there is no contradiction. campaigning for debt relief, fair trade, and access to HIV/AIDS medication has nothing at all to do with how one chooses to manage their finances.
people who judge him and U2 for their financial affairs are the real hypocrites because chances are they pay as little tax as possible and would still do so if they were rich. it seems to be human nature.
And the context is a little lost on some people too. Ireland , U2's home country, had a tax-break for artists. It was a great place to exist as a company, especially considering Ireland also got a lot of benefit from homing U2, as they did from enticing businesses to operate their due to low taxation.
Then Ireland changed the game, almost seeming to want to take a bigger slice of U2's pie, by capping the Artist tax-bread at a level that probably only affected U2.
So they moved their business to a place that allowed them to continue to pay a similar amount of tax.
It would be like my situation: I work from home, and my company allows me to write off my phone and internet as a business expense because they are essential to my work. If I had an office, those things would be provided for me. I get a couple of added things too - flex time, and the ability to finance payments on hardware I'd like to keep. A decent health plan that pays 80%.
Now, if my company decided that hey, we're randomly deciding to make you pay for your work phone, work internet, pay off your hardware in full - or return it - and to stick to a rigid 9-5 where I'd have to check in and out all day, plus health insurance went down to 60% coverage - I think I'd be upset and look for another job where I'd get the same benefits.
Bono, and the other members of the band who have residences in Ireland all pay taxes in Ireland.
U2, the business, has units that pay taxes in Ireland. They moved one business unit to another country to keep those taxes the same. They, to my knowledge, as individuals and as a business, haven't dodged paying taxes.
