FlashHarry: this is why we can't raise taxes on them by even a penny.*

*this is what republicans actually believe.

This is what Democrats actually believe Republicans believe.

Cythraul: Maybe they'll be nice and donate all that art to museums in about 40 or so years from now.

Only if they get a tax deduction.

Well they are gonna need to have something in their homes for us poors to loot since they are hiding their money.

cgraves67: SO let the bubble burst. There are two consequences. 1) Some artists must surely be profitting from this.

Nope. The only ones profiting from this are the gallery owners. The artist doesn't get paid again every time the work changes hands, at least not in the US - they only get half (or less) of the first sale. If an artist sells a painting for $10k, and 10 years later it goes for $1M at auction, the artist gets jack shiat from that sale (unless there's a contract that says otherwise). The artist does benefit indirectly, both from reputation as well as sales of reproductions of the work. When you buy a painting (or statue, or photographic print), you're just buying the physical artifact, not the copyright to the work (again, unless there's a contract that says otherwise).

I'm given to understand that it does work a little differently in the EU and that artists do get some compensation in that situation, but I'm not familiar with the details.

The Stealth Hippopotamus: But the rich just hide all that money in off shore accounts and in their mattresses. How dare they spend money and generate taxable activity! We must raise taxes on art to discourage this behavior!!

Some of them purposely use art to hide their money. If they want to liquidate, they sell some pieces.

This is not really a bubble. No tulips here.

dj_bigbird: When this bubble pops, will they ask for a bailout?

You can bet he loss will trickle down to their future ex-employees.