U2 being accused of robbing the poor

[VintagePunk]

Read these quotes by Chasaide

[...] told Mr. Lenihan that tax-avoidance schemes such as the one used by U2 had a detrimental effect on impoverished countries.

"There is nothing illegal about what they have done in taking advantage of more favourable tax laws but, given Bono has invested so much in promoting an end to poverty, we see a contradiction there."

She told Mr. Lenihan: "Impoverished countries lose millions every year because of tax avoidance and it's essential that our aid programme is not undermined by a lack of action by rich countries, including Ireland."


Is it really your honest believe that this woman is just petty and jealous?

You still haven't answered my question.

The fact is, what they're doing is completely legal within current tax legislation. Another fact is that they still pay plenty of tax in Ireland, this is only a small portion of their income - the vast majority of it income that wasn't even earned in Ireland in the first place. As well as other corporate taxes, they also pay personal tax in Ireland, too. In addition, as the article states, they employ a lot of people, who also pay taxes in Ireland. Bottom line - Ireland makes a shitload of money off of them, far more than they're saving by having a small portion of their corporation registered in The Netherlands.

The article also talks about businesses who use tax shelters. I'm very sure that the businesses who take part in this currently legal situation are saving far more tax dollars for themselves/costing Ireland far more than U2 are.

The conclusion drawn here? These groups are using the U2 name and album release to gain notoriety for their cause, when there are far bigger "offenders" out there. In my opinion, they're unfairly tarnishing the name of the band and Bono to further their goals. Most news consumers simply hear that Bono and U2 have sought a tax haven, and don't read any further into it, and conclude that U2/Bono don't pay taxes, so that makes them hypocrites, when the actual situation is very, very different from that.

All that said, it is well within the rights of the group to lobby to change the tax laws, they're just choosing an awfully shitty way to go about it, damaging the reputation of a person who has done far more for their cause, and generated more funding for Africa in the past decade than any one individual. But would they get the press that they are if they went after Corporation X? Of course not. But say the name Bono or U2, and that's news! And I still maintain that Bono and his family probably end up donating far more than they've earned in tax savings to the cause, anyway, and they probably donate it to places that use it far more efficiently and with less red tape than any nation's government would do.

 

[65980]

I have no idea how U2 manages its taxes, nor do I feel I'm entitled to know. But there are two things to keep in mind:

1) U2's tax money in Ireland is not going to save lives in Africa. However, the global work that Bono's humanitarian work represents might.

2) The concept of governments criticizing artists on how they use their money is ludicrous.


It's obvious that the media can have a field day with this kind of thing because anything to find moral fault with "St. Bono" is good copy. So, how does Bon Jovi pay taxes? Anyone care? I'm aware of The Rolling Stones, Eric Clapton, and Sting moving to avoid tax bills before, and there must be dozens of others.


Aside from those substantial issues: how do I personally feel about this kind of thing? Well, I'd prefer it if they kept their money in Ireland. But, you know, the Canadian government would prefer if I worked in Canada all the time and sometimes (like now) I work and pay (lesser) taxes abroad.

U2 to me is about music, not how some middle-aged Irish guys pay their taxes. End of.

 

[ybab gnuthca]

You still haven't answered my question.

The fact is, what they're doing is completely legal within current tax legislation. Another fact is that they still pay plenty of tax in Ireland, this is only a small portion of their income - the vast majority of it income that wasn't even earned in Ireland in the first place. As well as other corporate taxes, they also pay personal tax in Ireland, too. In addition, as the article states, they employ a lot of people, who also pay taxes in Ireland. Bottom line - Ireland makes a shitload of money off of them, far more than they're saving by having a small portion of their corporation registered in The Netherlands.

The article also talks about businesses who use tax shelters. I'm very sure that the businesses who take part in this currently legal situation are saving far more tax dollars for themselves/costing Ireland far more than U2 are.

The conclusion drawn here? These groups are using the U2 name and album release to gain notoriety for their cause, when there are far bigger "offenders" out there. In my opinion, they're unfairly tarnishing the name of the band and Bono to further their goals. Most news consumers simply hear that Bono and U2 have sought a tax haven, and don't read any further into it, and conclude that U2/Bono don't pay taxes, so that makes them hypocrites, when the actual situation is very, very different from that.

All that said, it is well within the rights of the group to lobby to change the tax laws, they're just choosing an awfully shitty way to go about it, damaging the reputation of a person who has done far more for their cause, and generated more funding for Africa in the past decade than any one individual. But would they get the press that they are if they went after Corporation X? Of course not. But say the name Bono or U2, and that's news! And I still maintain that Bono and his family probably end up donating far more than they've earned in tax savings to the cause, anyway, and they probably donate it to places that use it far more efficiently and with less red tape than any nation's government would do.

did you read the other half of my post?

 

[VintagePunk]

Huh. This is interesting.

US and Foreign Aid Assistance — Global Issues

It seems that The Netherlands contributes far more in Official Development Assistance to foreign aid per Gross National Income than Ireland does. .54% for Ireland, as opposed to .81% for The Netherlands.

Maybe they should just move everything to The Netherlands. That ought to make those groups happy!

 

[VintagePunk]

did you read the other half of my post?

You edited after I started typing mine. My response is contained within the above post, and the one before that.

Did you read my post, or is your comment to just ask if I read yours?

 

[ybab gnuthca]

Huh. This is interesting.

US and Foreign Aid Assistance — Global Issues

It seems that The Netherlands contributes far more in Official Development Assistance to foreign aid per Gross National Income than Ireland does. .54% for Ireland, as opposed to .81% for The Netherlands.

Maybe they should just move everything to The Netherlands. That ought to make those groups happy!

Oh please.

Don't you think that's more of a coincidence than it has anything to do with U2's decision? Be honest now.

Even Paul McGuinness used the "tax efficient" explanation and didn't come up with excuses like that. Don't tell me he wouldn't have grasped that straw, if he didn't know better.

 

[VintagePunk]

Oh please.

Don't you think that's more of a coincidence than it has anything to do with U2's decision? Be honest now.

Even Paul McGuinness used the "tax efficient" explanation and didn't come up with excuses like that. Don't tell me he wouldn't have grasped that straw, if he didn't know better.

Of course I'm not. But this does show that the aid group's motivations are in question. Surely they would know these numbers, with it being their line of work, and all. And..it kind of shoots a hole in your entire argument, whatever U2's intentions are. They've set up their "tax haven" in a nation that gives a larger percentage in foreign aid than Ireland does. Africa gets more, so we can all rest easier.

That is the issue, right?

 

[ybab gnuthca]

Of course I'm not. But this does show that the aid group's motivations are in question. Surely they would know these numbers, with it being their line of work, and all. And..it kind of shoots a hole in your entire argument, whatever U2's intentions are. They've set up their "tax haven" in a nation that gives a larger percentage in foreign aid than Ireland does. Africa gets more, so we can all rest easier.

That is the issue, right?

No, it doesn't shoot a hole in my argument. You just agreed that the intention wasn't to pay more foreign aid, it was to avoid tax. My argument is that asking other people to pay more tax while avoiding tax at the same time don't go well together.

 

[VintagePunk]

No, it doesn't shoot a hole in my argument. You just agreed that the intention wasn't to pay more foreign aid, it was to avoid tax. My argument is that asking other people to pay more tax while avoiding tax at the same time don't go well together.

I don't know what their intentions were, and neither do you, so we have to look at the facts. And the fact is that the nation they moved part of their taxes to contributes a higher rate of foreign aid than Ireland does.

It seems to me though that you don't want to look at facts, you just want to take those snooty, rich rock stars down a peg or two, whether they deserve it or not.

Whatever. I've proven my point. I'm done.

 

[ybab gnuthca]

I don't know what their intentions were, and neither do you, so we have to look at the facts. And the fact is that the nation they moved part of their taxes to contributes a higher rate of foreign aid than Ireland does.

It seems to me though that you don't want to look at facts, you just want to take those snooty, rich rock stars down a peg or two, whether they deserve it or not.

Whatever. I've proven my point. I'm done.

That's shabby. You can't put forward an attack like that and then leave.

We DO know what their intentions were. Paul McGuinness didn't hide it:

"Like any other business, U2 operates in a tax-efficient manner."

There you go. Clear and simple. You see, I do look at facts.

For the record, I have no issues with rich rock stars or rich people in general. People talking out of both sides of their mouths, I do have, though.

 

[VintagePunk]

That's shabby. You can't put forward an attack like that and then leave.

We DO know what their intentions were. Paul McGuinness didn't hide it:

"Like any other business, U2 operates in a tax-efficient manner."

There you go. Clear and simple. You see, I do look at facts.

For the record, I have no issues with rich rock stars or rich people in general. People talking out of both sides of their mouths, I do have, though.

But you said that what mattered ultimately is aid to Africa! Now you're changing that? You said:

As Bono is advocating a larger percentage of people's taxes to go to foreign aid, then yes, he would actually show a good example if he moved his business to a country that taxed artists' royalties at the highest rate and with the highest rate of aid sent to Africa. Doing his "perfectly legal" business moves in the opposite direction, and thereby rewarding the countries that live up to his own ideals. At least it would make sense.

When people asked him why, he could say: "Country X had a tax and foreign aid policy more concordant with my ideals and what I'd like other people to do".

So, they're paying taxes in a country that gives a higher rate of foreign aid than Ireland, and you still have a problem? I have the feeling that nothing would satisfy you.

And here's a newsflash: that statement was made by McGuinness, not by Bono. Maybe Bono's reasons for agreeing to moving that portion of the corporation were different than McGuinness's. I'm sure Bono is very well aware of which nations give more foreign aid. McGuinness =/= Bono.

Shabby? Dude, it's 2:45 am here. I have better things to do than to argue with someone who is clearly wrong. Like sleep.

 

[Marien]

If we are to go into specific details regarding Irish tax policies and government spending, then you could probably find a million arguments why it is perfectly fair what U2 is doing from your point of view. Not liking the government or what it is doing is not a valid reason to not wanting to pay tax, though. Regardless of what you think of it, it is democratically elected.

I think we have to keep this focused on the issue - is it OK to ask people to pay more taxes while avoiding taxes yourself? Does tax avoidance in general hurt the poorest people of the world or not? Is running "tax efficient" businesses compatible with wanting to redistribute the wealth of the world?

Specific tax policies are to the point here, why? because you can't acuse anybody of tax-avoiding while the whole finantial system in your country is based in tax-avoiding, if something is bad, it's bad for everybody and if it good it's good for everybody, not only for foreign industries that are abandoning other countries to come to Ireland because of this, you can play one of these games, but not both of them at the same time. What I want to state very clearly is that the Irish government is just being greedy: Irish shouldn't avoid taxes and they should pay them in Ireland, regardless where they've earned the money, the rest of the world should go to Ireland and avoid taxes in their countries, this would be very good for the poor countries! Ha.
Who are the poor countries? Is Ireland a poor country? Ireland has the second highest rent per capita in the EU (in 25 countries within the Union citizens have a lower rent), still they are receiving structural founds since more than 30 years ago, these founds come from the taxes we pay in other countries and they should be used to develop the infrastructure and the industry in the EU countries, so they can converge at the same wellfare level of the other members, I don't mind paying more taxes to help my neighbours to develop, but do you know how many roads have been built in these 30 years? one, how many industries? an insignificant number, do you know what happened to these founds during the latest presidency? if you do, please, tell us because they disappeared.
It's not a question of if I like this government or not, of course it's been ellected democratically, but their problems are not generated because U2 have moved a tiny part of their business to another country or because the EU don't want to help them anymore, there're really poor countries from the East in the Union that are not recieving enough founds because of this, when I give my money to a charity I want to know that the money goes to the poeple who need it, not to the president or his friends, well, it's the same for me if it is in Africa or in Europe.
By the way, do you know how much do artists pay on average in Ireland? about a 42% of their rent, they increased it in more than the 50% from one year to the next. U2 have been for years, the most important business in Ireland, ok, it happened in the 80s, but after all the help they have and are still recieving this can't continue the same.
I really can't understand why Oxfam has got involved in this affair, but I don't like the way the U2 members have been mobed from the authorities since they moved their publishing business, being denied even the refurnishing of their houses (you have to ask permission and make a plan that is made public), the latest reason has been that people would look to Bono's house more than to Enya's castle. All their business initative are being paralised, including getting a new recording studio, when they definitively moved to another country there will be a roar about it, but I, in their place, would have done it much earlier.
Are poor countries suffering from U2's decision? of course not, Irish government is not even near to fullfil their promises in this subject, Holland's government is doing it, by the way. Why are they using this excuse against U2? because it will appeal to all these Bono haters who just think a singer shouldn't enter into politics, and maybe because it's been rumoured again Bono's wife could be thinking about getting involved into real politics in their country.
When you analyse the ethics of a behaviour you have to consider the facts and circumstances, you can't do it from an abstract point as you intend to do because behabiours aren't abstract.
One last thing, U2 is not only Bono, there are four more people (I'm counting MacGuinness in this) I don't know what any of them in particular think about it, it's a corporation and they vote, don' forget it.

 

[U2girl]

U2 have been tax exempt for many, many years in Ireland and where were all the critics then ? (a few years ago that changed for them to nifty 45% out of a third of their income) So they're actually paying more tax in Netherlands now, after the move, then they have for the most part of their career. I'd also venture that the (aid) and money that has gone to Africa because of Bono since 1998 (plus all the charity stuff U2 was involved over the years) probably outweighs the money they would have payed in Ireland's taxes for the past few years.

I have no problem with people being "tax efficient" ie wanting to pay as little tax as possible. Every one of us probably does it on a regular basis. And most of us, if not all, probably donated to charity at one time or another. Go look in the mirror if that is so hypocritical.

"the nation they moved part of their taxes to contributes a higher rate of foreign aid than Ireland does."

 

[razredge]

Wait so someone actually agrees with the article?

 

[rileybug]

'U2 robbing world's poor'



I never thought I would see a headline like that ever... OMG... insane.

 

[LemonMelon]

U2 robs everyone by releasing crappy albums like NLOTH.

















JOKING.

 

[last unicorn]

Bono has never suggested INCREASING taxes to spend more on foreign aid, that's just ridiculous, he's not in a position to do this.

Most people who critisize U2 for their tax move tend to forget that only a tiny part of their income comes from royalties/publishing, the majority comes from touring, and they are paying millions of dollars in taxes everywhere in the world, especially in the US. Bono and Edge also live in the US for a considerable part of the year, they do business there, so, yes, they pay a lot of taxes in the US. And they also pay a lot of taxes in Ireland, with houses, investments, employees etc. They pay high amounts of taxes, the notion that they may not pay enough is ridiculous. As said before, that money wouldn't go into Irish development aid anyway.

U2 are musicians, but they are also a business and thus have to be smart about their money. I don't earn even a little percentage of what they are earning, still I'm very cautious about how many taxes I'm paying.

It annoys me that Oxfam is part of that whole protest, because Bono has shown nothing but support for this organisation throughout the years.

 

[mama cass]

i don't know but i think this one could well turn around and seriously bite U2 on the a s s some time soon what with the state of Ireland's economy right now... looks awful

 

[mama cass]

You still haven't answered my question.

The fact is, what they're doing is completely legal within current tax legislation. Another fact is that they still pay plenty of tax in Ireland, this is only a small portion of their income - the vast majority of it income that wasn't even earned in Ireland in the first place. As well as other corporate taxes, they also pay personal tax in Ireland, too. In addition, as the article states, they employ a lot of people, who also pay taxes in Ireland. Bottom line - Ireland makes a shitload of money off of them, far more than they're saving by having a small portion of their corporation registered in The Netherlands.

The article also talks about businesses who use tax shelters. I'm very sure that the businesses who take part in this currently legal situation are saving far more tax dollars for themselves/costing Ireland far more than U2 are.

The conclusion drawn here? These groups are using the U2 name and album release to gain notoriety for their cause, when there are far bigger "offenders" out there. In my opinion, they're unfairly tarnishing the name of the band and Bono to further their goals. Most news consumers simply hear that Bono and U2 have sought a tax haven, and don't read any further into it, and conclude that U2/Bono don't pay taxes, so that makes them hypocrites, when the actual situation is very, very different from that.

All that said, it is well within the rights of the group to lobby to change the tax laws, they're just choosing an awfully shitty way to go about it, damaging the reputation of a person who has done far more for their cause, and generated more funding for Africa in the past decade than any one individual. But would they get the press that they are if they went after Corporation X? Of course not. But say the name Bono or U2, and that's news! And I still maintain that Bono and his family probably end up donating far more than they've earned in tax savings to the cause, anyway, and they probably donate it to places that use it far more efficiently and with less red tape than any nation's government would do.

the reason they go after Bono/U2 rather than Corporation X is because it just seems more shocking when you look at the ethos of the band and the philosophy and image associated with the band, not to mention Bono's high-profile work outside the band (which i respect greatly)

everyone expects corporations to do this kind of thing, to be The Man and avoid paying taxes even though they are fully able to pay their dues (and not struggling to make ends meet but still forced to pay like your average family/small business for instance) and i think it's been really damaging for the band's whole image (and detrimental to Bono's campaigning credibility, sadly) whether rightly so or not... because it's just waiting to be used as ammo...

mind you, some governments are threatening to look into these tax havens and tax loopholes now aren't they, as they needing all the extra resources they can get in these times... so it will be interesting to see how things pan out...

 

[MikeyJB]

I've said this before on this issue - its the one thing I really disagree with as far as the band goes. I think it was a terrible decision from a PR standpoint, more ammo for the haters, as if they needed anymore, and ultimately undermines Bono's legitimacy.

 

[mama cass]

U2 have been tax exempt for many, many years in Ireland and where were all the critics then ? (a few years ago that changed for them to nifty 45% out of a third of their income) So they're actually paying more tax in Netherlands now, after the move, then they have for the most part of their career. I'd also venture that the (aid) and money that has gone to Africa because of Bono since 1998 (plus all the charity stuff U2 was involved over the years) probably outweighs the money they would have payed in Ireland's taxes for the past few years.

see that's what i think looks bad - after all those years of being tax exempt in their own country, as soon as the laws change they jump ship lmfao

 

[mama cass]

'U2 robbing world's poor'



I never thought I would see a headline like that ever... OMG... insane.

yeah what would Robin Hood have to say about that then eh? haha

 

[phommel]

I really don't get this thing.

What does the U2-business have to do with money that goes to the poor? And why do the Irish 'hate' their 2nd export product? (I guess Guinness is numbr 1 and McGuinne$$ number 2..?)

 

[guill]

A hypocrite, for sure.

But one of their best diplomats, these friends of the poor ayatollahs are a tiny bit narrow-minded sometimes.

 

[A stor]

I was reading this morning, that Bono is really hurt by all of this. And he is not being paranoid. The press does single him out. It's like a "witch hunt." Goodness, should we now "tar and feather" him?

This was a business decision, good or bad, made over two years ago by a corporation.

 

[BVS]

This is ludicrous. This is what ANY other person could say about any matter involving their tax and what it is used for. "I don't want to hand the government extra tax money to improve health care, because if I donated the money myself to some hospital or paid for someone's operation myself, I would be sure that 100% of my money went to healthcare!".

So you admit it's not really about the poor, as the original article alluded to... If it was the larger amount would trump all this talk.

But you seem to be just concerned about the fact that THEY get to avoid certain steep taxes. Do you honestly think they don't pay taxes to Ireland? This is one aspect of their income. Like it was said before U2 is an international business. They pay taxes on touring whenever they tour in your country, they pay taxes on whatever houses or properties they own, they pay more taxes then you or I could ever imagine. They pay taxes to Ireland, don't be obtuse.

The fact that this is even an issue in here is pretty obvious why, and that my friend is what's ludicrous.

Sorry dude, that's not how living in a society works.

Sorry dude, but you really don't know what you are talking about on this issue.

 

[A stor]

Bono also pays property taxes to the State of New York, U.S.A. This, I know for a fact. And am sure that they are quite a bit higher than mine. Since, I pay property taxes to the State of Maryland. And if you don't. Your property will go up for auction.

 

[BVS]

Oh please.

Don't you think that's more of a coincidence than it has anything to do with U2's decision? Be honest now.

Even Paul McGuinness used the "tax efficient" explanation and didn't come up with excuses like that. Don't tell me he wouldn't have grasped that straw, if he didn't know better.

So basically you just want U2 to pay more taxes, right? You don't care where the taxes go, you just want to see them pay... You don't care if they found a way to be efficient both ways, even though they are able to contribute more to Africa by setting it up like this, Bono is still talking out of both sides of his mouth? Sorry but that's just downright laughable...

Folks, get this; U2(I mean Bono) found a way to pay taxes to a country that contributes more, his own out of pocket contributions are much larger than anything his Irish taxes would have done to help Africa yet he's a hypocrite that doesn't really care about Africa. You heard it here first, it's all been cleared up for me...

 

[Bean Skidds]

While I certainly dont think U2 are "robbing the poor" in any sense with their tax move, I agree with the statement that someone should have recognized that this would be a terrible PR move. That's the part that confuses me, these are not dumb people. You could see this coming from miles away. U2 made themselves an easy target on this one imo. They are most likely only avoiding a small fraction of their taxes, but the move gives the appearance that they dont want to pay any taxes to support their home country. I know thats not the case, but appearances matter.

 

[Liesje]

While I certainly dont think U2 are "robbing the poor" in any sense with their tax move, I agree with the statement that someone should have recognized that this would be a terrible PR move. That's the part that confuses me, these are not dumb people. You could see this coming from miles away. U2 made themselves an easy target on this one imo. They are most likely only avoiding a small fraction of their taxes, but the move gives the appearance that they dont want to pay any taxes to support their home country. I know thats not the case, but appearances matter.

"Terrible PR move." Yeah maybe, but I don't see their album sales suffering, and I'd bet MY tax return that the next tour will sell out like the others in the past..... most of the people I know who are genuinely upset about this were already out looking for a reason to trash U2. I would wager the vast majority of U2 fans just plain don't care.