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

[coolian2]

if u2 were a palpable part of ireland's economy at any stage, it's in an even worse shape than cloud possibly be expected.

moving back would be nothing more than a token gesture and a loss for the u2 organisation.

 

[Galeongirl]

lolwut?

As if U2 don't pay shitloads of taxes in Ireland still.

 

[Vlaco]

That's not the point. Of course it won't make the difference.
The point is that the symbolism of preffering to runaway to another tax-paradise, instead of submitting to the laws of their nation like any other person/enterprise/entity. Doesn't matter if they "made a lot for Ireland". That doesn't erase their responsabilities as any other irish that will gonna have to pay for a crisis they did not create.

Responsibilities? It's perfectly legal what they're doing. It's just a smart business move just like a lot of other corporations do. There's nothing wrong with that. They're paying a huge amount of taxes in Ireland anyway....

 

[james t kirk]

Why is it ridiculous to protest against the increase of the retirement age? Because people don't want to be told the same argument within 10 years, when someone increases it to 70 years old? Because people don't want to sell out to their conquered rights? Because people are tired of paying with austerity measures and the murder of the european model of the Social State due to the policies that don't bring intentionally the right distribution of richness produced, creating a viced cycle of circulation of richness in the countries?
...

Correct me if I am wrong, but....

You can retire any time you like - just don't expect your government pension to kick in until you're 62, as opposed to 60 (in France's case - which was played out in the media recently).

The French sense of entitlement is astounding to me. If the Pension system was fully funded (and not an economic disaster waiting to happen) there would be no need to raise the retirement age. (Even raising it to 62 (again in France) is not going far enough. The pension system is an anchor around the neck of the French Government.)

It's very funny to look at the differences between the North American system (in Canada which I am familiar with) and the European systems. In Canada, people have to save for their own retirement (either with a company pension (which is becoming rarer and rarer with each passing year) or save your own money in the form of a Retirement fund. When you turn 65, the Government gives you a bit of cash every month (Called the Canada Pension Plan). It's hardly enough to live on. Presumably if you've paid off your debts, it would be enough to pay your grocery bill.) Anyway, NO-ONE here relies on their Canada Pension plan to be their sole source of retirement income (unless you're really down and out.)

I am assuming the French are protesting the government pension (whatever that amounts to be) not kicking in till one turns 62. It must be big bucks to get so upset.

Again, using Canada as my basis for comparison - the government wisely makes that a separate deduction from one's salary. So every pay check you see your separate contribution to the CPP. If the system can't support the system, they raise the contribution. The pension does not come out of the government general revenue. If the pension plan is just another gov't expense out of General Revenue - then everyone expects that taxes stay the same and service will stay the same (despite the need for more funding). That is not sustainable.

So getting back to the issue of Government Pensions - you either fund it, or you change it to work with what you have. It would seem to me that the French are moving towards changing it. If it has to be 70, then it has to be 70 - orelse you pay more to fund it. It's really that simple.

Retire anytime you like - but you have to save to be able to afford to do that yourself.

Besides, who the hell wants to retire anyway. I work with guys well into their 70's who stay young and vital by continuing to work.

 

[james t kirk]

If your economy was failing and you had greater opportunity somewhere else then I'd suggest you move.

Others would suggest that you do your part to prevent your country from slipping into the abyss. Even if that is a drop in the perverbial ocean.

 

[BVS]

And what is their part? Do you believe they don't pay any taxes to Ireland?

 

[james t kirk]

I'm afraid I am entirely uninformed on this matter, but that's only because, personally, it's pretty much a non-issue with me. I say let the band do whatever they want with their business. I know people love to point out the "hypocrisy" of Bono for being involved in a group decision (he could very well have advocated to keep the corporate offices in Ireland, but just lost out in a democratic decision... not that he would have, I imagine, been too terribly distraught over the decision), but the objectives for his campaigning seem to involve more than mere donation bins; they require cooperation on a national level for huge-ass, metric-fuck-ton debt cancellations sanctioned by people high enough up the governmental ladder to authorize these cancellations/ reductions.

I guess it all boils down to whether or not you believe Bono is genuine about the matter and not just using these issues as another spotlight for him to stand at the center of (perhaps I simplified this a little too much, but you get the idea)... and IMO, I think he's done quite a bit "behind the scenes" work to procure at least some semblance of credibility for the earnestness of his motives. Do I think he enjoys some of the attention he receives for his charity? Yes indeed, I do. But in no way do I think this lessens the impact of his work...

...and really, if his actions have saved just 1 life, does it matter? I'm sure the people benefiting from his causes don't exactly care so much if Bono feels good about himself

I believe that Bono and to a lesser extent U2 are a force for good in the world with respect to their charity work and raising awareness.

However, I also do believe that they are not 100 percent genuine because of them moving their corporate offices to the Netherlands. (Yes, they are hypocrites - though the tag of hypocrite falls mainly on the shoulders of Bono because he is the one who does 95% of the advocating and lobbying of foreign governments to use their taxes to fund his cause - yet he doens't want to pay his taxes (corporate taxes.) It's hard to take him seriously now when he comes to meet with various heads of states when he himself sets up off-shore corporate headquarters to avoid paying taxes.

I look at like U2 is a corporatation. (They are.) No different than Apple or Microsoft, or Canadian National Railways. Each of the aforementioned could relocate their operations to the Caymen Islands, or Liberia, or wherever to avoid (or reduce) paying corporate taxes. But they do not. They stay in their home turf and they pay their taxes and do the right thing. (Sure, they work within the system to reduce their taxes, but that's fine.) U2 packed up and left Dublin to avoid paying their corporate taxes (like every other Irish Corporation). That just doesn't sit well with me.

I don't know how the U2 corporation works or votes. (Since it is not a publically traded company - they don't have to say.) I would assume each share holder would get a certain number of votes based on the number of shares they each have.

Let's assume each has one vote.

Bono, Edge, Larry, Adam and Paul would each have 1 vote (since they split all the $$ equally, I assume that the decision making process would be the same.)

They would need 3 votes to pass the decision to move the corporation to the Netherlands.

My guess would be Paul (for sure), Bono (for sure) and probably Larry all voted to move. (Or maybe it was unanimous - who knows.)

I say Paul and Bono for sure because they are both the money guys. Paul obviously, but Bono is quite the capitalist and always has been. (He has his own Investment firm now I've read. You don't party with those boys without having the wallstreet attitude.)

I would have hoped that Edge would have been against it, because he strikes me as the type. (Again, could be wrong.)

 

[james t kirk]

And what is their part? Do you believe they don't pay any taxes to Ireland?

I would imagine that they pay their income taxes and property taxes and VAT like everyone else.

But they certainly don't pay their corporate taxes.

(This puts them in the same league as any number of other slimey corporations who are tax cheats and tax avoiders. I would like to think of my preferred band as being better than that.)

I saw on the weekend a news report that the Netherlands was cutting funding to the arts. There were huge demonstrations in the streets. Ironic since "artists" like U2 and the Stones and others I'm sure set up shop in the Netherlands to avoid paying taxes.

Here is the link to the Netherlands cutting Arts Funding because they can't afford to fund it anymore.

What would would be really ironic is if the Dutch started taxing artists (like U2 and the Stones) in order to preserve arts funding.

CBC News - Arts - Thousands rally against Dutch arts cuts

 

[BVS]

However, I also do believe that they are not 100 percent genuine because of them moving their corporate offices to the Netherlands. (Yes, they are hypocrites - though the tag of hypocrite falls mainly on the shoulders of Bono because he is the one who does 95% of the advocating and lobbying of foreign governments to use their taxes to fund his cause - yet he doens't want to pay his taxes (corporate taxes.) It's hard to take him seriously now when he comes to meet with various heads of states when he himself sets up off-shore corporate headquarters to avoid paying taxes.

They do pay taxes, and guess what Netherlands has promised more aid than Ireland.

It's hard to take you seriously if you don't know all the facts.

 

[james t kirk]

They do pay taxes, and guess what Netherlands has promised more aid than Ireland.

It's hard to take you seriously if you don't know all the facts.

I guess you haven't read the facts:

Fact 1 - Ireland is bankrupt (Re that whole EU Bailout thingie yesterday) and can't even afford to pay its Doctors, Nurses and Teachers.

Fact 2 - U2 Inc left Dublin to avoid paying corporate taxes.


Are there other facts that I am not aware of?

 

[james t kirk]

What's in store for Ireland?
To borrow from religion, Ireland will have to adhere to something akin to chastity, poverty and obedience if it's going to survive its debt crisis, which has already sparked political turmoil that threatens its bailout.


Video

EU welcomes Ireland rescue


Interactive

Effect of inflation on income


Chastity: Consumers are going to have to be more pure of heart, go for more simple tastes and shy away from any extravagance as the government embarks on harsh measures. Its banks, which bet heavily, and, some say, foolishly, on real estate, are going to be scaled back, merged or sold.

Poverty: A bailout in the area of €100-billion would represent 60 per cent of the country's gross domestic product, notes Carl Weinberg of High Frequency Economics. "Add to that the 65-per-cent debt-to-GDP ratio at the end of last year - round up a bit, too, because GDP is falling - and you can see that 'fixing' Ireland by lending it €100-billion that it cannot raise from the market will push up its indebtedness as a share of GDP higher than that of Greece," Mr. Weinberg says.

Obedience: No one in Ireland should be under any illusion that the international bailout being negotiated won't come with some rigid strings attached. "Ireland continues to be at the forefront of currency market volatility with Irish Prime Minister Brian Cowen playing a game of political brinkmanship with his political opponents, and possibly his country’s fiscal sovereignty," said CMC Markets analyst Michael Hewson. "Demands by the Irish Green party, a junior partner in the coalition, for a general election, in the face of mounting tension within the country, has thrown into doubt whether a new budget will even be passed on Dec. 7. Cowen’s response was to agree to their request for an election, but only on the condition that the austerity budget was passed and the new four-year fiscal plan was implemented into law in return for the bailout money. This new uncertainty raises the stakes as it raises the prospect of a new government attempting to unpick the terms of any bailout package agreed."

Link:

What’s in store for Ireland: Chastity, poverty, obedience - The Globe and Mail

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repo...y-falters-irish-scatter-again/article1807651/

 

[BVS]

I guess you haven't read the facts:

Fact 1 - Ireland is bankrupt (Re that whole EU Bailout thingie yesterday) and can't even afford to pay its Doctors, Nurses and Teachers.

And this is U2's fault?

Fact 2 - U2 Inc left Dublin to avoid paying corporate taxes.

So they don't pay any taxes in the Netherlands?

Are there other facts that I am not aware of?

Apparently quite a few...

 

[james t kirk]

U2 is not responsible for the economic crisis in Ireland.

But it would sure be nice if they could help their country out a little bit.

I don't think it would kill them and I don't think that they would miss the money in the taxes U2 Inc would have to pay.

 

[james t kirk]

Apparently quite a few...

Feel free to enlighten me.

 

[phommel]

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

Only on Interference.

there is no relationship between Ireland's financial crisis and U2's business

 

[Popmartijn]

However, I also do believe that they are not 100 percent genuine because of them moving their corporate offices to the Netherlands. (Yes, they are hypocrites - though the tag of hypocrite falls mainly on the shoulders of Bono because he is the one who does 95% of the advocating and lobbying of foreign governments to use their taxes to fund his cause - yet he doens't want to pay his taxes (corporate taxes.) It's hard to take him seriously now when he comes to meet with various heads of states when he himself sets up off-shore corporate headquarters to avoid paying taxes.

Hmm... so many incorrect assumptions in this post, so where to start...?
First of all, U2 did not move their publishing company (read: publishing company, not all their corporate offices) to the Netherlands to avoid paying taxes. They moved part of their business to minimize taxes. There's a big difference between tax avoidance (an illegal act) and tax minimization (a good business move and something most, if not all, of us also try to do).

I look at like U2 is a corporatation. (They are.) No different than Apple or Microsoft, or Canadian National Railways. Each of the aforementioned could relocate their operations to the Caymen Islands, or Liberia, or wherever to avoid (or reduce) paying corporate taxes. But they do not. They stay in their home turf and they pay their taxes and do the right thing. (Sure, they work within the system to reduce their taxes, but that's fine.) U2 packed up and left Dublin to avoid paying their corporate taxes (like every other Irish Corporation). That just doesn't sit well with me.

From reading the above you seem to say that it's OK to pay minimal tax for other companies, but not for U2 Ltd. (OK, this is a pun from my side, can't recall exactly what the name of the U2 corporation is that moved to the Netherlands. It could be Not Us Ltd or something like that ). And companies like Apple or Microsoft are even more cunning in minimizing taxes (maybe even to the extent of bending laws to breaking point) than U2. So hey! they stay on home turf, but when it comes to taxes we have different rules.
And I'm not so sure that no other Irish company set up tax constructions in other countries (like the Cayman Islands, etc.). And many non-EU corporations have set up office in Ireland because of the friendly corporate tax rate. Are those corporations bad too? And what about the rest of the U2 corporation that still is based in Dublin? Are they bad for profiting from the low Irish corporate tax rate?

 

[BVS]

Feel free to enlighten me.

Well the most glaring one is that you think they don't pay taxes...

Secondly you miss the point that the Netherlands percentage wise promises more aid...

But go ahead and keep towing the line that U2 are tax cheats, makes you sound so informed.

 

[gvox]

I look at like U2 is a corporatation. (They are.) No different than Apple or Microsoft, or Canadian National Railways. Each of the aforementioned could relocate their operations to the Caymen Islands, or Liberia, or wherever to avoid (or reduce) paying corporate taxes. But they do not. They stay in their home turf and they pay their taxes and do the right thing.

This is probably the best point you've made so far in the thread. In the case of CNR, they get revenue from all over the world, as do other Canadian corporations like Petro-Can etc, yet they are headquartered in Canada and thus pay corporate taxes in Canada. It matters not that their executives also pay personal income tax on their own income, that is such a dubious argument.

As for Apple or Microsoft, I'm not intimately aware of what they do, but I'm pretty sure they are headquartered in the US and pay US corporate taxes, although I think they've made moves within the country to lower state taxes they pay - and they were put on blast for doing it - but similarly their executives pay personal income tax in the US, and the company pays corporate tax in the US. If they have opened factories or headquarters outside of the US, they are paying taxes in those countries also, I'd guess, although the core of their business is - I'm assuming - still located in their home country, the US.

Sure, the companies noted above could move their tax base out of their respective countries, but then in short order public pressure would force them to stop calling themselves Canadian (especially in the case of CNR/Petro-Can! lol) or American.

U2 is an Irish band, and they are for all practical purposes an Irish corporation. They are certainly not by any stretch of the imagination a Dutch corporation! Therefore they should be paying Irish corporate taxes imo. For me it's got nothing to do with whether or not the numbers work better or worse for them, whether or not the Irish government honors more or less of it's aid promises than the Dutch government or no matter how creatively one slices the "what portion of their sales come from Ireland and what come from international sources" pie - it's got everything to do with the fact that they are an Irish corporation founded in Ireland and continuing to do business based from Ireland.

I think calling people who disagree with this "uninformed" is a lazy way of addressing someone else's opinion. Some have looked at it closely and just still disagree with what they did there. It doesn't make me love them or their music any less, but it is something I respectfully disagree with.

 

[gvox]

First of all, U2 did not move their publishing company (read: publishing company, not all their corporate offices) to the Netherlands to avoid paying taxes. They moved part of their business to minimize taxes. There's a big difference between tax avoidance (an illegal act) and tax minimization (a good business move and something most, if not all, of us also try to do).

Does anyone have any real hard data on what % of their total business this represents? I have a hard time believing that they'd risk public perception/optics if it was only a small piece of the pie. I don't mean to be contrary Martijn but it seems that some like to say 'we don't know' or 'it's not even a big piece' etc. What if it was revealed that it was a huge piece? Surely noone believes that the majority of U2's revenues come from Irish U2 fans!

 

[Popmartijn]

U2 is an Irish band, and they are for all practical purposes an Irish corporation. They are certainly not by any stretch of the imagination a Dutch corporation! Therefore they should be paying Irish corporate taxes imo.

And they are! Not on everything (as noted, the publishing part is incorporated in the Netherlands), but still on a big part.

I think calling people who disagree with this "uninformed" is a lazy way of addressing someone else's opinion. Some have looked at it closely and just still disagree with what they did there. It doesn't make me love them or their music any less, but it is something I respectfully disagree with.

I don't think the "uninformed" comment is about someone's opinion about the move of the publishing branch to minimize taxes on publishing, but when people blatantly state that all of U2 Inc. have moved to the Netherlands to avoid paying taxes altogether.

 

[gvox]

Well the most glaring one is that you think they don't pay taxes...

Secondly you miss the point that the Netherlands percentage wise promises more aid...

On your first point, I don't think he does, but I think you might be avoiding the fact that executives of any corporation pay personal income taxes, and the corporation is expected to pay corporate taxes.

On your second, is that really relevant? I find that to be a red herring personally. If U2 has such an issue with what their government does with their taxes, there are far more justifiable ways of protesting that. We don't get to pick which country's policies we like, we have to work within our own - or, move to that other country and become a part of that fabric..

 

[BVS]

I think calling people who disagree with this "uninformed" is a lazy way of addressing someone else's opinion.

And you would be correct if I were addressing his opinion, but I'm not I'm addressing his grasp of the facts, which unfortunately are uninformed.

 

[gvox]

That's fine BVS and I've not had any real issue with you per se, but whenever this topic comes up we find the usual people shouting down - if you will - the person with what I feel to be flawed arguments, assumptions, and no real hard facts, for the "pro-move" side.

Noone really knows the extent of what this means to their business, but it's hard to avoid that it causes a negative public perception and it's not great optics especially for a band who's lead singer - ADMIRABLY! - campaigns for causes that involve getting governments to promise at least some portion of overall tax revenues to aiding other countries. Whether or not we want to agree in an Interference thread, there are a significant number of fairly informed and educated people out there that take issue with it..

 

[BVS]

On your first point, I don't think he does, but I think you might be avoiding the fact that executives of any corporation pay personal income taxes, and the corporation is expected to pay corporate taxes.

He's used the term "to avoid paying taxes" and "tax cheats" several times, not reduce, but avoid.

On your second, is that really relevant? I find that to be a red herring personally. If U2 has such an issue with what their government does with their taxes, there are far more justifiable ways of protesting that. We don't get to pick which country's policies we like, we have to work within our own - or, move to that other country and become a part of that fabric..

Of course it's relevant if part of your argument is this:

though the tag of hypocrite falls mainly on the shoulders of Bono because he is the one who does 95% of the advocating and lobbying of foreign governments to use their taxes to fund his cause - yet he doens't want to pay his taxes

 

[BVS]

That's fine BVS and I've not had any real issue with you per se, but whenever this topic comes up we find the usual people shouting down - if you will - the person with what I feel to be flawed arguments, assumptions, and no real hard facts, for the "pro-move" side.

Noone really knows the extent of what this means to their business, but it's hard to avoid that it causes a negative public perception and it's not great optics especially for a band who's lead singer - ADMIRABLY! - campaigns for causes that involve getting governments to promise at least some portion of overall tax revenues to aiding other countries. Whether or not we want to agree in an Interference thread, there are a significant number of fairly informed and educated people out there that take issue with it..

U2 pay a shitload of taxes all over the world. They moved their publishing aspect of U2 outside of Ireland. As we all know U2 make their income from several different avenues, and those taxes are paid all over the world.

Personally I don't think artists that are so global have to be considered loyal to any particular country tax wise... If you really want to break it down, Ireland shaped them, but North America made them the most money.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Couldn't they just sell that claw thing and bail out the whole country?

Seriously though, it's a nice notion that U2 could actually substantially help out in any way even if it's just symbolic. Just doesn't seem all that realistic or relevant to what's actually going on.

I don't pay attention to their personal finances or taxes, I've got my own problems to worry about. It's very sad what's happened to Ireland- I remember when the economy was booming so well there that people were staying there for jobs and not going elsewhere. I would imagine one of the main reasons could be links to the US economy, and obviously that has gone down the toilet.

 

[Popmartijn]

Does anyone have any real hard data on what % of their total business this represents?

Hard data has always been difficult regarding the U2 corporation, but I found this quote in an article by The Telegraph (from 2006):
U2 move their assets out of Ireland - Telegraph

Until recently U2 Ltd, which deals with the band's royalty payments, estimated to be worth one third of the band's £460 million fortune, was based in Dublin. According to documents seen by the Ireland on Sunday newspaper, the company opened up in Amsterdam on June 1.

 

[gvox]

Of course it's relevant if part of your argument is this:

It's not a relevant argument to the "pro-move" side. Didn't Bono or U2 actually say the move had nothing to do with it? In any event, it's an assumption entirely constructed by U2 fans on forums, at least I've never read any band member or other person in the the camp make any sort of reference to it.

In the end, I'm perfectly content if noone else agrees with my opinion on this, however.

ETA: getting back to the title of the thread, I do agree that it's a rather romantic but not all that realistic idea ie "moving back to help out" - whatever portion..it'd be more symbolic to Ireland's current woes than anything at this point.

 

[BVS]

It's not a relevant argument to the "pro-move" side. Didn't Bono or U2 actually say the move had nothing to do with it? In any event, it's an assumption entirely constructed by U2 fans on forums, at least I've never read any band member or other person in the the camp make any sort of reference to it.

I'm not saying it was ever an argument that the band has used, but it is a fact that they pledge more than Ireland.

So I don't understand the hypocrisy argument. How can you argue that Bono is a hypocrite if he moved a portion of his money to a country that percentage wise will give more to the aid he advocates? That doesn't make sense to me.

 

[U2387]

I would imagine that they pay their income taxes and property taxes and VAT like everyone else.

But they certainly don't pay their corporate taxes.

(This puts them in the same league as any number of other slimey corporations who are tax cheats and tax avoiders. I would like to think of my preferred band as being better than that.)

I saw on the weekend a news report that the Netherlands was cutting funding to the arts. There were huge demonstrations in the streets. Ironic since "artists" like U2 and the Stones and others I'm sure set up shop in the Netherlands to avoid paying taxes.

Here is the link to the Netherlands cutting Arts Funding because they can't afford to fund it anymore.

What would would be really ironic is if the Dutch started taxing artists (like U2 and the Stones) in order to preserve arts funding.

CBC News - Arts - Thousands rally against Dutch arts cuts

BS.

They are not avoiding corporate taxes but rather royalties taxes. Specifically designed with U2 in mind, most likely.

I am sure they pay plenty of corporate taxes with the 2/3 of their business that it still out of Ireland, not to mention all of their other business ventures.(Clarence Hotel, etc)

Also, they are not cheaters or tax evaders. Is Bono in jail with Wesley Snipes? Is Edge working on a new rap mix of Mysterious Ways with the gangsta rappers? Is Adam lamenting the lack of poshness in the prison jumpsuits while otherwise having a great time? Is Larry working out in the prison gym?

It was a perfectly LEGAL move. Nothing sleazy about it, they're not cheating, it was right out in the open.

Again, its not like they took the company's profits and hid all of them in an off shore tax shelter that they hid by illegally claiming losses on another tax shelter, etc. They didn't do anything even close to that, in fact they didn't even exploit a loophole in the law.

Thousands of corporations with much more money than U2 routinely get out of paying ANY taxes whatsoever.

They went to a lower taxed environment, the Netherlands.

You make no sense all around.

Artists' funding in the Netherlands would somehow be more robust if U2 and the Stones just packed up and left??

Get real.