Ireland Bankrupt - Should U2 Move back to Dublin to help out

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
How could he be a hypocrite if he moved it to a country that gives more?

Because it's not about a political statement, you know that BVS so stop making it into one. If the Netherlands is in fact giving more, it's got nothing to do with U2, they were doing that before, and will do so after, U2.

It's about that by creatively reducing tax obligations, he and the other members of U2 are potentially contributing less tax money to the "send our tax dollars to feed the poor/drop the debt/buy medicine" cause than they were before (or would under the laws of their country), all the while encouraging governments to meet or increase aid. How you can't see that as a contradictory position is incredible.

They could be leading by example on this and it's unfortunate they've chosen the direction they have. Sure it's legal but it's not a good look.
 
:doh: I never once said anything about this being related to publishing, in fact myself and others have repeatedly said these are different portions of their income. I also never said anything about being taxed to the hilt or that this was unfair. The point was that they do indeed pay taxes all over the world, and you were pretending like they don't.

:doh:

No I absolutely was not. You just can't read past 1 or two sentences. Interesting how you've completely sidestepped the U2 Ltd. situation however. U2 Ltd deals with publishing royalties on worldwide album sales and downloads, and those royalties flow straight to U2 Ltd without tax interference from the countries where the sales originate. They are paid by the distributors, who then net out the royalties before paying their own corporate taxes in those individual countries.

Basically what you are saying is that because they pay some tax for some aspects of their business, they should avoid other taxes on other aspects of their business. Good one! :up:
 
Because it's not about a political statement, you know that BVS so stop making it into one. If the Netherlands is in fact giving more, it's got nothing to do with U2, they were doing that before, and will do so after, U2.

It's about that by creatively reducing tax obligations, he and the other members of U2 are potentially contributing less tax money to the "send our tax dollars to feed the poor/drop the debt/buy medicine" cause than they were before (or would under the laws of their country), all the while encouraging governments to meet or increase aid. How you can't see that as a contradictory position is incredible.

They could be leading by example on this and it's unfortunate they've chosen the direction they have. Sure it's legal but it's not a good look.

:banghead: I'm not saying it's a political statement. In fact U2 or Bono have never stated the fact that Netherlands gives a larger percentage, it was a member here who posted an article breaking down a number of countries and the percentages they pledge. So my own point is that percentage wise if they are paying taxes to the Netherlands than more dollars are going directly.
 
No I absolutely was not. You just can't read past 1 or two sentences. Interesting how you've completely sidestepped the U2 Ltd. situation however. U2 Ltd deals with publishing royalties on worldwide album sales and downloads, and those royalties flow straight to U2 Ltd without tax interference from the countries where the sales originate. They are paid by the distributors, who then net out the royalties before paying their own corporate taxes in those individual countries.

Basically what you are saying is that because they pay some tax for some aspects of their business, they should avoid other taxes on other aspects of their business. Good one! :up:

I haven't sidestepped anything, I most definitely recognise that all publishing royalties get taxed less than they would if they were in Ireland. Smart business, that is all I'm saying. They are probably paying close to the same amount of taxes that they were in Ireland before Ireland changed their tax laws.

The point I've been trying to make is that they are still paying taxes on EVERYTHING, just much less than they would under the new Irish laws. James kept saying it was every aspect of U2 and that they were avoiding all taxes, period. He's wrong.
 
On That Accelerating Irish Bank Run... | zero hedge

On That Accelerating Irish Bank Run...
Submitted by Tyler Durden on 11/23/2010 09:38 -0500

Bank of AmericaBank RunDubaiEuropean Central BankGreeceIrelandMerrill LynchQuantitative EasingRBSRosenbergSovereign DefaultSovereign RiskSwitzerland


Some may recall how the very contentious topic of Greek deposit bank runs was arguably the key catalyst to push Greece (and its banks) to accept a bailout from Europe, after the country realized it had little cash left (and the associated SNAFU in which RBS proved it really has no clue about anything). Well, it is now Ireland turn, and as the below chart shows, the Irish bank run has already commenced, with locals not even bothering to wait until the December 7 coordinated "pull your money" pan-European D (for default)-Day. Bank of America brings attention to this issue, which will likely be the last liquidity event before not only a full bailout of Ireland has to be implemented, full terms be damned, but becomes the catalyst for ongoing CHF strength as European deposits once again rush to the relative safety of the last remaining relatively stable European currency (and of course gold). The result will be an ongoing squeeze in Switzerland, which we now believe may be one of the first countries from the core to feel the vigilantes' wrath shortly after Spain is bailed out, some time in Q1 2011.

Having absorbed the Irish banking system risk, sovereign liquidity risk reflects banking liquidity risks. Those risks are on the rise following the inability of banks to tap the market for government guaranteed issues and ECB funding increasingly has been required to fill the gap. Richard Thomas, BofA Merrill Lynch’s European Banks Credit Analyst highlights that “headroom” (available collateral to post to the ECB in return for funding) is running low. Even at the Bank of Ireland, he estimates that may be as low as €12bn (~6% of total assets). As was the case in Greece, deposit flight stands as the short term catalyst to ultimately force a liquidity intervention.

Deposit flight from Ireland accelerated in September, the latest month available, to a 3.6% annual rate. Clearly, with market prices eroding since then it is probable that deposit outflows continued in October and November. Under such a scenario we would expect a liquidity intervention solution to be forced by the threat of further liability funding pressure that would result from such deposit flight. That would mark a short run liquidity solution to a long run solvency problem.



Looking at all this, the traditionally somber Jeffrey Rosenberg sees no easy way out.

In the near term, that should help to alleviate the systemic risk concerns as the sovereign risk issues in Europe are again postponed. But postponement does not equate to a solution and while such an outcome may be near term supportive of asset prices, that outlook should not be confused for a longer run positive outlook. As in our recent assessment of the benefits of further quantitative easing, the benefits of such a strategy are front loaded and the risks back loaded.

Translation: With even BofA throwing in the towel on Europe, an ECB QE event may be just around the corner if the liquidity gusher is not stopped imminently. In other news, just like Dubai was the first short across the bow in the sovereign default race last Thanksgiving, so a year later, we finally start to see just how rickety the entire sovereign tower of cards is. We predict that by next thanksgiving, the entire Bismarckian welfare-state structure will be completely restructured.
 
That's quite a leap of logic. And quite obviously, you don't have any grasp on how they've actually got it set up now, frankly.

Oh but you do? Read the statement again. I said percentage wise... Netherlands percentage wise gives more than Ireland, so it wouldn't matter if it was 3 dollars of tax or 3 million percentage wise it would be more.
 
They are probably paying close to the same amount of taxes that they were in Ireland before Ireland changed their tax laws.

Well that's a laugh, in terms of the taxes that we're speaking of, they weren't paying anything before Ireland changed their tax laws! Good grief man what's so hard to understand about it? Have you actually read ANY facts or data on this? Just give it up if you can't come up with something substantive, seriously.


The point I've been trying to make is that they are still paying taxes on EVERYTHING, just much less than they would under the new Irish laws. James kept saying it was every aspect of U2 and that they were avoiding all taxes, period. He's wrong.

Really? James said that they weren't paying any taxes, period? I must've missed that.

At any rate, are they really paying taxes on EVERYTHING if close to $30M in publishing revenue gets written off as salaries for "5 employees"?

You know, if you're not very versed on something or you don't understand tax accounting, writeoffs, etc, just say so, and bow out gracefully. Seriously! :lol:
 
The fact you reported that is true is that Ireland has the lowest corporate tax rate in the EU.
yep, Ireland's been stealing from the rest of Europe by stealing away our rax money
shame on them

good thing U2 is there to give something back to us
:up:



U2 moving some of their business back to Dublin would make any meaningful contribution to Ireland's financial woes?

Only on Interference.
 
Well that's a laugh, in terms of the taxes that we're speaking of, they weren't paying anything before Ireland changed their tax laws! Good grief man what's so hard to understand about it? Have you actually read ANY facts or data on this? Just give it up if you can't come up with something substantive, seriously.
According to the article YOU posted:

U2 Ltd. said it paid nearly $1.1 million in 2006 tax to Ireland, compared to just $46,500 in 2005.

The increased tax bill in 2006 reflects U2's sudden exposure to taxes on royalty income in Ireland. Last year the government - stung by criticism that its traditional tax-free status for artists was not intended to support multimillionaires like U2 - capped the tax-free benefit at $360,000 annually.

They weren't paying anything? Really, now who doesn't have their facts straight?




Really? James said that they weren't paying any taxes, period? I must've missed that.
Apparently you did...:|

At any rate, are they really paying taxes on EVERYTHING if close to $30M in publishing revenue gets written off as salaries for "5 employees"?

You know, if you're not very versed on something or you don't understand tax accounting, writeoffs, etc, just say so, and bow out gracefully. Seriously! :lol:

From earlier:

Do they pay tax on performing income in every country they perform in? On T-shirt revenues in every country they sell t-shirts in?

If this can be factually stated in any verifiable fashion.. I'm not being facetious, I really don't know, and I'm not so sure you do either, and that's my point.
Then when I posted an article showing you they indeed do pay taxes in countries they perform in you act as if you knew that already and that it wasn't the point. So now YOU're the expert? Please.

As far as the writing off for salaries, that one I'm still on the fence about I haven't seen anyone verify this, or even follow up on it.
 
Then when I posted an article showing you they indeed do pay taxes in countries they perform in you act as if you knew that already and that it wasn't the point. So now YOU're the expert? Please.

As far as the writing off for salaries, that one I'm still on the fence about I haven't seen anyone verify this, or even follow up on it.

I wanted you to give me something better, something specific about U2's situation and how that was relevant to the taxes being discussed. You failed. One of two things is evident: either I understand tax law and sheltering far better than you ever will, or you're being disingenuous.

Like financeguy said, you're all bluster on this topic.
 
I wanted you to give me something better, something specific about U2's situation and how that was relevant to the taxes being discussed. You failed. One of two things is evident: either I understand tax law and sheltering far better than you ever will, or you're being disingenuous.

Like financeguy said, you're all bluster on this topic.

Oh, you wanted me to post their tax records? :lol:

Sorry, but you don't seem to understand tax law, I am by no means an expert, but I know bands have to pay taxes when touring in foreign countries...:rolleyes:
 
Actually what's there in dark and light blue is "in every country?", being fully aware that it'd be pretty hard for U2 to get away with no performance taxes in the US. In clearer terms, I was not referring to the US. But as usual, you jump on singular points and ride them for all they're worth (which, in the grander scheme of the argument, is not much at all).

The problem for people like you who keep defending this is that in this case the devil likely IS in the details, so you'd just rather not know.
 
Again, it's not relevant to U2 Ltd discussion. But do you think it would be possible for you to take a break from this until you do a bit of digging into Dutch tax law and royalties? Because what you find out might change some of the assumptions you are making.
 
That's always your cop out answer when you don't want to provide specifics...















Look, here's my stance in a nutshell for maybe I haven't made myself clear:

I don't believe U2 are necessarily bound to have to report all their income to Ireland, for the majority of their money is made on the world's stage. Any business ventures, properties, etc that they have IN Ireland then they should pay those taxes to Ireland. But the majority of their income is made all over the world(and for some part live all over the world) and they pay taxes to those countries as they go. So they found a way to save on taxes by moving one portion of their income to another country? I say smart move.

It's all this talk about avoiding, running from, "tax cheats" that I don't get, THEY ARE PAYING TAXES. They moved, people do that, rich smart people have this luxury. If this were a Dutch band that happened to move to Ireland would you say they were running from or that they owed the Dutch something?
 
It's not a cop out, you're being deliberately intellectually lazy by throwing around assumptions without doing any sort of research. You want it spoon fed to you. For crissakes, you didn't even know about the financial statements reported by the AP article unless I linked you to it, and I'm not even sure you fully comprehended what you read, frankly.

They don't pay taxes on royalties " to those the countries as they go", you are just wrong there and you need to do alot more reading before you continue spouting this misinformation. Read up on tax treaties, for starters. You're just sadly turning a blind eye to it.

It's actually rather amusing that you use the word avoidance, because that is precisely what word intelligent tax lawyers, researchers, policy analysts and the like in almost every country in the civilized world have been using to describe regimes like the Netherlands who have concocted these completely irresponsible tax havens so that companies will move there. Is it legal? Since when is "legal" the new moral standard? Ironically enough, U2 is just an example if even mentioned at all in many of the journals and discussions (and I'm not talking tabloids) and this was being debated before they did it, but they waded into it when they should have had better advice in terms of the optics and stayed away.
 
It's actually rather amusing that you use the word avoidance, because that is precisely what word intelligent tax lawyers, researchers, policy analysts and the like in almost every country in the civilized world have been using to describe regimes like the Netherlands who have concocted these completely irresponsible tax havens so that companies will move there.
And what is the motivation if they aren't receiving revenue from it?
 
OK, so if the Irish government were to tax U2 for everything they have, how much would that help out the country? We're talking an entire nation here, and people act like Ireland is dependent on tax revenue from a rock band just to survive. Really?! I'm no expert, but this whole argument claiming that U2 is hurting Ireland by moving some of their finances to another country just makes no sense. That's like saying that the U.S. would collapse if it couldn't tax Oprah anymore.
 
I never said they paid royalty taxes as they go.

I still have no clue what "assumptions" I'm making... :lol:

And what is the motivation if they aren't receiving revenue from it?

Stop trolling and spend time researching and learning something on your own. Or that's right, because BVS doesn't think it makes sense, it can't be so. Of course! :up:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom