Obama bad for Broadway??- Page 2

[givesmevoice]

Posted: 11/4/08 at 11:05am

per usual, I side with PalJoey.

[whatever2]

Posted: 11/4/08 at 11:15am

from barackobama.com:

"Middle class families will see their taxes cut – and no family making less than $250,000 will see their taxes increase."

turn off fox news, you knucklehead ...

[doodlenyc]

Posted: 11/4/08 at 11:31am

Hmmm...Reaganomics really helped out the mid 80s...it took London money to get broadway moving again...that was Broadway's lowest point...and PJ is right, making Reagan responsible for the slump in the 90's as well!

[sweetestsiren]

Posted: 11/4/08 at 11:45am

I could deal with this if it were a legitimate query, but this?

well its not the top 5% anymore...the number has fallen from 250,000, to 200,000 to 150,000 to 120,000.

Is just stupid. Stop drinking the kool-aid. I hate that people will latch on to statements like that without investigating them for what they're worth. The REALITY of Obama's tax plan, courtesy of factcheck.org, is:

"Looking forward, Obama's actual tax plan would indeed allow Bush tax cuts to expire, but only for the top two income tax brackets. Those would revert to pre-Bush levels, and the brackets would be adjusted if necessary to ensure that they include only individuals making more than $200,000 per year, or couples making more than $250,000. (Two percent of the population will make more than $250,000 next year)."

A FAMILY with an income of less than $250,000 per year will not see any tax increases, and most of them will see tax cuts.

[Gothampc]

Posted: 11/4/08 at 11:47am

theaterguy, not only will patrons having less money hurt Broadway, but producers will have production troubles. Many small businesses supply goods to Broadway (scenery, costumes, lights, etc). Obama's economic plans will hurt small business owners, thereby making it difficult to produce a show to begin with.

[Kalimba]

Posted: 11/4/08 at 12:06pm

Poor bitter Gotham, just doesn't know when to give up.

[Fosse76]

Posted: 11/4/08 at 12:19pm

"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. "

You need to learn how to read. Obama's tax plan calls for increases on individuals making $200,000 or more and couples making $250,000 or more. Anyone making less than $200,000 will see a decrease in taxes. Even if HALF your income was taxed (which it won't be, but IF), you still have at least a take-home of $100,000/year. If you can't live on that as an individual, you have some seriously mixed-up priorities. There isn't a location in this country where you can't live very comfortably on $100,000 per year.

"Becuase this is a Broadway message board, just wondering what an Obama presidency will mean for the industry."

Broadway is not on Obama's platform any more than it was on Bush's, so this questions is both irrelevant and ridiculous. People with money will generally spend it. While I by no stretch of the imagination am rich, I am not, at least at the moment, affected by the economic downturn, so I haven't altered my spending habits. Though the economy has hurt investors, rich people are still rich, and they are still going to spend their money.

[mc1227]

Posted: 11/4/08 at 12:33pm

We forget that prices are set by supply and demand. See what happened with gas prices as soon as people stopped driving as much and started conserving? The prices fell dramatically (they are still way too high)...If people would stop driving huge SUV's, stay closer to home, find alternative ways to get to work, etc. it will bring the prices down.

Same with entertainment industry. If people stop going to Broadway and paying ridiculous prices for seats, they will be forced to lower their prices. Check out local colleges, community theatres, playhouses, national tours for your entertainment dollar. Sure, there is a segment that will still shell out money for Broadway, but for the rest of us, there are other options.

[LotteTBS138]

Posted: 11/4/08 at 12:48pm

>>>theaterguy, not only will patrons having less money hurt Broadway, but producers will have production troubles. Many small businesses supply goods to Broadway (scenery, costumes, lights, etc). Obama's economic plans will hurt small business owners, thereby making it difficult to produce a show to begin with. <<<

And to add to the list above, the prices to put on a show can be outrages. Just like the strike started because an individual is paid for 4 hours of work and there only duty is to push a piano once! So if people start to conserve in theatres, then the operating budgets of shows MIGHT go down if a show is capped at $40Mil and will take it forever to recoup!

Taxes aside, the economy as a whole is a concern for current producers and their investors if people can risk hundreds of thousands of dollars when their other investments go under

[SporkGoddess]

Posted: 11/4/08 at 2:48pm

Oh jeez...

[April Saul]

Posted: 11/4/08 at 3:05pm

Oh my God, you mean they'll have to cut back on extravagances like the multi-media show in All My Sons and the amazing levitating bed in Billy Elliot? The best posting on here is PalJoey, he pretty much said it all. Call me crazy, but this might just be a day when we should be thinking about what's good for the planet...

[nealb1]

Posted: 11/4/08 at 3:09pm

This thread makes no sense. It's like saying, "Well, if a tax hike goes through, then Obama will be bad for movies. And, he'll be bad for K-Mart, etc."

[sondheimgeek]

Posted: 11/4/08 at 3:10pm

from barackobama.com:

"Middle class families will see their taxes cut – and no family making less than $250,000 will see their taxes increase."

turn off fox news, you knucklehead ...

Oh, because Fox news is bad or something? What it does is give two sides to every argument. They may favor the conservatives a little bit more, but so what? Pretty much every other channel favors the liberals. The show isn't called 'Hannity and Hannity' now is it?

And as for the $250,000 rule, that's a problem. It just so happens that most people making under $250,000 aren't the ones creating jobs. Higher taxes on those who create jobs means less jobs that will be created and/or kept.

Updated On: 11/4/08 at 03:10 PM

[whatever2]

Posted: 11/4/08 at 3:23pm

sondheimgeek: the original poster's point was that the threshhold was actually going to be substantially lower than $250k (one figure he repeated was less than half that amount) ... thereby resulting in a tax increase for many more Americans than expected ... thereby impacting broadway more broadly than expected ... thereby yadda, yadda.

i went to the source to re-confirm that the threshhold is what it has been all along.

your post questions the wisdom of the policy, not the accuracy of the number. loathe though i am to engage a hopeless partisan in a pointless debate, i will say:

i fall into the category of people whose taxes will inctrease under mr obama's proposals; it's a price i'm willing to pay to undo the damage of the past eight years. i will continue to hire people, to create jobs, to save and invest my money to create wealth, and to try to help others to do the same; meanwhile, i will have made the world a slightly better place in all the ways that matter so much more than money.

[SporkGoddess]

Posted: 11/4/08 at 3:48pm

It's great that you don't mind giving up your money, but I don't think that the government should force you to do so. I'm not rich, but I oppose redistribution of the wealth.

But like you said, that isn't what this post is about.

[Calvin]

Posted: 11/4/08 at 3:50pm

"Redistribution of the wealth" is a false and loaded phrase.

Believe me. If the tax cuts are not renewed, the wealthy will still be plenty wealthy. Their wealth will not be "redistributed."

[LotteTBS138]

Posted: 11/4/08 at 3:57pm

In all fairness folks, is this tax things gonna real take place? Just like the Governator said he will help the school districts with their finances and add more and what is the 2nd or 3rd thing he does??? Now, I vote for Obama but it takes more than one person to pass an initiative especially when the BIG people that donated money to your campaign all make well over 250K!

[SporkGoddess]

Posted: 11/4/08 at 3:57pm

Well, Obama's the one who used that term.

And his plan isn't just to let the cuts expire. There's more to it than that. For instance, he's also going to raise capital gains taxes and basically give money to the people that don't pay taxes.

Not that I trust the tax plan he's touting, mind you.

Updated On: 11/4/08 at 03:57 PM

[whatever2]

Posted: 11/4/08 at 4:11pm

> and basically give the money to the people that don't pay taxes.

and how is he going to do that? what does that bromide even mean?

over 80% of the Federal government's budget is on auto-pilot -- it's social security, defense, and interest on the frickin' debt (THAT W DOUBLED IN THE PAST EIGHT YEARS). all of the Federal government's discretionary spending is a rounding error by comparison.

the issue isn't whether obama (or anybody else) is going to give my money to welfare queens -- it's whether the government is going to make even a passing attempt to collect as much as it spends.

W's dad tried to make that very point when he flip-flopped on "read my lips", and they pilloried him for it. clinton did it just a skoosh better four years later (got his tax plan through the senate by a single vote) -- widely regarded by policy wonks as the only time in my 30 years as a voter that we had anything approaching a responsible fiscal policy in washington.

oh, and i never said i didn't mind ... just that i understand it needs to be done.

Updated On: 11/4/08 at 04:11 PM

[SporkGoddess]

Posted: 11/4/08 at 4:20pm

What I mean is thatObama's plan says that everyone who earns under the $250k income line will get money back from the government. People who pay taxes will get a tax cut and thus a refund check for the amount. People who do not pay taxes will still get a check, presumably paid for by the tax increases on the people making above that number.

And I'm against big government spending anyway, so I can't really comment on that part. I don't think Bush is Satan like so many others do, but I can't stand his spending (or, rather, approval of Congress's spending).

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 11/4/08 at 4:51pm

I'm sorry, but how was the 90s such a horrific decade for Broadway? Was there an off-season or two? Yes. Just like EVERY DECADE. Shows the 90s gave us:

The Grapes of Wrath
Lettice and Lovage
Once on This Island
Six Degrees of Separation
Lost in Yonkers
Miss Saigon
The Secret Garden
Will Rogers Follies
Dancing at Lughnasa
Crazy For You
Death and the Maiden
Conversations With My Father
Falsettos
Someone Who'll Watch Over Me
Fool Moon
Tommy
Blood Brothers
Kiss of the Spider Woman
Angels in America: Millenium Approaches
Laughter on the 23rd Floor
Angels in America: Perestroika
Twilight: Los Angeles, 1992
Beauty and the Beast
Passion
Sunset Boulevard
Love! Valour! Compassion!
Smokey Joe's Cafe
Moon Over Buffalo
Master Class
Seven Guitars
Bring in 'Da Noise/Bring in 'Da Funk
Rent
Buried Child
The Last Night of Ballyhoo
The Young Man From Atlanta
Titanic
The Life
Jekyll and Hyde
Side Show
The Scarlet Pimpernel
The Lion King
Ragtime
Art
The Beauty Queen of Leenane
Side Man
Parade Fosse
Not About Nightingales
Closer
The Wier
Amy's View
Putting it Together
Marie Christine

And that's not even counting the successful revivals. Yeah, the economy beat that decade all to hell.

Will Broadway see a decline in upper middle-class audiences. Perhaps, but probably not much. The difference could be made up for by the rest of the middle class and international tourists who would not be affected by the tax plan or by the upper class who can afford the premium seats of which the producers felt was such a great idea. Twice the price you used to pay for the same seats. I don't think any tax plan was responsible for that stroke of brilliance. Talk about alienating the middle-class audiences. They don't need Obama to make them feel like they can't afford the theatre.

[sondheimgeek]

Posted: 11/4/08 at 5:37pm

Whatever2, I'm glad that you will still be able to create jobs, and invest and save your money wisely.

Though I'm not falling into the same economic category as you are, I'm completely willing to take a sacrifice for this country.

My point though, is that not everyone who will be taxed can make the sacrifice. The tax is so broad and doesn't consider the specifics.

[TheaterBaby]

Posted: 11/4/08 at 5:48pm

Being someone who looks past all of the smoke and lights of Obama and his expensive campaign, I think his tax plan is going to hurt everyone...including Broadway.

Human Rights are the only thing that could convince me of a candidate.
Gay rights, NONE of the 4 main ticket names are in favor, so that's a dead issue (for now).
Women's rights, Roe V. Wade will never be overturned, so that also doesn't take issue. Even still, I'm Pro-Life with certain exceptions.

What's left for me?
I want more jobs, a defeat in the war without ending it too soon and risking another attack on my city, MY money in MY pocket and not going toward welfare or other people's healthcare. A strong economic plan. Access to alternate fuel sources.
Clear-cut choice was McCain for me.

Never ever did I think I would vote Republican as a registered Democrat; but there you have it.

Attack if you must. It's pointless and unnecessary being that I would not attack someone else for their choice of candidate.

[whatever2]

Posted: 11/4/08 at 5:50pm

> The tax is so broad and doesn't consider the specifics.

hard cases make bad law, and it is difficult to craft *any* policy that doesnt create undesirable results in unusual circumstances. overall, however, i believe you would be hard-pressed to successfully support that assertion with specifics. (full disclosure: i hold an advanced law degree in taxation and am a certified financial planner; i do not currently practice.)

[sondheimgeek]

Posted: 11/4/08 at 5:57pm

Thats fine, I'm just saying that the government isn't considering that $250,000 may be all someone can spend to live their life. As I said in another thread, someone may be making $250,000 a year, have 3 kids in college, have a family member in the hospital, and live in New York? But with the tax they may not be able to afford that. Should they have to uproot their lives just so the government can be happy? Should little Jimmy not return to his sophomore year of college because his father can't afford anymore to send him there? I'm sure because his father makes $250,000 a year that Jimmy wouldn't qualify for financial aid. Should Grandma Gertrude have to be taken off of life support because her son can't afford the payments?

I understand that the government won't get involved in the specifics, but to increase the taxes only for a certain group is ridiculous. It's class separation.

Updated On: 11/4/08 at 05:57 PM