Well-Tuned: Take the Money and Run, or Musicians Avoiding Taxes

DW Dalrymple

DW is an ex-mountaineer now residing in the Palmetto State, a former political hack/public servant, aspiring beach bum and alleged rock-n-roll savant. Forever a student of the School of Life. You can find him on Twitter @BIG_DWD

Related Post Roulette

8 Responses

  1. Damon says:

    I spent a semester in Grad school taking Tax Accounting. Just working the problems assigned showed me that our tax code is a mishmash of confusing rules so precise they could only have come about by congress inserting stuff into the code for “campaign contributions”. And if you work any hourly or most salary jobs, you get taxes withheld, so you’re really only FILING taxes, not paying them on 4/15. Withholding was the best way to reduce the anger folks got when having to write big checks–little nibbles are easier to live with.

    All that being said, if I came into substantial wealth-lottery, patent royalties, etc., I’d bail from this country too, renounce my citizenship (you still have to pay us taxes if you’re a US citizen living abroad-one of the few countries that does that.) and live somewhere nice and pleasant. YMMVReport

  2. Rufus F. says:

    Rich musicians? Wow, that takes me back! Nowadays, most musicians are lucky if they get enough from touring to keep their things in storage.Report

    • Chip Daniels in reply to Rufus F. says:

      In the Hugh Grant movie About A Boy, the central gag was that his character was a shallow feckless cad who has never had to work a day in his life, thanks to the fact that his father somewhere back in time wrote one single hit song, a silly Christmas jingle that pays enough royalties to keep him comfortable for life.

      Which is the sort of absurdity that only now in the digital world is being challenged. The absurdity that the music world SHOULD be a place where, with just one or two hits, you can strike it rich.

      Why should that be so? We don’t think that way with other fields of endeavor, that a chef has a string of excellent food creations, and therefore should become fabulously wealthy, or that a manager hits his sales goals for two years running, so he should be able to retire to Barbados.

      It was really just the quirk of technology, the ability to record and play back music that made this happen. That a single afternoon session could be recorded, then sold to millions of people, each paying just a trifle but cumulatively adding up to tens of millions.
      And another turn of technology, digital copying that lead to that model’s downfall that no longer could the content creators control the duplication.

      I see a similar way of thinking with software- We’ve become accustomed to the idea that with just a few lines of code, a novel approach and idea, that a software developer can become a Bill Gates or Jeff Bezos.

      Why should that be seen as normal, instead of an absurdity?
      Because for all their wealth, the titans of the digital world aren’t really much different than the father of Hugh Grant’s character. Their initial work may have been clever and remarkable, but very quickly, they turned the control of their enterprise over to others who did the work, and became wealthy not by labor, but by the time value of money itself.

      We like to say that Steve Jobs “invented the Iphone” or that Elon Musk is creating rockets or whatever else, but that’s not really true, is it?
      Jobs didn’t conceive of a fusion of phone and computer, or write any of the code, or do any of the engineering, or design the interface or really do much of anything other than hire people and approve of this direction or that.
      Musk doesn’t really do any useful work involving rockets or tunnels any more than Andrew Carnegie John D. Rockefeller drove trains or dug for oil.

      So when I hear that a musician is forced to actually, y’know, sing for his supper, I’m not sure why we should all see that as a calamity instead of just how the world should work, and should work for a lot more people, too.Report

      • Kazzy in reply to Chip Daniels says:

        “Which is the sort of absurdity that only now in the digital world is being challenged. The absurdity that the music world SHOULD be a place where, with just one or two hits, you can strike it rich.

        It was really just the quirk of technology, the ability to record and play back music that made this happen. That a single afternoon session could be recorded, then sold to millions of people, each paying just a trifle but cumulatively adding up to tens of millions.”

        Couldn’t the same be said for books? Or movies? Or most other forms of art? If you create something that millions of people want and which they derive value from, which shouldn’t you make good money off that?Report

        • Chip Daniels in reply to Kazzy says:

          None of them “deserve” any of it, is my point. The rewards were nothing more than the end product of technology, laws and regulatory gaming.

          If Elvis have been born 50 years before, he would have been an itinerant touring musician, dying in obscurity. Had he been born 50 years later, he would be a struggling musician hoping to get .0004 cents per playing of “Hound Dog”.

          Which of those fates did he “deserve”?

          The point is that we get accustomed to the structure of our world and consider it rightful and just, and when the model gets disrupted we consider it a dangerous or a threat.

          Like how pre-recording musicians probably thought it was decadent that a singer could get so rich by very little labor (that’s the way you do it- ya play the guitar on the MTV).

          But musicians who grew accustomed to the 20th century recording model (like David Crosby) consider it a travesty that they now have to travel and sing constantly, like Caruso.

          The structure of our world, how things work and who owns what and who reaps what reward- is nothing more than the result of laws and technology and gamesmanship.

          If you can use technology and gain control of the law and game the regulations, you can make a fortune. Or not.

          At first blush this sounds terribly cynical but its exactly the opposite.

          What we consider to be a “just” reward for our labors is a choice we make. Whether David Crosby is entitled to retire off his music or not is a matter of the choices we make regarding IP law, telecom regulation of streaming services and so on.

          There isn’t some omnipotent god doling out rewards and punishments, only the things we choose to make happen.Report

          • Rufus F. in reply to Chip Daniels says:

            Ya know, I have a LOT of musician friends and I think it would be ideal if they could support themselves with their music. I’m just saying it’s virtually impossible at this point. It’s why I buy their records and go see them when they play shows, but at best, they’re like traveling minstrels now. And it’s noteworthy that, of the rich rock stars cited in that article, Bono is the baby of the group at a spry 61.Report

  3. Brandon Berg says:

    Mind you, The Stones do pay taxes but when considering the vast wealth, they as a group have amassed over the years, the amount they are paying is laughable when you scale it down and compare it to most of their fans.

    Well? Don’t be coy. Let’s see the numbers. You have them, right? You must. Obviously you wouldn’t be saying this based only on a vague impression cobbled together from rumors.Report

    • DW Dalrymple in reply to Brandon Berg says:

      Obviously, I don’t write using information cobbled together from rumors.

      In the time you wasted by taking a jab at me you could’ve found the info you seek.

      Look it up.Report