From the People Who Brought You Such Things as the Weekend
It sounds as though, after 35 years of operation, the Writers' Union of Canada is finally going to start performing some of the functions of a union. It's kind of ridiculous how many leagues, associations, federations and unions for writers there are out there. I've never joined one, in part because I share Groucho Marx's view of clubs that would have me as a member, but also because I've never seen any benefit in membership. At least none commensurate with the annual fees. But I would like to retire from the labour force in another five years or so (right about the time that I'd have to start working year round on the railroad); if TWUC has bona fide medical and pension plans by then, I might actually consider signing up. All the other parliaments of fowls would do well to fold themselves into TWUC to eliminate redundancy and maximise benefits to members. But I imagine there's way too much territorial pissing for that to ever happen. Another problem is that TWUC, for reasons known only to its legislators, does not admit writers who haven't published a book. So if you're a full-time freelancer, as of right now, you're shit out of luck. But if you're a crappy poet whose book was published by your best friend, come on in. If they're serious about getting medical and pension plans started, they really need to drop the arbitrary exclusion criteria.
Something in this story I found bemusing is the statement that some 3000 "writers" declared no earnings from their writing. How can someone report this without commentary? I wonder how many "gardeners" found themselves in a similar predicament. At some point, you have to stop pretending that your past-time is your occupation. It's figures like that that make me very damn skeptical of statistical surveys on such things. 3000 zeros skew the numbers pretty damn badly.
Something in this story I found bemusing is the statement that some 3000 "writers" declared no earnings from their writing. How can someone report this without commentary? I wonder how many "gardeners" found themselves in a similar predicament. At some point, you have to stop pretending that your past-time is your occupation. It's figures like that that make me very damn skeptical of statistical surveys on such things. 3000 zeros skew the numbers pretty damn badly.
4 comments:
Well, I read that as reported no earnings from their writing for that year, not ever. Which probably isn't unusual. How many of those writers received book contracts/advances the next year or the year after that? The real number to look at, I suppose, would be average earnings over a ten-year period or so. Although that would probably be very sad.
I read it the same way, Peter. But really, think about it. This doesn't mean just no contract in a given year. It means no grants, no PLR, no royalties, no readings, no classroom visits, no freelance work, no journal publications. If you're a working writer, I mean if it's what you list as your prime occupation, and you make zero money in a year, you're either not really a full-time writer, a deluded hobbyist, or you're actively avoiding making money at it. I'm far from a full-time writer, but I still make a few grand in a bad year. Or maybe you're just lying to the tax-man. Most of the money I make writing and editing doesn't leave a trail. But I guess you can still claim the home office deductions...
That's another thing that studies like the Hill survey don't take into account--because it isn't countable--is the underground economy in the arts. Leaving aside undisclosed cash income, there's bartering, especially with artisans. My mom barters things all the time. She traded a sweater once for a purebred Malamute. My brother in law's a graphic designer who often takes payment from his clients in kind.
You better be careful, Zach, you'll get us all in trouble!
This might be a small semantic problem. I suspect "reported no earnings" means that the writers' deductable expenses exceed the income from their writing. When that happens their tax returns show a loss--which is not quite the same thing as "reported no earnings." As is, the article could imply that writers are not declaring earnings; however, I doubt that is the intent. I have been given to understand that because it is so difficult to make any money from writing, writers are the only group that never have to show a profit from their work on their tax returns. For anyone else there is an expectation that at some point income will exceed expenses. Not showing a profit eventually alerts the dear watch dogs at Revenue Canada who will conduct an audit eventually.
Post a Comment