| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/26/2009 11:27:42 PM · #26 |
True, it's very sad. She's a great photographer beset by forces that have overtaken her.
[only slightly tongue in cheek]
But there's a silver lining for the rest of us. Since she made more than $250,000 this year, she'll get to pay an awfull lot (probably more than a third) of that to the government in taxes. And Obama just proposed raising the tax rates that apply to her!
What a boone her misfortune is to the average american taxpayer!
[/only slightly tongue in cheek] |
|
|
|
02/26/2009 11:39:23 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by Ivo:
I also hold in very low regard the arrogance of those who judge those who have achieved extraordinary accomplishments with extraordinary criticism. |
That has nothing to do with it. What bothers me is that these celebrities get sympathy that regular people don't because they're celebrities.
Granted, we certainly don't know all the facts, but it sure sounds like through bad choices and the economy, she's got a change of economic style.
It sure doesn't sound to me like she's lost her home and has to watch every penny; in fact, it sure seems to me like she's pretty fortunate in that she HAS the rights to her work to put up as collateral.
So yeah, I feel that it's a little sad that she got caught out a little by circumstances, but it doesn't sound like she's got to live an exactly austere existence, either......but I'm having a really hard time having sympathy for her having gone through a hell of a lot worse through some less than stellar choices.
|
|
|
|
02/27/2009 12:07:04 AM · #28 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by Ivo:
I also hold in very low regard the arrogance of those who judge those who have achieved extraordinary accomplishments with extraordinary criticism. |
That has nothing to do with it. What bothers me is that these celebrities get sympathy that regular people don't because they're celebrities. |
Well, I guess we are practicing situational compassion.
Many celebrities are a simply so because the media determined them to be so. As are those "celebritized regular people" who, on network television, proclaim "Move That Bus"!! |
|
|
|
02/27/2009 12:26:08 AM · #29 |
Originally posted by Ivo:
As are those "celebritized regular people" who, on network television, proclaim "Move That Bus"!! |
I don't get the reference.....prolly 'cause I don't watch TV.......8>)
|
|
|
|
02/27/2009 12:34:59 AM · #30 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by Ivo:
As are those "celebritized regular people" who, on network television, proclaim "Move That Bus"!! |
I don't get the reference.....prolly 'cause I don't watch TV.......8>) |
What I'm saying Jeb is that in many cases celebrity status is not by choice of the "celebrity" but rather a result of the media. |
|
|
|
02/27/2009 01:39:13 AM · #31 |
She only made 250,000 last year? (Someone posted that number on this thread but I'm too lazy to go back and redu do this)
Hmm i know thats alot for the average joe, but I would expected her to make more than that. |
|
|
|
02/27/2009 04:12:01 AM · #32 |
Originally posted by JaimeVinas:
She only made 250,000 last year? (Someone posted that number on this thread but I'm too lazy to go back and redu do this)
Hmm i know thats alot for the average joe, but I would expected her to make more than that. |
No, the statement was "she made more than $250,000" last year, and the point was that this puts her over the Obama threshold of "ordinary income", and if he has his way she's gonna get taxed quite a bit more because of it.
R.
Message edited by author 2009-02-27 04:12:21.
|
|
|
|
02/27/2009 04:21:27 AM · #33 |
Originally posted by JaimeVinas:
She only made 250,000 last year? (Someone posted that number on this thread but I'm too lazy to go back and redu do this)
Hmm i know thats alot for the average joe, but I would expected her to make more than that. |
Maybe she should do some weddings.. |
|
|
|
02/27/2009 06:41:09 AM · #34 |
Originally posted by Ivo:
As are those "celebritized regular people" who, on network television, proclaim "Move That Bus"!! |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
I don't get the reference.....prolly 'cause I don't watch TV.......8>) |
Originally posted by Ivo:
What I'm saying Jeb is that in many cases celebrity status is not by choice of the "celebrity" but rather a result of the media. |
Ah!
Point taken.
Sometimes it's reluctantly acquired.
|
|
|
|
02/27/2009 09:37:51 AM · #35 |
partial quote Originally posted by ambaker:
... ... I just don't see talented people as a higher life form, deserving of more care and sympathy than the rest of the people trying to make their way through in these hard times.
With her talent, and connections, she faces a little brighter future than many right now. I'm a little more worried about the single mom, who has been laid off and is wondering what to do to meet the rent by the first of the month. |
I agree, no more no less “care and sympathy” is deserved. They
do get more noticed more being in the limelight. |
|
|
|
02/27/2009 01:29:55 PM · #36 |
I am saddened to hear of the problems Annie Leibovitz faces with regard to her finances.
It appears that, like many talented artists, she is better at her art than she is at money management.
I am also saddened to note the number of "Tut Tut!" responses by our DPC crowd.
|
|
|
|
02/27/2009 05:52:22 PM · #37 |
Poor Annie. She may never recover her photos and properties according to the details of the contract she signed with Capitol Arts in NY. They are pawn dealers for the art world. Apparently the art bubble has not burst like the housing bubble. Private owners of fine art and the actual artists themselves are pawning off their Warhols, Old Masters and Photography to these art-dealer-pawn-houses located around the world. It's my understanding the pawn dealers/art bankers can place their own market value on the works of art, thereby making it sometimes impossible for artists and owners to retrieve their art and properties back.
She may lose her homes, her art, the future for her children.
Art that is not recovered by it's owner can be sold on the private market, which largely consists of the billionaires in India and Russia. The overseas private sector has the money to by art, as the dollar value declines even further and Americans are forced to pawn their art to pay mortgages and debts.
More redistribution of wealth as America is snatched up by other countries. Sorry to rant, but this is what's happening. Museums do not have the money the private sector has and they are losing out to bids for art. MAJOR BUMMER. Art for the wealthy and not the people. Our world is hurting.
Sorry about the unusually long and political post. I did a bit of research into the company she is dealing with, 'Capitol Arts, Inc" and will past a few pages below, though I did a more thorough research than just the few pages below. I have a dear friend that works with a Billionaire from Russia that is also seizing all important Arts from around the world.
btw Bear_Music, you've hung out with cool people!
Darlene
//www.nytimes.com/2009/02/24/arts/design/24artloans.html?ref=arts
"For her $5 million loan, Ms. Leibovitz put up as collateral a country house in Rhinebeck, N.Y., three town houses in Greenwich Village and all “copyrights ... photographic negatives ... contract rights” existing or to be created in the future, according to a loan document filed with the City Register’s Office in December."
Ultra-Rich Collectors Help Keep Art Market Afloat
by Elizabeth Blair
February 27, 2009
One reason for the shift is the weak dollar. Another is new wealth overseas. It seems that a very small group of ultra-rich buyers is keeping the high-end art market alive.
Josh Baer, a private dealer who writes the arts industry blog The Baer Faxt, says the new collectors are from places such as Russia and India.
"Five or 10 years ago, they had nothing on their walls," Baer says. "The American collectors, the major ones, have been collecting for 20, 30, 40 years. They have master-works, so they're in less of a hurry to need to buy one more."
Take Russian billionaire art lover Roman Abramovich. He snapped up the Lucian Freud at last month's auction. He also took the Francis Bacon.
While the economy has whittled the number of bidders, it also has affected how purchases are made.
Ian Peck, president of the Art Capital Group, says his company lends money to people who want to buy art. They use the artwork itself as collateral for the loan. Peck says he has seen a 30 percent increase in the number of loan applications from this time last year.
"One reason we attribute that is to economy, because some people need liquidity to cover other investments they have that may not be doing so well," Peck says.
So what does this all mean for average art lovers who get their art fix from museums?
Jonathan Fineberg, an art history professor at the University of Illinois, says, "Museums can no longer afford to buy the great works of art because they have consistently been outbid by private individuals making huge amounts of money in the corporate world."
He also notes that many excellent private collectors routinely lend to public museums.
The public good, though, is hardly on the minds of folks at Sotheby's and Christie's. Both are holding auctions in Paris and London this week. And there's no sign that the art market bubble is ready to burst.
|
|
|
|
02/27/2009 05:58:18 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by riversong:
Poor Annie.
"For her $5 million loan, Ms. Leibovitz put up as collateral a country house in Rhinebeck, N.Y., three town houses in Greenwich Village and all “copyrights ... photographic negatives ... contract rights” existing or to be created in the future, according to a loan document filed with the City Register’s Office in December." |
PLEASE tell me how the above inventory constitutes "Poor Annie".
People make bad decisions, life happens, and then moves on.
I somehow fail to see how someone with the resources to HAVE what she does as collateral is somehow virtually destitute and in need of sympathy.
It sounds to me that compared to so very many, including some of THIS community who are currently unemployed or otherwise in genuine financial straits, she's got it pretty darn good.
|
|
|
|
02/27/2009 06:59:57 PM · #39 |
|
|
|
02/27/2009 07:07:19 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by riversong:
Ultra-Rich Collectors Help Keep Art Market Afloat
by Elizabeth Blair
February 27, 2009
One reason for the shift is the weak dollar. |
This really threw me for a loop as the dollar is currently strong. I found the article on NPR, but the date is June 2008 not Feb 2009... |
|
|
|
02/27/2009 07:39:52 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by L2:
With some foresight and estate planning, Sontag could have set up her properties to pass to Liebovitz without being subject to tax or largely avoiding most of it. That they weren't "married" would make it more difficult, but no less possible. |
I am afraid you are totally in the wrong here.The loop holes and tax dodges for inheritance in the United States are largely gone now. It used to be you might trust around or offshore money and then wash it off enough to pass tax free to children or whomever you might will the money to. This is no longer the case. Unless you go the way of third party out of country corparte flim flams, you can't dodge the tax man. If you try and it turns out you were wrong in skirting the law, you go to jail.
What you seem to miss is that a married couple are financially a single unit, no property passes to anyone until both die. There are no other such exemptions, not for lovers, nor children, nor charities.
Given the amount of property in France, the Hudson Valley,Connetticut, NYC, ect. this couple owned they might have suffered the same financial strain given of the rapid devaluation of land values, but you can be certain that because they were not legally married, the survivor paid higher inheritance taxes than if they had been married.
|
|
|
|
02/27/2009 07:50:00 PM · #42 |
Well I've opened up a can of worms!
Poor Annie, because this is more than making bad decisions. This is about losing all future rights to her artwork! I can understand being bankrupt. I can understand selling her currents works, but this company will own ALL RIGHTS to her existing work and future works. If she defaults, her children (and she does have 3 kids, right?) will inherit nothing from their famous mom.
Maybe she got caught up on one of those 2 Ponzi schemes where her investments went bad, but that is nothing more than speculation on my part. Different articles I read stated her investments went sour. She inherited debts from her mate. Her condo reconstruction went bad. Okay, her decisions were poor, but it still irks me to think a corporation could own her entire collection of works.
This is more a political thing with me than a poor rich girl issue.
Just research the company she pawned her photos to: Art Capitol, Inc. past hedgefunds, possible illegal investing of money 5 years ago and other things. Read about the old money, rich clients that are pawning their valuable works of art!
Hey if ya'll don't mind billionaire's from other countries owning our (I speak from bankrupt America only) land, homes, companies and artwork, why should I care?
|
|
|
|
02/27/2009 08:03:22 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by L2:
With some foresight and estate planning, Sontag could have set up her properties to pass to Liebovitz without being subject to tax or largely avoiding most of it. That they weren't "married" would make it more difficult, but no less possible. |
I am afraid you are totally in the wrong here.The loop holes and tax dodges for inheritance in the United States are largely gone now. It used to be you might trust around or offshore money and then wash it off enough to pass tax free to children or whomever you might will the money to. This is no longer the case. Unless you go the way of third party out of country corparte flim flams, you can't dodge the tax man. If you try and it turns out you were wrong in skirting the law, you go to jail.
What you seem to miss is that a married couple are financially a single unit, no property passes to anyone until both die. There are no other such exemptions, not for lovers, nor children, nor charities.
Given the amount of property in France, the Hudson Valley,Connetticut, NYC, ect. this couple owned they might have suffered the same financial strain given of the rapid devaluation of land values, but you can be certain that because they were not legally married, the survivor paid higher inheritance taxes than if they had been married. |
I suggest you see a better financial planner.
Additionally, I'm pretty sure I didn't miss anything. The assertion was that Liebovitz was in the mess almost solely because of her relationship with Sontag. The rebuttal dealt with the myriad of other reported contributing factors, along with the suggestion that better financial planning could have lessened the Sontag debt burden.
In any event, none of us have direct knowledge of all the financial details so it's really just speculation anyway.
|
|
|
|
02/27/2009 08:11:23 PM · #44 |
edited because I sounded retarded at the time.
Message edited by author 2009-03-08 22:18:10. |
|
|
|
02/27/2009 08:12:47 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by L2:
I suggest you see a better financial planner.
|
The planner I use handles trusts and estates as a specialty, and is one of the better people in California on this particular area of the law. You can hold whatever opinions you like but do not suffer under the illusion that you are right on this point of the law, because if you do you will end up in jail. Land can not be passed down to heirs without paying taxes. Period. |
|
|
|
02/27/2009 08:23:35 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
What you seem to miss is that a married couple are financially a single unit, no property passes to anyone until both die. There are no other such exemptions, not for lovers, nor children, nor charities. |
I wondered if there is a flip side. Is it easier to collect a debt from a married spouse than a homosexual partner? |
|
|
|
02/27/2009 08:35:59 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
What you seem to miss is that a married couple are financially a single unit, no property passes to anyone until both die. There are no other such exemptions, not for lovers, nor children, nor charities. |
I wondered if there is a flip side. Is it easier to collect a debt from a married spouse than a homosexual partner? |
As far as I'm aware, yes. All debts of either married partner are the responsibility of both parties, or of the surviving party after the death of one. Couples living together outside of marriage, whether same-sex or opposite, do not share debt unless both names are on a title to the property.
Just another reason why gay and lesbian couples should be treated equally under the law. They are at a terrible disadvantage with respect to healthcare and inheritance, but there is an "advantage" of separation of debt.
If I've misstated, I'm sure someone with a law degree will quickly correct me ;-) |
|
|
|
02/27/2009 09:08:16 PM · #48 |
I just wish I could sell my photographs and have enough money for a 6 million dollar home.
I would feel like I got a good deal.
|
|
|
|
02/27/2009 09:28:20 PM · #49 |
What's sad are those 5 photos selected as "Annie Leibowitz's Best Work" linked in the article. Who came up with that?
|
|
|
|
02/27/2009 10:35:57 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by riversong:
This is about losing all future rights to her artwork! I can understand being bankrupt. |
Wait a minute! How do you figure "losing"?
She can file for bankruptcy just like you and I can.
She has an option, and a choice, that none of us have.
If I hear "Poor Annie" again, I'm gonna SCREAM!!!!
I'd swap places with her in a heartbeat.
|
|
