Ok I'm not starting this thread to be attacked...I simply was thinking about this today and would like to start an interesting and civil conversation. Putting aside my own personal political beliefs....I was thinking today that Obama's tax plan could perhaps hurt Broadway.
Now I'm not saying Broadway is doing great right now, as we all know it isn't but will an Obama Presidency make it worse?
Obama is going to be raising taxes 5% on Broadway target audience. Upper Middle class families taking vacations to NYC. That extra 5% is probably what most families consider to be the extra money they have to spend on things like vacations and Broadway.
As another argument...Remember the Clinton years? While they were a time of economic prosperity in our nation...were they they best years for Broadway. That's a resounding no. Infact during that time there were very weak musical seasons and even one year with only 2 nominees for the top tony award prize. Perhaps this doesn't reflect the national tax...but its interesting. Is it a total coincidence that Broadway took off a few years into the Bush administration? (not defending Bush...just observing.)
What are your thoughts? Again...I'm not saying who I support in the election. Just trying to start a conversation.
I'm not attacking you, because I think there's no place for it on these boards (despite what you see in every single thread). But this "observation" is just as bad as blaming Bush for all the shows closing.
No. No no no.
No.
Well I agree with you that things are not great now...but is taxing the target audience going to improve matters? Just thinking...
Not to get all political on this board, but Obama could have campaigned to destroy Broadway, and I STILL wouldn't have voted for McCain.
I think that much of it has to deal with the fact that the 90s was a pretty rough time for musicals. There were very few megahits, or any shows of decent quality in some years.
Also, I think that those 5% of people who would be getting a tax raise would have enough money regardless to still afford to see a Broadway show, where cutting taxes for those who make less might not exactly scream to a struggling family..."let's go spend it on a Broadway show!!" it certainly can't hurt.
well its not the top 5% anymore...the number has fallen from 250,000, to 200,000 to 150,000 to 120,000. I know that my family falls into that bracket and we're by no means rich. I know that we probably could not afford a family trip to NYC without that extra money.
Becuase this is a Broadway message board, just wondering what an Obama presidency will mean for the industry.
Also...could it be that the 90s were a poor time for musicals becuase PRODUCERS didn't have the extra money lying around to produce newer shows?
obviously I'm not saying that Broadway is going to lose all audiences...but wouldnt even a 5% decline in Broadway income be pretty bad for the industry?
Updated On: 11/4/08 at 01:08 AM
Oh, please.
Broadway Legend Joined: 1/19/08
but WHY werent there as many good shows...
I don't think its that they didnt exist. I think producers did not have the money to produce them as they were being taxed to the bone. And the teen audience was not tapped into becuase shows that teens would enjoy were not being produced. who knows if they existed or not?
Since when have Repulicans been great for the arts? Broadway will be better when the economy does better and, yes, when the target audience is simply a bigger target with a lot more people in good financial shape. The wealthy will still come but they can't support as many shows.
Whoever fixes the economy, fixes Broadway but you still won't see Evangelicals waiting in line to see Billy Elliot.
Theaterguy, I hope you're not getting your numbers from Hannity and Limbaugh.
The point is, if a good show was to be produced in the 90s, it would have been produced. Broadway was just going through a creative funk during that time. I highly doubt a good show was not produced on Broadway because investors were being taxed higher than the middle class. Like I said before, those who are being taxed higer, especially/specifically producers, have enough money to not only put on the show, but also afford to pay higher taxes.
Understudy Joined: 9/5/08
"The 90's were weak because there weren't as many good shows and the teen audience hadn't been tapped into yet"
what are you talking about RENT was a huge deal for teens coming to see broadway shows.
Also what you guys may think on what creatively was good or bad the 90's introduced the juggernut known as Disney on Broadway..so i would not say that the 90's was the **** hole decade on broadway
Getting my numbers from Obama, Biden and Bill Richardson a top Obama supporter and gov of New Mexico
"Getting my numbers from Obama, Biden and Bill Richardson a top Obama supporter and gov of New Mexico"
Can you point us to where exactly you read this?
Anyway, this chart may be of some interest.
Theaterguy11, you, your ignorance and this thread are bad for Broadway.
Updated On: 11/4/08 at 05:23 AM
The only thing bad for broadway and the country is the economy.
The people who buy theatre tickets are still going to buy theatre tickets. I'm utterly broke at the moment, but I'm still getting to the theatre. I haven't bought any cast recordings for a while, and I can only remember buying take-out food once in the last six months, but I'm not (although perhaps I should) saying "well, I need to cut back, so I'll cut back on the thing I love most". And if I can wangle the money for a New York holiday, you can bet your backside that theatre tickets will be a part of that. There are museums and parks and all sorts of things you can do for free in NYC. I'm sure a lot of people who think "right, going to NYC, gotta do tourist stuff, including museums, galleries, sightseeing, and a Broadway show" would realise pretty quickly where the free and cheaper alternatives are and go for those, saving the money for the part where the payment isn't optional.
If taxes increase, it's not going to be "here is $150 in your hand. You *could* use it for theatre tickets, but you're going to have to give it in as tax instead". Tax is one of the less visible ways to use money; because you have no choice in the matter, because it's gone directly to the government and nowhere near your bank account, you don't consider it as money that you have or had. When I want to know how much money I'm going to have for a month, I don't look at the Gross Pay on my payslip, do my budgeting, then realise that I'm being taxed so will have to cut something out. I look at the Net Pay and work with what I actually have. Plus if you were getting less in a month, you wouldn't say "oh no, I must cut out one thing!", you would make cutbacks all round. Sure, some months you wouldn't be able to go to the theatre at all, but if you did need to cut back, you wouldn't cut out theatre trips and continue spending the same amount of money as ever on books, CDs, food, whatever. That would be a bizarre way to do things. o_O
agree Weez. We all have different levels of priorities!
When I was in LA, I remember seeing the minorities, who probably made 20K a year, driving the mega-sized gas guzzling pick-ups with the rims, stereos etc and yeah, probably lived in a one bedroom apartment with like 5 people in it!
People complain about the taxes April 15 and magically forget about it the rest of the year. Or, atleast I do.
We should worry more about the world's economy in general because Broadway has generally made their money off of tourists. But even with the situation, people still pay full-price tickets. I remember telling a former manager of mine to go to TKTS and it made it seem like I was sending him to the hood or something!
This thread belongs on the OFF-TOPIC BOARD.
As another argument...Remember the Clinton years? While they were a time of economic prosperity in our nation...were they they best years for Broadway. That's a resounding no. Infact during that time there were very weak musical seasons and even one year with only 2 nominees for the top tony award prize.
Don't be ridiculous. The 90s were NOT weak because "Clinton killed Broadway." How preposterous.
The 90s were weak because AIDS killed the best and the brightest of a generation of theater artists, including many of my friends.
The 90s were weak because of the murderous inaction throughout the 80s on the part of the Reagan and Bush I administrations who told the theater community in no uncertain terms: We don't care. We don't care that your actors, singers, dancers, writers, directors, choreographers and designers are dying. We don't care that the disease will spread worldwide to third-world women and children. We don't care enough to prioritize funding for research or care because WE JUST DON'T CARE.
So Broadway took care of its own. Broadway created Broadway Cares/Equity Fights AIDS and took care of the sick and dying and buried the dead and waited for a new generation of artists to emerge.
When the economy turns around--and it will take 5-10 years to undue the damage--the theater will turn around. But don't blame Obama and the Democrats for how long it takes to clean up the mess made by Bush and the Republicans.
And next time, put a thread like this on the OFF-TOPIC BOARD.
Great response PJ, everything I wanted to say.
Bravo.
Everyone has said everything there is to be said about this ridiculous thread. I just wanted to add that someone has clearly taken a "How to Write Headlines" seminar over at Fox News. And to second the assertion that this is very off topic.
IMO . . .
90's musicals > 2000s musicals.
I think everyone else has the topic at hand covered.
Broadway Legend Joined: 9/16/07
It's about Broadway. Why should it be on the OT board?
It actually may be good for Broadway to have the rich taxed slightly higher because it will keep the uber-rich from taking on Broadway shows as pet projects.
I remember 2 years ago that one of the biggest complaints about the Gondas producing Grey Gardens was their inexperience and their extreme need to be involved in the creative choices. Yes, we need rich people to fund Broadway, but we don't need them to actually be involved in the productions. Prior to the current financial situation people were living in Fat City and spending like crazy, much of it money they "didn't have," thus leaving us where we are. Maybe this will cause people to only put money into productions they really believe in...
Just a thought, could be wrong.
Leading Actor Joined: 11/10/07
Theatreguy11--- I understand your statement. I am not happy about it BUT Broadway is a playground for the wealthy. Both as an audience and espcially as investors!
Give those wealthy much heavier taxes and they will be less likely to put up 500k in what are very very risky investments. Same goes for donations to Non-profits. Donations that are Tax write offs still cost money, even if the goverment takes up 36% of it. Bad investment or donations still cost money and the wealthy will have less money to through around after the tax increases, Which means the arts will suffer slightly at least in the begining.
(I do believe that life adapts and theatre will go on no matter what the taxes but the immediate effect will be tighted spending.)
Videos