That argument is totally bogus. I had to ask Tony Urquhart sitting here what his studio rent was in 1959. In 1959, the art market was so tidy that any artist would have been grateful for any sale, and any sale would have made a huge difference in their livelihood. Not that we're saying that it is not so today. Any sale is important to any artist. But to say it was $250—inflation took its toll. In fact, if that artwork is now selling for $10,000 at auction some 60 years later, we're probably losing money on it. And the issue of losing money is one that hasn't been addressed yet. If you're applying the ARR across the board to all secondary market sales, how do we know whether or not that seller is losing money? And if he is losing money, is the government going to allow that deduction as part of a capital loss?
Increasingly, we must also look at who's going to bear the cost of the ARR. Essentially, the wealthy are the major art-buying public. So we're looking at taxing them again. Money will go to where it gets the best return, so it will go where it doesn't have to pay these increased costs. It will in fact go underground. I think that's a real issue, because this is a marginal market in the first place.