The Meaning of Life

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
He should say what I've always thought he should say - 'personally I thought it was a mistake, I was against it from the point of view of my humanitarian work, but U2 is a 4-way democracy (5 if you include Paul who I'm sure gets a large say in their tax affairs), and in this instance I was out-voted. Tough shit.'

Except, of course, that neither you nor I know that to be a fact.

As a matter of fact, if I had to speculate as wildly as you are right now? I'd say that of all the band mates, the dissenting vote would have come from Larry.

"Larry??", you say? Yes, Larry. I say this because I always see Larry as the most private, most "Irish" loyal guy in the band. The kind of guy who keeps everything in house. Doesn't move abroad. Likes to be home as much as possible. Probably dutifully pays his taxes and believes in being active in his home community.

This is just my perception of him.

Edge? Globe-trotter.

Adam? Practically English anyways, and another globe trotter with personal obligations elsewhere.

Bono? I actually believe him, that he thought it was the best move.

Paul McG? Um. Yeah.

Larry was the dissenting vote in your scenario.

There ya go.
 
Gvox, I see your point, but if Bono really thought that I would expect more eloquent and persuasive arguements from him as opposed to relying on the whole 'spirit of the law' shit that as far as rhetoric goes is as slimy as any politician's.

I refer back again to the concept of good PR. Bono must have known (or had PR advisors telling him about) the amount of flak that he would encounter in going along with this decision - there are people you come across day-in-day-out who, on the subject of U2, will never give them or their music a chance because they hate Bono's hypocrisy. You might say, well so what that's their loss, but I'm sure you and I would both agree that U2, with all their desire to reach out to 'the people' at large, would disagree with that riposte.

I'm sure the rest of the band hate the way this decision has made them look, has there ever been any other mainstream band of such stature who have taken such a negative hit over their business affairs???
 
I refer back again to the concept of good PR. Bono must have known (or had PR advisors telling him about) the amount of flak that he would encounter in going along with this decision - there are people you come across day-in-day-out who, on the subject of U2, will never give them or their music a chance because they hate Bono's hypocrisy. You might say, well so what that's their loss, but I'm sure you and I would both agree that U2, with all their desire to reach out to 'the people' at large, would disagree with that riposte.

I'm not sure, because I couldn't care less about this tax crap, but didn't the Rolling Stones and others to the exact same thing? I don't really hear about them catching flack for it. For whatever reason, U2 haters will pounce at any opportunity to hate the band. If they were always spinning themselves to look the best to everyone, there would be no time left to make music.
 
I'm not sure, because I couldn't care less about this tax crap, but didn't the Rolling Stones and others to the exact same thing? I don't really hear about them catching flack for it.

There's a major difference. Mick Jagger doesn't go round the world 'pontificating' as detractors would label it. Jagger doesn't set himself up as being a campaigning do-gooder.

[/QUOTE]For whatever reason, U2 haters will pounce at any opportunity to hate the band. If they were always spinning themselves to look the best to everyone, there would be no time left to make music.[/QUOTE]

I would argue its a fairly legitimate reason to hate the band frankly. It reeks of hypocrisy, and however much you might agree that it was a business decision made to the letter of the law, as far as PR and image goes, it was hugely damaging. I can't stand people who rant on about how they pay 'no tax in Ireland' and all the rest of the ignorant hyperbole, but I know that it was a move that cost them big in terms of credibility, and in the rock world that is sometimes all that matters (just ask John Lydon).
 
^ I disagree. The critics will even be more critical the more blah blah they will be hearing from Bono trying to argue himself out of the tax issue. And as for damage: I honestly don't think U2 believe they have much to lose at this stage of their career. The hypocrisy argument is (understandably) mainly coming from Irish people who tend to be very begrudging when it comes to U2. And their reputation in Ireland hadn't been the best before the tax issue. I don't think they care much. Fans care, because they think they have to defend the band or maybe they feel ashamed for them, which is ridiculous. Personally I would answer any of these tax question with a rigorous: This is our business and no further comment.
 
I can assure you, in the UK its pretty much the first thing anyone will throw at you if U2 are mentioned.

It doesn't really bother me anymore; my attitude is, I like them and quite frankly I couldn't care less whether anyone else does or not.

I disagree with your point about them thinking they don't have much to lose at this stage in their career. You can always lose your credibility. Just look at John Lydon, and to a slightly lesser extent Iggy Pop. Once you start advertising butter and insurance companies, you're credibility will undoubtedly take a large knock, no matter how established you are.
 
He should say what I've always thought he should say - 'personally I thought it was a mistake, I was against it from the point of view of my humanitarian work, but U2 is a 4-way democracy (5 if you include Paul who I'm sure gets a large say in their tax affairs), and in this instance I was out-voted. Tough shit.'

That's something no one in the band would ever say- it's contrary to all they've ever done in terms of internal loyalty. Band decisions are always represented with complete unanimity, even though obviously they don't always feel that. It's just the way they roll, and it's one reason they're still together: no one ever gets blamed or absolved for mistakes.
 
No, that's not so. Did you not see the Q interview with them around the time of NLOTH, where Larry made some very pointed remarks about Bono hanging out with 'war criminals - Bush and Blair'?? His comments received some fairly widespread coverage. I'd say that was definitely him sticking his head over the parapet and going against 'band protocol'.
 
I think Jeevey's point is excellent, but MikeyJB is also correct in his example. I do wonder if Larry took any cold-shoulders from the others for that Bush/Blair-comment regarding Bono. He broke the circle of trust there, for sure.

In general, I think U2 have each other's backs and are united, publicly. Maybe in moral issues or big political issues, it's more acceptable to break ranks. I cannot see Bono blaming somebody else in the band for the tax thing, though -- would be out of character.
 
That was about Bono's personal actions, not band decisions. As Larry said, he didn't like it at all, thought it was a bad idea, bad for the band and advised him against it- but ultimately Bono had to be guided by his own conscience. And Larry could admit that Bono was able to achieve some important things that way.

But that's extra curricular- not band decisions and band money. I don't think they ever have broken ranks over decisions made by "U2." That's pretty sacred.
 
agree with Mikey - the tax issue is a big thing in the UK - remember all the fuss around Glastonbury?
 
Is it some weird European thing to bash someone for finding ways to pay less taxes? In America, (most) people would high-five U2 and say, "Show me how to do that!" Why would you give more money to the government than you have to?
 
Is it some weird European thing to bash someone for finding ways to pay less taxes? In America, (most) people would high-five U2 and say, "Show me how to do that!" Why would you give more money to the government than you have to?

in the UK at least, it's mainly because of all the austerity cuts affecting the poor, bankers being bailed out by the public and getting mostly let off the hook until recently, tax breaks prioritising the rich and gonging the rest, especially families and medium incomes, and massive corporations like Starbucks, Google, Amazon etc. being shown to be paying minute amounts of tax due to the same legal loopholes... people are really feeling squeezed and have had enough i think...
 
The Glastonbury protest was ridiculous. Die-hard Glasto fans were against U2 performing there from the minute it was announced. It was one of their ways of showing they weren't welcome. And there's always the British-Irish competition. I think that, yes, America might have other ways to deal with these issues. Begrudging is a specialty of some Europeans, I know that from my own country as well. I read an article today about Bono and U2 not being loved much in Ireland because they became so famous. The tax thing was just the crown of the whole thing, one more reason to hate on them, but certainly not the only one.
 
LU, like another poster in here said just recently (perhaps it was in the Focus on the Family thread), disagreeing with or criticising someone isn't necessarily the same as "hating on them" you know...
 
Maybe it's the British sense of fair play. Several entertainers in the UK have been called out recently for tax avoidance including the comedian Jimmy Carr (wasn't he the one who first made the joke about Bono clapping at a concert?). He apologised publicly and said he would change his tax arrangements. The UK is one of the few countries which currently meets its target of 0.7% of GDP for overseas aid (the money being raised through taxes which amounts to about £50 pa being paid from an average wage). I think most people don't have an issue with that but they do (myself included) think it is hypocritical for U2 to avoid paying all their tax in Ireland but at the same time Bono in an unelected capacity pressurises governments to meet the 0.7% target.
 
Yes, but U2 pay their taxes everywhere in the world, wherever they perform. So they do their share to development budgets everywhere. The 0,7% thing is about the G8 countries. Since U2 aren't UK citizens I think it's a bit weird for UK people to protest about a tax move that doesn't really affect their country.

I think the thing is blown out of proportions and U2/Bono are singled out. In my country there are a lot of famous people who moved abroad to avoid paying high income taxes. I don't see U2 moving away from Ireland. Sometimes I wonder if they should have, though, but that will never happen because they appreciate the privacy they have in Ireland too much. But I think that the general "climate" of opinion in Ireland may be one factor for them to spend so much time in France and, recently, New York.

I still find it sad, though, that out of all the things Bono said in the interview people are only focusing on the tax question. I was and still am much more interested in the more biographical, psychological and philosophical aspects of the interview which I found very interesting. Since it was about Bono's personal views, I still feel the tax question was a bit out of place. But it was clear that it would be the one aspect most talked about.
 
LU, like another poster in here said just recently (perhaps it was in the Focus on the Family thread), disagreeing with or criticising someone isn't necessarily the same as "hating on them" you know...

I'm certainly not talking about people here on this or any other U2 forum when I say "hating". I mean the general public and many people in Ireland. There's a clear line between hating on someone and being critical. Bono/U2 have been hated and bashed for years by many, but jealousy is a huge part of this. The tax thing is just something that gave those haters more ammunition, it's regrettable.

It's right to be critical, but it's also getting tiring discussing the whole issue again and again. I've seen a thread made by Irish people on another U2 forum which basically stated that the Irish attitude towards U2 is getting annoying and that those things are getting blown out of proportion. People tend to forget that U2 have also given a lot to Ireland and Ireland has profited immensely from the band as on of their must famous and successful "exports". It's a shame to see their achievements being overshadowed by that controversy. While I understand all the criticism I still feel that the whole way the issue is dealt with and the way U2 are treated in Ireland isn't exactly fair.
 
He should say what I've always thought he should say - 'personally I thought it was a mistake, I was against it from the point of view of my humanitarian work, but U2 is a 4-way democracy (5 if you include Paul who I'm sure gets a large say in their tax affairs), and in this instance I was out-voted. Tough shit.'

I'm sure that would get Bono off the hook ...

It's a known fact all U2 members make the decisions together. It doesn't matter who voted what; ultimately it will be him taking the fall even if he was the only one against this move. And the "pouvre Africa" party line is ... interesting since Netherlands actually donates more money out of their GDP than Ireland for charity. But it makes one look more righteous than "it sucks not to be rich and minimize my taxes".
 
Back
Top Bottom