Madam, - Various articles have appeared in the press in recent months supporting the retention of the tax exemption for artists on the basis of the low earnings of the majority of artists. Can anybody tell me why these do not mention that on such modest earnings no income tax (or only a nominal amount) is due anyway? The article in your edition of September 2nd, "Counting the cost of artistic licence", also failed to mention this fact.
When the artists' exemption was brought in some 30 years ago, the tax on low and modest incomes was much higher than now. Tax cuts in recent years have changed all that. Retaining the exemption only means that the minority who are financially successful do not pay any income tax while the ordinary worker, who may hate his/her job, must pay income tax.
Your article quotes Sheila O'Flanagan, a successful novelist, as saying that writers do not receive sick pay or holidays. Neither does any other self-employed person. Is it fair that super-rich pop stars pay not a cent on their songwriting royalties or that the Taoiseach's daughter pays no tax on her very substantial earnings from her "chick lit" books? Income tax should be based on what you earn, not on what you do for a living.
Improving grants and scholarships for talented but financially challenged artists would seem a better way to encourage the arts than a blanket tax exemption that benefits only well-off artists. - Yours, etc,
ENID O'DOWD,
Moyne Road,
Ranelagh,
Dublin 6.