@lemmy.world 13 points 9 months ago

I am not but the museum stash is surely due to space! Can't have every artifact on display or the museum would be the size of the city.

As for private collectors, work from famous artists rarely goes down in value...so rich people "invest" on storing thousands of paintings to make their finances look lower. It's a tax evasion scheme honestly and the fact that it deprived people from seeing said works makes it even worse imo

[-] FlowVoid@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

to make their finances look lower. It's a tax evasion scheme honestly

Buying art has the same effect on taxes as buying shares of Berkshire Hathaway, which is to say no effect at all until you sell.

[-] glimse@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago

Right, it's defering gains. They are "storing value" and unlike stocks, depriving the world of art in the process

[-] FlowVoid@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

You can store value by buying gold instead, or just depositing money in a bank account.

Financially, buying art only makes sense if the value increases. And it might, but stocks are generally more likely to increase and therefore make a lot more sense than buying art.

In either case, buying them won't reduce your taxes.

[-] glimse@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

Art absolutely increases in value. And it's steady, too, being unaffected by the market. Your stocks might crash but the art market won't and a new artist isn't going to change the value of a Van Gogh like the discovery of a gold deposit.

Furthermore, the art itself has no true value so the price can be manipulated through hype. I know someone personally (client at my old job) who proudly played this game with the paintings of a deceased friend. You just need one person to spend 100k on a painting (say, a friend...) And then suddenly every painting is worth 100k. Hype and repeat.

It's been years since I dug into it but here is a decent article (that I admittedly skimmed as I'm about to leave work) describing how art is used to evade taxes

[-] FlowVoid@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

The art market has its ups and downs, just like any other market. Last year it went down. Art buyers are fickle, so it's quite possible that they won't be willing to pay as much for your Van Gogh as you paid. In fact, that's why a lot of expensive art ends up donated to museums.

And of course hype is something found in all markets, not just art. Stories about Gamestop made the news, but the same thing goes on every day for other stocks. Buyers know the game, too. If you spend $100K on a random painting or random stock, it's quite possible others will point and snicker about how you overpaid.

Finally, your article describes how people avoid taxes on art, not how art is used to evade taxes. Unlike other investments, people who buy art generally want their investment shipped to their home where it can be proudly displayed. Shipping incurs lots of extra costs, including import/export tariffs. And people try to various ways to avoid some of those costs.

Whereas someone who buys stocks is happy to let their certificate sit in their broker's office, so they don't have to worry about those costs at all.

[-] glimse@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago

I'll concede that art is closer to stocks than I implied, but I think we both agree that the wealthy use it as an investment - whether it's a good one or not. Correct me if I'm wrong there. I'll reply to the rest of what you wrote out of respect but I worry I may have led is into the weeds with specifics when the real point I was making is that using it as an investment feels gross to me.

I don't believe that the majority of the people I'm describing are doing it for the love of art. It's an investment vehicle like anything else - one that is significantly less-regulated than stocks. If they truly cared about it, there wouldn't be hundreds of thousands of paintings sitting in tax-free storage.

Forgive me for the weak article, as I said I didn't have time to read it all and couldn't remember where I was reading about it a few years ago.

[-] FlowVoid@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago
[-] glimse@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago

Thank you for the mutually respectful discussion

[-] BumbleBeeButt@lemmy.zip 2 points 9 months ago
[-] Rapidcreek@lemmy.world 8 points 9 months ago

First of all, you have to acknowledge there is a finite area for proper display. Secondly, this happens more in the artifact world than the fine art world. Third, not all parts of a collection are as good or even ready to display. Some are in need of restoration. Some are inferior to others on display. Lastly, museums like to rotate displays to help visitors see something fresh. All this doesn't mean that museum storage areas are not interesting. The Smithsonian has a very interesting one which I was lucky to lost in when I was a child.

[-] BumbleBeeButt@lemmy.zip 4 points 9 months ago

Thank you. Very informative.

this post was submitted on 14 Feb 2024
353 points (100.0% liked)

News

23424 readers
2542 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS