Salome
you are what you is
yep, they obviously try to minimize profits so that they will pay less tax in order to shaft Africa
i think one of the main problems with this is the "social responsibility" issue, and how the "U2 corporation" is perceived by many as being at odds with the bigger territory (of social awareness, activism, inspiring people to look beyond ourselves) that has often been associated with the band... which is why people are claiming they not practising what they preach kind of thing... (looking at it purely on this business level)
Does your hypothetical person earn the vast majority of the small portion of their taxable income that they're moving, internationally, and if so, are they moving their tax base within the bounds of current tax law? If so, then yes, I'd say they have the right.
Ok here's what I mean, let's use a Canadian and a really simplified example. Let's say I'm Chad Kroger (fucking groan) and most of my income comes from dimwits who buy my Nickleback records internationally (cause we sure don't here LOL). AFAIK, if I have Nickleback incorporated in Canada I have to pay tax on all income, foreign included. Pretty sure there is a line for declaring foriegn income.
Ok, fine. I want to not pay so much tax at home cause in reality, most of my money comes from the dimwits abroad who like Nickleback. Not only that, but that jackass Harper decided to cut his commitments to aid that he and I negotiated. Then we move Nickleback Inc. to the Netherlands. Smart, astute, but still considered by most to be somewhat "tax avoidance". We sure showed Harper though, didn't we? (which is a crazy argument, I know, but some are/have used it as some sort of justification for the move in this and other threads..)
Now...let's say not only am I Chad Kroger but I'm also the lead spokesperson for One, and pester politicians night and day to spend tax dollars better and drop debts etc etc. I tell my fans at concerts that we're not looking for more of their hard earned money, we're asking them to pressure their governments to spend their already contributed tax dollars more wisely and to help those in need. Not only that, but my bandmates go on record saying they support my ideals, so really my opinion is shared by all in the band (so I don't buy the 1/5th argument, in other words)
So now, don't we look hypocritical as a band if we up and move our tax base so as to pay less and maybe that results in a trickle down effect of contributing less to the pot that is supposed to be used to help others? Of course we do! Of course, I'm still paying taxes here at home, but it's less than I would have if I had left Nickleback Inc. here, isn't it?
I have read the thread, and nothing I've read really changes my mind here. It just doesn't seem right. Or, if it is right, then I should give full accountability or address fans head on and explain it in detail as in reality I've been bugging the shit out of all the rich nations to do the same. I would consider it worth my while to take the time to effectively squash any remote possibility that a fan or taxpayer would get the wrong idea. Just put it all out there.
-the portion of the business that was moved to the Netherlands was a very, very small portion of their income, relatively speaking, income earned mainly worldwide, so Ireland isn't losing anything - they're not taking from the country without giving back.
.
-I would also speculate that any tax savings that Bono personally gains from having that portion moved to The Netherlands, he probably donates that and more to African aid on his own. I think this is a fairly safe assumption. And even without actual dollars given, how much has he donated in time and energy? If one were somehow able to calculate the hourly worth of the biggest rock star in the world's time and apply it to all the hours he's given in the past decade, that number would be astronomical, I'm sure. Add that to the amounts that he actually has solicited from governments, and...wow.
Ok here's what I mean, let's use a Canadian and a really simplified example. Let's say I'm Chad Kroger (fucking groan) and most of my income comes from dimwits who buy my Nickleback records internationally (cause we sure don't here LOL). AFAIK, if I have Nickleback incorporated in Canada I have to pay tax on all income, foreign included. Pretty sure there is a line for declaring foriegn income.
Ok, fine. I want to not pay so much tax at home cause in reality, most of my money comes from the dimwits abroad who like Nickleback. Not only that, but that jackass Harper decided to cut his commitments to aid that he and I negotiated. Then we move Nickleback Inc. to the Netherlands. Smart, astute, but still considered by most to be somewhat "tax avoidance". We sure showed Harper though, didn't we? (which is a crazy argument, I know, but some are/have used it as some sort of justification for the move in this and other threads..)
Now...let's say not only am I Chad Kroger but I'm also the lead spokesperson for One, and pester politicians night and day to spend tax dollars better and drop debts etc etc. I tell my fans at concerts that we're not looking for more of their hard earned money, we're asking them to pressure their governments to spend their already contributed tax dollars more wisely and to help those in need. Not only that, but my bandmates go on record saying they support my ideals, so really my opinion is shared by all in the band (so I don't buy the 1/5th argument, in other words)
So now, don't we look hypocritical as a band if we up and move our tax base so as to pay less and maybe that results in a trickle down effect of contributing less to the pot that is supposed to be used to help others? Of course we do! Of course, I'm still paying taxes here at home, but it's less than I would have if I had left Nickleback Inc. here, isn't it?
I have read the thread, and nothing I've read really changes my mind here. It just doesn't seem right. Or, if it is right, then I should give full accountability or address fans head on and explain it in detail as in reality I've been bugging the shit out of all the rich nations to do the same. I would consider it worth my while to take the time to effectively squash any remote possibility that a fan or taxpayer would get the wrong idea. Just put it all out there.
Please note, I'm not slagging Bono or U2 or supporting the OP or the sentiment implied by the title of this thread. I just think it's a bit problematic for U2 and raises some valid concerns. You know honestly I've always wondered what I'd talk about if I had the chance to have a quiet drink with the man. I think this would be on my mind. Maybe it would piss him off if I brought it up and/or maybe he'd share some info that would straighten my mind out on it. It would be a better convo than me going on and on about how much I love their music though, I'd guess
I like your style, Dude. All excellent points. While what U2 is doing might be legal, it's not very ethical. Bono's tendency to attack government's for not meeting their promises is based on moral arguments, not legal ones. By doing this, it hurts his moral argument about the rich (whether people or countries) doing their greater share to help the more needy.Well, you said that you didn't have a problem with U2's accountants minimising their taxes, so I would hope that you would have a problem in the no-doubt hypothetical situation of them ever crossing the line into evasion.
Asking the superrich to pay their fair share is feeling 'entitled' to their money, come off it.
No, but you know what I mean. U2's income is largely royalties, it is their bread and butter, just like salary/wages is for you and me. So if everyone avoided or evaded tax on their income, where would we be? Not so much in the way of funds for development aid, that's where.
Tax-avoiding rockstars are nothing new, back in the 1970's they were all at it. At that time the tax rates were huge so I can understand it. Irish tax rates in recent years aren't even particularly high, however, that's one of the reasons why I suspect that it very much grates with the majority of Irish people, particularly in a time of recession, that these guys aren't paying their share.
If I find out a rockstar is avoiding taxes, well I tend to usually think, par for the course. But if the same rockstar is telling me my taxes must increase in order to pay more in development aid, I think I'm going to have to deduce, unfortunately, that we are dealing with a rather hypocritical rock star, that we're dealing with someone who talks out of both sides of his mouth.
I like your style, Dude. All excellent points. While what U2 is doing might be legal, it's not very ethical.
By doing this, it hurts his moral argument about the rich (whether people or countries) doing their greater share to help the more needy.
that would be true if you wouldn't donate to charity otherwiseBy doing this, it hurts his moral argument about the rich (whether people or countries) doing their greater share to help the more needy.
that would be true if you wouldn't donate to charity otherwise
but does anyone truly believe that the only way to get Bono to contribute to charity is through an x percentage that a governemnt is going to spend on foreign aid of x % tax rate on x % of his income?
come of it now
the more money Bono pays on taxes the less goes to charities
it doesn't take a genius to figure that out
so what is really the problem?
I have come to the conclusion that your own posts obviously cause more than a minimum of sexual arousal to yourself and therefore you can't help yourselfthat is why I do not pay taxes so I can give more to Africa
I have come to the conclusion that your own posts obviously cause more than a minimum of sexual arousal to yourself and therefore you can't help yourself
cause obviously you didn't post there because you think Bono hardly donates to charities
Of course no one has any idea how much the band as individuals or as a corporation give away either (personally I suspect much based on the U2 I know!). And who's to say that the State is better off administering or investing these funds than the band themselves? Besides, I imagine U2 pay more taxes and contribute more to governments than the entire membership of this forum, and all the whiners complaining about the move. In this case the band is an easy target because of their celebrity.
wonderful postThe sexual fullfllment after a post like this is even more intense Salome (which by the way is an odd name for a boy but that is a different story) thank you for yet another insightfull post in which you aim at some sort of (in your case) extremely difficult to proof supremacy over people you can not possibly comprehend being in the wonderfull place called candyland. Or U2fairylalaland or wherever it may be that bleeb on your radar decides to wander.
You have absolutely no clue and I envy you for that and maybe that is why it pisses me off a bit
oh Bono is the only hero I still have left and I will defend his words/music and deeds against the non-rock 'n rollchurch you so clearly represent and I have a certain feeling towards. You seem like a nice person but please do not try to score. It isnt your style.
wonderful post
I especially enjoyed the bit where you pointed out my lack of being 'insightful'
drôle, very drôle
except for that (or, perhaps, including that) I have no idea what you're on about, except for Salome being a weird name for a boy
I find this criticism absurd in the face of what Bono has achieved for in terms of advocating for debt relief, and the investment U2 have made in Ireland directly themselves (keeping their business there and real estate), and indirectly from tourism (how many of of you have been or will go to Ireland because you are U2 nut?).
There are loads of U2 and Bono haters out there, just waiting for something to jump on. This is small potatoes compared to what U2 have done for Ireland. But this is moot. What they are doing is legal and standard practice, and a practice Ireland has benetfited from.
Of course no one has any idea how much the band as individuals or as a corporation give away either (personally I suspect much based on the U2 I know!). And who's to say that the State is better off administering or investing these funds than the band themselves? Besides, I imagine U2 pay more taxes and contribute more to governments than the entire membership of this forum, and all the whiners complaining about the move. In this case the band is an easy target because of their celebrity.
I agree and wouldn't song writing royalties by "small potatoes" as compared to album sales and touring income? As I stated in a previous post. What bothers me the most is the timing of this protest. I
If I were wealthy. I would be very hesitant about supporting these causes. Who is to say, if I didn't give what they thought would be my fair share. These folks, wouldn't be camped in front of my door, with their protest. I think they have harmed, the organizations they represent.
Ok here's what I mean, let's use a Canadian and a really simplified example. Let's say I'm Chad Kroger (fucking groan) and most of my income comes from dimwits who buy my Nickleback records internationally (cause we sure don't here LOL). AFAIK, if I have Nickleback incorporated in Canada I have to pay tax on all income, foreign included. Pretty sure there is a line for declaring foriegn income.
Ok, fine. I want to not pay so much tax at home cause in reality, most of my money comes from the dimwits abroad who like Nickleback. Not only that, but that jackass Harper decided to cut his commitments to aid that he and I negotiated. Then we move Nickleback Inc. to the Netherlands. Smart, astute, but still considered by most to be somewhat "tax avoidance". We sure showed Harper though, didn't we? (which is a crazy argument, I know, but some are/have used it as some sort of justification for the move in this and other threads..)
Now...let's say not only am I Chad Kroger but I'm also the lead spokesperson for One, and pester politicians night and day to spend tax dollars better and drop debts etc etc. I tell my fans at concerts that we're not looking for more of their hard earned money, we're asking them to pressure their governments to spend their already contributed tax dollars more wisely and to help those in need. Not only that, but my bandmates go on record saying they support my ideals, so really my opinion is shared by all in the band (so I don't buy the 1/5th argument, in other words)
So now, don't we look hypocritical as a band if we up and move our tax base so as to pay less and maybe that results in a trickle down effect of contributing less to the pot that is supposed to be used to help others? Of course we do! Of course, I'm still paying taxes here at home, but it's less than I would have if I had left Nickleback Inc. here, isn't it?
I have read the thread, and nothing I've read really changes my mind here. It just doesn't seem right. Or, if it is right, then I should give full accountability or address fans head on and explain it in detail as in reality I've been bugging the shit out of all the rich nations to do the same. I would consider it worth my while to take the time to effectively squash any remote possibility that a fan or taxpayer would get the wrong idea. Just put it all out there.
Please note, I'm not slagging Bono or U2 or supporting the OP or the sentiment implied by the title of this thread. I just think it's a bit problematic for U2 and raises some valid concerns. You know honestly I've always wondered what I'd talk about if I had the chance to have a quiet drink with the man. I think this would be on my mind. Maybe it would piss him off if I brought it up and/or maybe he'd share some info that would straighten my mind out on it. It would be a better convo than me going on and on about how much I love their music though, I'd guess
I don't think the protesters have harmed their cause at all. I'm sure they didn't protest because they personally want a bigger share of U2's income. They work with the poor and their protest shows a commitment to helping the poor that I'm sure even Bono would admire if he weren't the target!
A lot of people here seem to be implying that people are only making an issue of this tax thing because U2 are successful (Tall Poppy Syndrome) and Bono is an easy target. I'm a huge U2 fan, and have no interest in bashing Bono, but U2's "tax evasion" makes me uncomfortable.
I'm sure that U2 still contributes plenty of money in taxes. But the tax rules in Ireland do not say that everyone should just make a contribution that they are happy with - it says people should contribute based on what they earn. U2 have gone to great lengths to avoid doing this. They have always been proud Irishmen, yet, as soon as their elected representatives change the tax rules to cap the artists' exemption, they take a significant part of their financial affairs out of Ireland. You don't have to be a bono-basher to think this is unfair.
These aid workers probably spend their lives working for the poor. I certainly don't think they are just "fucking aid groups", as I think one poster stated. I'm sure Bono has done a lot of good too (he has most likely done more good than the average aid worker because of his celebrity status), but he is a rich rockstar who just moonlights. I admire the protesters' bravery and their commitment to their cause.