U2's Glastonbury gig targeted by tax protesters

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
:angry: Fuck the haters! U2 will go out and give each and every one of them a super mind-fuck (they better do that).

I don't mind the haters. That's their right.

What I mind is the haters with the WRONG FACTS!

U2 definitely pays taxes. They are performing in Oakland, CA tonight. There will be a city tax. A state tax. Any money made in the U.S. is also taxed. And that's just for one show!

Bono has a home on Ireland. That is taxed. Anything he buys is taxed. Any help he hires is taxed.

I can assure you, they pay plenty of taxes.

They may have had some "assets" set aside to help minimize some taxes. Duh. Wouldn't you do this if you could? I'm willing to argue that just about everyone of those protesters cheats on their taxes in some form (charity donations, tips earned, etc.). What U2 does is not that different from many businesses. And indeed, U2 is a business. My own company has its headquarters outside the U.S. just for tax reasons. This is true for many companies, even though most of their business is within the U.S.

If someone doesn't like it, don't protest Bono for LEGALLY following what is allowed. Protest the government to close down loopholes.

But guess what - nothing will change. Those loopholes exist as a way to ensure some tax money comes into the state or country. Those loopholes exist to ensure some jobs and business are created. U2 may get tax breaks, but their one or two shows in any city generate substantial revenue for many people. They are "rewarded" with this tax break.

But if people want all loopholes removed, then talk to your government. Protesting Bono won't change a thing.

Dumbasses.
 
Well this is the argument I put forward. Although I wasn't suggesting at all that Bono was the one who was against the idea, I'm sure he knew it was an astute business move as much as the others and was fully behind it. However, I still believe his public handling of the situation should have suggested that he was outvoted on the matter, and that he didn't fully agree with it. If only to try and outweigh the mighty cries of hypocrisy.

Never underestimate the ability of some people to know, with 100% accuracy, the votes on this matter. Then again, most people probably think Bono = U2.
 
I don't mind the haters. That's their right.

What I mind is the haters with the WRONG FACTS!

U2 definitely pays taxes. They are performing in Oakland, CA tonight. There will be a city tax. A state tax. Any money made in the U.S. is also taxed. And that's just for one show!

Bono has a home on Ireland. That is taxed. Anything he buys is taxed. Any help he hires is taxed.

I can assure you, they pay plenty of taxes.

They may have had some "assets" set aside to help minimize some taxes. Duh. Wouldn't you do this if you could? I'm willing to argue that just about everyone of those protesters cheats on their taxes in some form (charity donations, tips earned, etc.). What U2 does is not that different from many businesses. And indeed, U2 is a business. My own company has its headquarters outside the U.S. just for tax reasons. This is true for many companies, even though most of their business is within the U.S.

If someone doesn't like it, don't protest Bono for LEGALLY following what is allowed. Protest the government to close down loopholes.

But guess what - nothing will change. Those loopholes exist as a way to ensure some tax money comes into the state or country. Those loopholes exist to ensure some jobs and business are created. U2 may get tax breaks, but their one or two shows in any city generate substantial revenue for many people. They are "rewarded" with this tax break.

But if people want all loopholes removed, then talk to your government. Protesting Bono won't change a thing.

Dumbasses.

:love: You just worded it perfectly. That's the exact thing, they are arguing something that isn't even true. Such bullshit.
 
the ultimate irony is that the Celtic Lion was (for quite a part) built on Ireland offering companies lower tax rates than other countries to get companies to open offices over there

boohoohoo

*snore
 
I don't mind the haters. That's their right.

What I mind is the haters with the WRONG FACTS!

U2 definitely pays taxes. They are performing in Oakland, CA tonight. There will be a city tax. A state tax. Any money made in the U.S. is also taxed. And that's just for one show!

Bono has a home on Ireland. That is taxed. Anything he buys is taxed. Any help he hires is taxed.

I can assure you, they pay plenty of taxes.

They may have had some "assets" set aside to help minimize some taxes. Duh. Wouldn't you do this if you could? I'm willing to argue that just about everyone of those protesters cheats on their taxes in some form (charity donations, tips earned, etc.). What U2 does is not that different from many businesses. And indeed, U2 is a business. My own company has its headquarters outside the U.S. just for tax reasons. This is true for many companies, even though most of their business is within the U.S.

If someone doesn't like it, don't protest Bono for LEGALLY following what is allowed. Protest the government to close down loopholes.

But guess what - nothing will change. Those loopholes exist as a way to ensure some tax money comes into the state or country. Those loopholes exist to ensure some jobs and business are created. U2 may get tax breaks, but their one or two shows in any city generate substantial revenue for many people. They are "rewarded" with this tax break.

But if people want all loopholes removed, then talk to your government. Protesting Bono won't change a thing.

Dumbasses.

right on :up:
 
I don't mind the haters. That's their right.

What I mind is the haters with the WRONG FACTS!

U2 definitely pays taxes. They are performing in Oakland, CA tonight. There will be a city tax. A state tax. Any money made in the U.S. is also taxed. And that's just for one show!

Bono has a home on Ireland. That is taxed. Anything he buys is taxed. Any help he hires is taxed.

I can assure you, they pay plenty of taxes.

They may have had some "assets" set aside to help minimize some taxes. Duh. Wouldn't you do this if you could? I'm willing to argue that just about everyone of those protesters cheats on their taxes in some form (charity donations, tips earned, etc.). What U2 does is not that different from many businesses. And indeed, U2 is a business. My own company has its headquarters outside the U.S. just for tax reasons. This is true for many companies, even though most of their business is within the U.S.

If someone doesn't like it, don't protest Bono for LEGALLY following what is allowed. Protest the government to close down loopholes.

But guess what - nothing will change. Those loopholes exist as a way to ensure some tax money comes into the state or country. Those loopholes exist to ensure some jobs and business are created. U2 may get tax breaks, but their one or two shows in any city generate substantial revenue for many people. They are "rewarded" with this tax break.

But if people want all loopholes removed, then talk to your government. Protesting Bono won't change a thing.

Dumbasses.

Brilliant!:applaud:
 
Everywhere I've stumbled across this argument (online) both sides are locked in a pitched battle of dumb vs dumber. Neither side seem to really understand or get what it is they're trying to argue about.
 
Well this is the argument I put forward. Although I wasn't suggesting at all that Bono was the one who was against the idea, I'm sure he knew it was an astute business move as much as the others and was fully behind it. However, I still believe his public handling of the situation should have suggested that he was outvoted on the matter, and that he didn't fully agree with it. If only to try and outweigh the mighty cries of hypocrisy.

I wasn't aiming that at you - it's just something that comes up whenever this story come up (every six months or so), a few people will post the purely wishful idea that either these decisions are made above and beyond the band (?!?) or that Bono would of course have been against this and was just 'out voted'.

And as a PR tactic, I get it, but I think the best thing PR-wise for U2 is to pull Bono back in to the group, not push him further out. Such an annoying topic to have be the one to blow up in their faces. NO-ONE would ever bother to read any explanation, if they ever tried to give one. I mean... taxation. No-one reads about that for fun.

At Glastonbury there's a huge politics/activism tent called Left Field, has lots of scheduled talks and whatnot. Bono should book himself in there for a sort of 'in conversation' thing with Billy Bragg - hero, no doubt, to these protesters, but to their likely annoyance, a good friend of U2's - or even a three way, with an ART UNCUT representative, or Tax Justice representative there as well. If Bono reckons U2 are in the right (vs his work) and can explain themselves, then go for it (thus far he's done very poorly), but if he can't, then he takes the pie. Either way, it's him getting up there that will move it on.
 
Everywhere I've stumbled across this argument (online) both sides are locked in a pitched battle of dumb vs dumber. Neither side seem to really understand or get what it is they're trying to argue about.

No, I get it.

They want U2 to keep all their possible royalties associated with a home base in Ireland to pay more taxes. They want U2 to do this because Bono is asking government to forgive debts that poor nations owe to wealthier nations. And that debt forgiveness is a slap to tax payers who helped generate the funds to initially provide the loan. So if Joe Nobody has to allow his tax contribution to be "gone forever" so should Bono.

Now, here's what I don't get.

First, Bono has paid a LOT more in taxes last year than Joe Nobody. In fact, I'm further willing to be that those complaining the most are the same people with their hands out the furthest asking for government help. Second, as Bono is wealthier, he has also paid a lot more in taxes over the past 25 or so years than Joe Nobody. So Bono's taxes are also "gone".

However, to decrease U2's tax debt, U2's management has sheltered SOME of U2's royalties. Bono still pays considerable taxes - still a lot more than Joe Nobody. He is just trying to reduce some of his taxes.

Is that fair?

Fair isn't really the point. It is legal. And if Joe Nobody made enough money to also take advantage of tax shelters, I can assure you he would.

What's also lost is the fact that states and countries often grant tax breaks to larger companies in order to generate jobs. "Build your new facility here and we'll give you tax break X." This tax break is a "reward" for the company. In exchange, the company creates lots of jobs. These jobs then generate taxes for the state (employee income taxes, housing taxes and purchasing taxes). So the state more than gets their money back.

U2 is like a business. They are exploring loopholes. In exchange, they have generated substantial income from touring in various countries. Ireland has benefitted a lot due to the success of U2.

If one really wants fair taxes, don't protest Bono. Tell the Irish government to stop giving tax breaks to all the big companies.

So I get it. But protesting Bono will do nothing.

And this is why I call them dumbasses. Protesting Bono doesn't solve the problem.

Of course, one day one of these people might get lucky and have $$. I wonder if they will still vehemently protest tax loopholes and shelters then.
 
And this is why I call them dumbasses. Protesting Bono doesn't solve the problem.

Of course, one day one of these people might get lucky and have $$. I wonder if they will still vehemently protest tax loopholes and shelters then.
I also disagree with these tax protestors, but there is no need to belittle them. Saying they are benefit scoungers and "dumbasses" just because they happen to have a different opinion to your own makes you sound very elitist, if you don't mind me saying. You seem intelligent so please try to respect other people.
 
doctorwho, you may not realise (not being in the UK) but the group behind the protest are involved in multiple/wide action on this subject. They're not suddenly singling out U2 as the great devil, but target multiple people/companies/examples to highlight an overall point. And it is the legal loopholes that they want closed. They're not claiming any of it is illegal. And it's extra hot because - again, not in the UK, you may not realise - it's tied to the massive cuts the government is making across all areas of their budget, having a real effect on various services. They - and to be fair, this issue has HUGE and very wide support here - are pissed because these cuts seem to, in the end, target the less fortunate exclusively, while those more fortunate are escaping 'their share' of any pain, in a variety of ways.

So there's huge anger at the bankers who caused this crisis and are seemingly getting away with it unpunished in any way, and these huge cuts taking place are seemingly mostly 'against' those who pay the most taxes (as a real % against ability) while those who should or can contribute the most are in all too many cases actually skirting it offshore.

I guess, in the most simplistic terms, this kind of sums up their point:

VodafoneTax.jpg


I think the anger and frustration is totally legitimate. I think the point they're making is totally understandable. I think they get their targets right sometimes (Philip Green as a savings consultant to the government is ridiculous) but I do agree that the detail in their argument isn't very strong, and that U2 are a poor/bad target, for a variety of reasons. As for whether the global tax game has any real, true affect on aid and development, I have no idea.

And you know what? The actual protest at Glastonbury doesn't matter. U2 themselves don't really matter. They're just trying to make a point and stir public awareness and debate. And just announcing the protest has done that. It's everywhere in the media here, so... the job is done. I'd say there's been more on it this week than there will be after the actual protest (unless they really create a scene or the band react poorly.)

And at least this is a peaceful and non-disruptive protest. These guys generally go more for the riot/smash things/burn things variety.
 
Bono Criticized for Avoiding Taxes (Warning: Daily Mail)

'Saint Bono' facing huge Glastonbury protest ¿ for avoiding tax | Mail Online

Bono is aware that taxes go to paying off interest on loans politicians took out in the peoples' names, not to actually helping the poor. Bankers and manufacturers of military machinery benefit when you pay your taxes. I hope he explains this to the people of Ireland, it might give them something to think about.
 
taxes go to paying off interest on loans politicians took out in the peoples' names, not to actually helping the poor. Bankers and manufacturers of military machinery benefit when you pay your taxes.

I tried explaining this over and over to Revenue Canada as to why I had a moral objection to paying my taxes.


















They didn't buy it.
 
Plans are afoot for a giant inflatable banner with the slogan "Bono Pay Up", spelled out in lights.

Just out of curiousity. how do they plan to get this into the concert in the first place.?
Are they going to blow it up when they get in or release it from outside the concert area in the wind? :hmm:
I don't think security is going to let this fly. :wink:
Hell, they won't even allow handbags at the East Landsing venue. :down: But that's the US - I don't know how things go at Glastonbury.
 
Typical Daily Fail hysteria - 'facing HUGE protest'. Yep, I for one have my placard all ready, now just need to position myself near the front of the stage so that I can march around with my back to Saint Bono.
 
It must be hard for the Daily Mail on a story like this one. They hate Bono and they hate U2, and they hate aid/charity/development, and they hate protesters, the anti-cuts protesters in particular, and they also hate music, festivals and the outdoors, and they also hate people. So which angle to take? Tough one.
 
Also, someone should point out to the protesters that all of U2's last few singles have slipped in well under the tax free threshold anyway.
 
And that despite this, on the majority of those singles, they've taxed themselves a good 20-40% of their own creative credibility.
 
It must be hard for the Daily Mail on a story like this one. They hate Bono and they hate U2, and they hate aid/charity/development, and they hate protesters, the anti-cuts protesters in particular, and they also hate music, festivals and the outdoors, and they also hate people. So which angle to take? Tough one.

:lol:

Just blame it on immigration I suppose.
 
doctorwho, you may not realise (not being in the UK) but the group behind the protest are involved in multiple/wide action on this subject.

I cut your wonderful post just for space.

I am not necessarily disagreeing with them either. But I also ask you this - if YOU found a loophole that would decrease your taxes, wouldn't you take advantage of it? Or would you really want your earnings taxed high to take care of welfare programs? Furthermore, welfare itself is a hot topic. I can't speak about the U.K. system, but in the U.S., I've personally seen people abuse the program. I see people living in rather nice 3-bedroom 2-bath homes due to special "Section 8" housing (the home was nicer than where I lived). They have their kids involved in enough activities - all of which cost $$ - yet they still get welfare assistance. I've seen women time pregnancies so that they can stay on the welfare system and not work. So if you want to find abuse, one has to look BOTH ways - the top and the bottom.

Plus, let's say loopholes are closed. O.K., so Bono and Edge pay a bit more in taxes. That added increase will hardly make a dent. They are targeting Bono only because of his fame. But will it change anything? I say "no". Furthermore, if one closes the loopholes and forces big companies to pay taxes, then the big companies will simply move out of said country. We've already endured out-sourcing to less expensive countries. If one wants the entire corporation moved, it will happen. That just leads to more debt due to less jobs.

In other words, loopholes are incentives to provide jobs. Those jobs ultimately provide more tax money. The government gets their $$, just in a different manner.

I will admit that sometimes the taxation of big companies is too lenient. But again, focusing on Bono as a representative of these companies is completely off-topic. And their point will be lost. In fact, it's lost on me already.
 
Just out of curiousity. how do they plan to get this into the concert in the first place.?
Are they going to blow it up when they get in or release it from outside the concert area in the wind? :hmm:
I don't think security is going to let this fly. :wink:
Hell, they won't even allow handbags at the East Landsing venue. :down: But that's the US - I don't know how things go at Glastonbury.

The main stage field is wide open. No fencing around it or anything, open on all sides, accessible by anyone at anytime for any reason with no rules about what you can and can't take to watch a band there. Any bag, any booze, any food, any chair, any flag, any banner etc, and I assume that includes inflated balls full of cash? The only security at the main stage is a few guys standing between the barrier and the stage itself - none anywhere else.
 
Back
Top Bottom