| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/26/2009 06:19:50 PM · #1 |
Details here
Message edited by author 2009-09-11 15:28:04. |
|
|
|
02/26/2009 06:27:34 PM · #2 |
I'm curious what you think the sad part is? I'm serious... I have my own thoughts, but I wonder what you're thinking. I do agree it's sad. I knew Annie a little bit, years ago. I knew Susan better.
R.
|
|
|
|
02/26/2009 06:28:25 PM · #3 |
That is sad. She is an inspiration to many and I hope that she does see the black before her time is out.
|
|
|
|
02/26/2009 06:32:04 PM · #4 |
That article is misleading...She didn't sell the art. Rather she put it up the ownership rights to all her work as collateral on a loan so she could keep her houses. From what I read, the company is only allowed to attempt to sell her work in event of her default on the loan.
//www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1155053/Photographer-Annie-Leibovitz-pawns-lifes-work-10m-loan-pay-mortgage.html# |
|
|
|
02/26/2009 06:32:54 PM · #5 |
| Hey, Bear_music, check your email please--need your help. thanks! |
|
|
|
02/26/2009 06:33:12 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I'm curious what you think the sad part is? I'm serious... I have my own thoughts, but I wonder what you're thinking. I do agree it's sad. I knew Annie a little bit, years ago. I knew Susan better.
R. |
I guess I am just sad to see anyone have to sell anything to a pawn shop, but especially something as personal as photographs. This is the line that saddened me the most
"Certainly, the added financial pressure put her over the edge, and you have to wonder how things might have been different had Sontag and Leibovitz been granted the property rights and benefits that heterosexual couples get." |
|
|
|
02/26/2009 06:35:29 PM · #7 |
| I'm not seeing how this is sad at all. If she'd rather sell herself than be fiscally responsible, that's her business. |
|
|
|
02/26/2009 06:38:45 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
Hey, Bear_music, check your email please--need your help. thanks! |
I replied...
R.
|
|
|
|
02/26/2009 06:40:02 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by BAMartin:
I guess I am just sad to see anyone have to sell anything to a pawn shop, but especially something as personal as photographs. This is the line that saddened me the most
"Certainly, the added financial pressure put her over the edge, and you have to wonder how things might have been different had Sontag and Leibovitz been granted the property rights and benefits that heterosexual couples get." |
Yes, that's my thinking. Had they been married heterosexuals this might not be happening.
R.
|
|
|
|
02/26/2009 06:40:38 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by BAMartin:
I guess I am just sad to see anyone have to sell anything to a pawn shop, but especially something as personal as photographs. This is the line that saddened me the most
"Certainly, the added financial pressure put her over the edge, and you have to wonder how things might have been different had Sontag and Leibovitz been granted the property rights and benefits that heterosexual couples get." |
She didn't sell it to a pawn shop, she sold it to an unregulated financial company that loans money to artists and take the works as collateral. And she GOT the same property rights and benefits -- Sontag willed them to her, including the massive debts on them. Annie could have sold those properties at any time before the market crashed to get out from under that debt load. The main point of the article you posted is how irresponsible she was with money even excluding the little bit about Sontag.
|
|
|
|
02/26/2009 06:41:12 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Yes, that's my thinking. Had they been married heterosexuals this might not be happening.
R. |
This statement is complete crap. |
|
|
|
02/26/2009 06:41:19 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by L2:
I'm not seeing how this is sad at all. If she'd rather sell herself than be fiscally responsible, that's her business. |
She's pawning herself in an attempt to be fiscally responsible. When Susan died Annie was saddled with an incredible inheritance tax burden. It's a tough choice she has to make.
R.
|
|
|
|
02/26/2009 06:42:04 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by L2:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Yes, that's my thinking. Had they been married heterosexuals this might not be happening.
R. |
This statement is complete crap. |
I don't appreciate your tone.
R.
|
|
|
|
02/26/2009 06:44:49 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by L2:
I'm not seeing how this is sad at all. If she'd rather sell herself than be fiscally responsible, that's her business. |
She's pawning herself in an attempt to be fiscally responsible. When Susan died Annie was saddled with an incredible inheritance tax burden. It's a tough choice she has to make.
R. |
I agree with this, it seems much more responsible to me that she is attempting to meet her debt obligations rather than simply defaulting as many people lately have done either through want or necessity. |
|
|
|
02/26/2009 06:55:23 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by bfox2:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
She's pawning herself in an attempt to be fiscally responsible. When Susan died Annie was saddled with an incredible inheritance tax burden. It's a tough choice she has to make.
R. |
I agree with this, it seems much more responsible to me that she is attempting to meet her debt obligations rather than simply defaulting as many people lately have done either through want or necessity. |
I get that she's *now* attempting to be fiscally responsible - what I'm saying is that she had choices to be so long before the market collapsed. She is to be admired for her attempt to make things right, and only pitied to the extent that she wasn't smart enough to do so sooner, BEFORE it took her whole life's work to pay the piper.
She's lucky she's got talent to trade on. What would really be sad is if she had defaulted and us little guys had to pay the piper for her in bailout taxes. |
|
|
|
02/26/2009 07:03:46 PM · #16 |
It sounds to me that THIS has a lot to do with her money woes!
But I can tell you that Leibovitz's problems date to way before that (the debt from Susan's death) -- much of this stems from a home renovation gone sour. I live a few blocks away from Greenwich Village, where she bought a townhouse at the turn of the century. Her gut renovation of the building, which dates to before the Civil War, was so extreme (and, some say, careless) that it ended up damaging the townhouse next door, resulting in a $15 million lawsuit. To fix the problem, or so she thought, she bought that wrecked neighboring building.
People in the neighborhood scrutinized every brick coming out of the buildings and wondered how even Leibovitz, who has met and directed every important politician and household name of our age, could afford to maintain such a palatial money pit. Turns out she couldn't.
*snippet from article...bolding added by me
|
|
|
|
02/26/2009 07:07:10 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by sher:
It sounds to me that THIS has a lot to do with her money woes!
But I can tell you that Leibovitz's problems date to way before that (the debt from Susan's death) -- much of this stems from a home renovation gone sour. I live a few blocks away from Greenwich Village, where she bought a townhouse at the turn of the century. Her gut renovation of the building, which dates to before the Civil War, was so extreme (and, some say, careless) that it ended up damaging the townhouse next door, resulting in a $15 million lawsuit. To fix the problem, or so she thought, she bought that wrecked neighboring building.
People in the neighborhood scrutinized every brick coming out of the buildings and wondered how even Leibovitz, who has met and directed every important politician and household name of our age, could afford to maintain such a palatial money pit. Turns out she couldn't.
*snippet from article...bolding added by me |
Exactly - the problems date to way before the debt from Sontag's death. It's an awkwardly written sentence, but still clear. |
|
|
|
02/26/2009 07:36:43 PM · #18 |
Ya, that part of the article is pretty nebulous.
"Many press reports are tracing the photog's money woes to 2004, when her partner Susan Sontag died and left her more properties and debt than she could handle. Certainly, the added financial pressure put her over the edge, and you have to wonder how things might have been different had Sontag and Leibovitz been granted the property rights and benefits that heterosexual couples get. "
Doesn't the quote imply that she did inherit both debt and property from Sontag? What's the implication about the heterosexual couple's rights? She would have inherited the property without the debt? Neither? I don't quite get the point. What right is being forsaken that would have put her in a different position? (This is an honest question.)
|
|
|
|
02/26/2009 07:48:21 PM · #19 |
| When you're married and your spouse dies, there is no inheritance tax, because you already legally own the property due to community property laws (at least that's the way I understand it). I could be wrong, but if they had the same rights as heterosexual couples she would not have an added tax burden. |
|
|
|
02/26/2009 07:58:41 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by Kelli:
When you're married and your spouse dies, there is no inheritance tax, because you already legally own the property due to community property laws (at least that's the way I understand it). I could be wrong, but if they had the same rights as heterosexual couples she would not have an added tax burden. |
Aha. Thanks. That makes more sense to me. |
|
|
|
02/26/2009 08:11:46 PM · #21 |
| Don't fret too much over this. Before Obama is through there will be no inheritance....."To each according to their needs." |
|
|
|
02/26/2009 08:29:55 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by Kelli:
When you're married and your spouse dies, there is no inheritance tax, because you already legally own the property due to community property laws (at least that's the way I understand it). I could be wrong, but if they had the same rights as heterosexual couples she would not have an added tax burden. |
This is close, but not quite right.
Inheritance taxes (if they apply in your state and/or the estate in question is large enough to be subject to them) are applied to all inheritors. The rate of tax is dependent on familial/ancestral relationship; children pay less than cousins, who pay less than friends, etc. Spouses may claim an exemption and thereby escape payment of inheritance tax. Co-owners with rights of survivorship are not inheritors; their rights of survivorship are passed on outside of probate.
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. |
|
|
|
02/26/2009 08:43:51 PM · #23 |
It is an unfortunate circumstance she is facing, and though her extravagance may be partially responsible for the circumstance, she is only human. At one time or another in all of our lives, we must somehow rid the clutter that mires our ability to enjoy a fulfilling existence. She will certainly face some hardships but keep in mind that she still retains a blessed skill and notoriety than most of us can only dream of. Given that, this may just be the grounding needed for her to reemerge from her past chaos and start again.
I also hold in very low regard the arrogance of those who judge those who have achieved extraordinary accomplishments with extraordinary criticism. The people are the people are the people and the difference is the size of the dollars associated with their plight. I can only imagine the crap she had to endure as it was her who had to endure it. Her financial mistakes were exacerbated by her turmoil and now punctuated by the media. Lucky her huh?
Annie, wash this off and go take photos of what you like! We all need to get a break once in a while and this may be hers. She will blossom again and a talent like hers should be held in special regard. |
|
|
|
02/26/2009 09:30:21 PM · #24 |
partial quote:Originally posted by Ivo:
... ...The people are the people are the people and the difference is the size of the dollars associated with their plight. ... .... |
From her 2-million-a-year Disney Contract alone, it would take 7-1/2 years to pay off the 15-Million loan. That would not leave any living expenses, for you know, bigger houses, bigger expenses.
The more you have, the more you can lose, the more you have at stake. Work is always work, you got to love it to make it seem like play.
I bet she has a better camera then I do. We all have to climb our mountains (thanks for the help Ivo!), there usually isn't that many shortcuts, we just start at different levels. That's why it seems easier for some. Sometimes, with persistence, and using our knowledge/time wisely, we hit opportunities and some success.
I think haven't had too, much success, yet, since I don't always use my knowledge and time wisely and persistently. |
|
|
|
02/26/2009 10:37:00 PM · #25 |
Unfortunate to be sure... However, as pointed out some is her own making. And the world is full of people that do not have multimillion dollar contracts to ease their pain. To me it is even more sad when people are losing 401K funds and their retirement, and have to chose between medical care and their house payment. She is a very talented photographer, and she is in a bind. 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.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/19/2024 11:17:43 PM EDT.
