gvox
Ghost of Love
I feel sorry for your lack of knowledge, but I'm not going to waste my time spoon feeding you information you can easily find out for yourself. 
Ireland Bankrupt - Should U2 Move back to Dublin to help out
- Thread starter james t kirk
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
- Status
Notice how GVOX didn't have a good answer to my questions regarding U2 being in jail.
He just had a personal attack.
They're not cheaters or evaders.
Its not immoral, illegal or unethical either.
Its not even a traditional perfectly legal loophole or tax shelter that came about because X corporation slipped Y politician a couple hundred grand for their next campaign.
Its simply taking out the tax laws of different countries, looking at them side by side and deciding which is the better tax climate.
No special interest, loophole generating favors involved here.
To my knowledge, Bono has never asked one of the many politicians he has worked with to create a tax shelter for him and Paul McGuiness.
Its done across countries.
In the US, it is done across states.
Why do elderly people choose to live 6months and 1 day of the year in a second home in state that doesn't tax pensions?
Why do banks and credit card companies choose to locate in Delaware?
To say its hypocritical is the very definition of delusion in so many ways.
The business is relocating to a better tax climate.
The business still pays taxes, though at a reduced rate.
They still pay substantial taxes to Ireland, no one in 9 pages of discussion has come up with any 4 individuals who could possibly be paying more.
And when all is said and done, said business venture will have paid a hell of a lot more in royalty taxes from 2006 to 20XX than they did from 1980 to 2006.
It has nothing to do with Bono's simple argument.
For a relatively small commitment(<1% of GDP) from each country, we can(and have) make(de) an enormous impact on issues of Debt, Aids and Trade in Africa. This can save lives and have a profound effect on standards of living WITHOUT WITHOUT WITHOUT WITHOUT WITHOUT making ourselves poor. Bono does not advocate people give away all their money or take 5 percentage point increases in their effective tax rates. Canada and The US have met their commitments they made to Bono, my taxes haven't gone up, how about yours, GVOX???
Obviously, you are not educated to the realities of budgeting, because these commitments that the ONE Campaign asks me to support routinely come back the next week with a thank you, and a description of how a simple loophole was closed, subsidy ended, etc in order to non controversially meet this pledge. All Bono is asking for is a drop in the bucket investment in a better, more economically productive Africa(from a bottom line standpoint). No wealthy country is scrounging for this tax money.
In order to believe that Bono is a hypocrite, you would have to think he holds the same views as radicals like Peter Singer. He doesn't. Never has, never will.
Everyone, with the taxes they pay, through the governments they live under, can literally save lives and improve living standards with the adding benefit of having a productive Africa to trade with down the line. Remember, Bono's ultimate goal is to end the need for aid.
The taxes Bono pays help, just like everyone else's.
If Bono is a hypocrite, than anyone who uses any legal, ethical method to try and reduce their tax burden(read, any sane person), then everyone on the face of the earth is a hypocrite.
And this is perfectly legal and yes, ethical. There was no back door, shady dealings by U2LTD to get a special loophole or shelter, as was discussed.
There is no conflict at all between Bono's advocacy and the tax moves he is party to as a partner in U2 LTD.
Its really you and others who are making no sense here, because, as BVS has stated(and no, I don't endorse every word he said or argument he made, either), the reality is really quite simple
Either you get it or you don't, and usually it breaks down along the lines of who is realistic versus who is naive.
Because thats what it takes to hold your position, GVOX.
1.)Naiveness
2.)A strong willingness to accept what the U2 haters say as fact.
Doesn't matter.
They pay taxes and are in full compliance with Dutch law.
You have taken this thread so far away from its original premise to try and argue with BVS about something you clearly challenged him on where you were proven wrong.
You said that BVS can't set up a gig somewhere and definitely have to pay taxes until he can prove it.
You claim to know tax law, tax treaties, etc but fail to understand income reporting requirements and use taxes. 2 biggies there.
He pointed out that this line of reasoning is quite silly, and the US backpedal you tried to use was even more silly, because most countries they tour in are a lot better at capturing money at much higher rates.
So you change the subject to the fine points of Dutch tax law.
Which means nothing in the context of the thread.
1.)Would Ireland benefit at all in these times from a U2 LTD move?
NO
2.)Do they need symbolic value with so many business ventures, income and property located in Ireland? Do they need it when Bono has been bringing awareness to violence, drug addiction, unemployment, homelessness, the list goes on, in his own country for years?
NO
3.)Does this make Bono a hypocrite?
Given that he:
-Earns money all over the world that goes into U2 ltd.
-Pays all taxes in compliance with the law.
-Has done nothing shady or unethical in attaining a lower tax burden. He did nothing you can't do on google by performing a search for comparative tax rates.
-Has always been up front about being a businessman. Never bought into the b.s. "an artist is different than an evil capitalist" argument.
-Has not advocated increased tax rates on anyone to pay for the pledges, simply a tiny re ordering of priorities.
-Gives more of his time and money to the causes he believes in than any self righteous member of the mass media or journalism crowd that you keep citing as your reasons for why hypocrisy is a valid perception.
Another NO.
Most importantly, hypocrisy requires an examination of the accused person's views, doesn't it? It has to. And nothing in the examination of Bono's stated views is in conflict with running U2 Ltd as a business. Looking at it another way, has Bono ever asked other wealthy individuals or businesspeople to consider the impact their perfectly legal and ethical business tax decisions will have on the world's poor? Has he called his friend Mick to the mat before for doing the same thing? How about his friend Madonna? Has Bono ever frowned on this kind of move in the past? Could anyone see him calling up your rich uncle who invests in Chilean mines, Russian oil companies, Irish potatoes, Italian wine and German cars and telling him he is a bad, bad person for locating the company he channels all of the profits into in a low tax country?
The fact is its not part of Bono's platform, never has been.
The word is thrown around by people who either have no idea what it means or no idea what Bono's views are. Perception comes in a lot here, as many think Bono is a raging anti corporate socialist crusader just because he advocates for those who have less.
1, 2 and 3 are what count with respect to the thread.
An aside, why cite public perception anyway? People are idiots. Just go out on the roads and drive or read a newspaper's comment boards. You'll see. We like to read about Lindsay Lohan on drugs, Junior Seau beating up his wife, Anna Nicole Smith's baby daddy, Britney Spears being a redneck loser. God forbid someone like Bono actually use his fame to get something good accomplished for others in the world. People look for any reason to bash the man for this, while Lindsay Lohan's exploits are immediately celebrated and talked about everywhere as if they were good things.
Your line of reasoning: journalists and mass media who don't know what they are talking about regarding economics, tax law, etc fuel public perception and we are supposed to take public perception seriously. In fact, we are supposed to give it more weight than we give the facts.
That is your argument? You are giving all of this legitimacy to people who by and large do not bother to get the facts regarding the nature of the tax move and do not bother to understand exactly what Bono's views and goals are. Both are out there in public view, but we can't attack them and say they are big bad lazy assholes for not doing their homework. Its the job of these media people to get a headline, to make a living, thats it, and the sensational "Mother Theresa/Ghandi hybrid Bono is a TAX EVADER" is bound to sell more copies and give the guy a promotion than a sober recitation of the actual facts.
They are doing their jobs, time for you to do yours and be a skeptical, critical thinker, one who asks why they might have an incentive to fuel this false perception, one who feels confident in gathering the facts and stating them regardless of what the perception is out there.
So your appealing to the masses, the lowest common denominator cesspool masses and their perception of things, is another reason I can't take you seriously on this issue.
Edge_Orchestra
Rock n' Roll Doggie FOB
U2's money won't save the Irish economy. Nor did the lack of U2's money and taxes hurt the Irish economy.
VintagePunk
Blue Crack Distributor
This is so self evident, I'm surprised it needs to be said. I guess I shouldn't be, though.
eta - and there's something sinister about paying the five "unnamed"
employees (let's call them Bedge, Rono, Garry, Ladam and Saul) - with money they've earned - rather than having to pay corporate tax on it?? 
What from this very interesting article is comparable to what U2 did?
What is creative about simply comparing the rate of tax on royalties by country?
As for the employee expenses, who did you think they were going to pay?
OJ Simpson?
They're not just going to idle the money in the corporate account, they'll pay the employees.
Reading skills are essential here.
I am the most fact based person here with regards to this.
I am not going on emotion at all.
I can see why some have a knee jerk angry reaction, I have the same reaction but I calm down and rebut with facts, which is much more revealing than an emotional response. Bono gets relentless criticism for doing an enormous amount of good in the world and its not even fair criticism. All of it falls apart with about 2 minutes on google.
You still seem to think its corporate tax rates that are at issue here.
Its royalties taxes, different thing entirely.
And yes, there is an amount that they pay to the Netherlands.
The article you link even says very clearly it "lessened" not eliminated their tax burden.
You are falling into the same trap GVOX falls into. Taking a headline written by a newspaper looking to sell things and make their business more profitable(that's hypocrisy when a certain other person does the same thing) as a defense of your labeling of Bono as a hypocrite. Ever occur to you that the job they do does not necessarily dovetail with a fair and sober reporting of the facts?
Bono is not a hypocrite, I clearly outlined why above.
No honest examination of the move and Bono's views together supports the claim you make.
I don't know why this rubs you the wrong way, its global revenues. If it rubs you the wrong way, fine, but don't project it out onto Bono and say he is a hypocrite.
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!
They are not avoiding taxes on any aspect of their business!
They have not hid one single dollar.
They pay SOME taxes (read, the rate applicable to that particular portion of income in that particular tax climate) on ALL aspects of their business.
No one is saying that they should get a pass on ducking taxes in the Netherlands because they pay some taxes other places.
This is so self evident, I'm surprised it needs to be said. I guess I shouldn't be, though.
eta - and there's something sinister about paying the five "unnamed"
See, there has been a rule, a brand new rule made up in this world overnight!!
That is that if your name is Paul, Bono, Edge, Larry or Adam, you are a hypocritical jerk if you do what every single other corporation does in this world and pays out their legitimate expenses, of which employee salaries are a big, big component, before paying taxes!
This whole thing, everything about the U2 LTD move is so far off what the real sleaze buckets do in this world its incredible! The real evaders would have sham expenses, fake reports, unproductive paper companies in the Caymans that are under false names, etc. Enron's accountants were not hiding their money in a company in the Cayman's called Enron LTD(or anything Enron) and the move certainly wasn't known even by their shareholders, never mind debated to no end in the general public like U2 Ltd's.
Its sad how misinformed people are on this.
But you and I both know that U2 has nothing to worry about from a hypocrisy standpoint here and that they certainly did nothing wrong!
Those are the facts.
VintagePunk
Blue Crack Distributor
And that's not even to mention that the five people who were paid the income would then have to pay personal tax on it.
I was involved in the old thread about the
And maybe those who are so against it should think about maximizing their taxes by not claiming their children, not claiming medical expenses, not claiming charitable contributions, etc. I'm sure their governments could use the money.
And that's not even to mention that the five people who were paid the income would then have to pay personal tax on it.
I was involved in the old thread about theU2 Ltd.Bono (because it's all him, right??) tax situation, and I'm not really inclined to get involved again, because it's all silly. They're doing something completely legal with a relatively small portion of their income that's earned worldwide. If people want to read something evil into it, that's their prerogative, I suppose. They'd be wrong, though.
And maybe those who are so against it should think about maximizing their taxes by not claiming their children, not claiming medical expenses, not claiming charitable contributions, etc. I'm sure their governments could use the money.
oh, come on!!
You know all of those people against it are already maximizing their taxes in every way possible with the world's poor in mind!! They stopped claiming health, kids and charity years and years ago, that is if they ever did such an evil thing!
Seriously, great posts. I remember your contributions in the thread 2 years ago and its nice to see a voice of reason still here!
And you are MUCH more concise than me!
gvox
Ghost of Love
I'm just going to reduce all that other hot air you wasted to this one statement, because the rest of it is fairly repetitive and not worth addressing. I will say that some of your shorter posts since are sadly quite incorrect in many ways. But you can go find out more if you want.
Whether I`m a hypocrite (and I`ve never called Bono one, either)? For pete's sake my marginal tax rate is something in the area of 29% or some obscene number, and I pay it. I can't even get near Ireland's 12.5% on my tax return! So please stop with that.
It's perfectly legal in the Netherlands, because the lawmakers there have set it up that way. It's not regarded as particularly ethical by other countries who don't allow little to zero - read that again - zero taxes on royalties. Because that's what it can amount to, if set up properly. Dutch-international tax treaties are built on the principle that the other country party to the agreement will not withhold taxes for royalties because ostensibly that other country believes that it will be taxed on the Dutch side. However, it is largely not now or there are so many ways to move the money around once it's in the Netherlands that it effectively reduces the tax to almost nothing, and other countries are not all that happy about it. They are now looked at the "new Caymans", and I'm not making that up. You can easily read up on the various discussions that have gone on between policy makers about this. What this boils down to specifically is that while many here keep saying over and over "but it's taxed elsewhere", in reality, there is huge potential for it to be actually not taxed at all, or to any significant amount. And it's a significant amount of revenue.
It comes back to whether or not taxation is a good thing or a bad thing. It's not surprising that many in the US would applaud this move, it's an ingrained psychological belief that we should pay as little taxes as possible. However, development and aid are inextricably linked to at least some taxation on all income, perhaps even more, but not less.
What is especially troubling to me is that every time someone with some knowledge actually writes about this topic, say an international tax expert, policy maker, analyst, whatever, we - and I mean the collective here on Interference - immediately jump to the conclusion that all these persons must be "U2 haters" or part of the "anti-Bono brigade". What if they are simply taking a shot at the Dutch system in general, and U2 just happens to be now part of that equation? Does it not strike anyone as odd that the same laws that these guys change, modify and restructure every year almost are in direct contrast with laws in North America that we've had around for decades, almost unchanged?
These researchers and policy makers used to take similar shots at Ireland, because it wasn't a realistic taxation model. Ireland decided it could not longer offer a tax free royalty status, and most called this a moment of responsibility and enlightenment in terms of a progressive understanding of how closely taxation and development both in one's own country and other countries is linked. Even at 12.5%, Ireland is still a bargain compared to say paying those US royalties in the US (I believe 15-20% there). In the Netherlands on paper one can get 5%, and with the right amount of restructuring, it can be 0.
In reading about this over the past few years, I've done my best to ignore the 'rags' and the tabloid/trash journalists (you might recall me asking people from other countries a few times "what kind of publication is this, is it a legitimate newspaper") and instead have sought out respected researchers and experts as well as looked at the policy reforms implemented over the past few years. It's led to me thinking that this wasn't a great optics move on U2's part. Not "I hate U2" not "Bono's a hypocrite", but just a wish that they had decided to stay within the Irish system and pay a bit of tax in Ireland on that part of their revenue. Nothing more, nothing less.
Popmartijn
Blue Crack Supplier
Apparently, the tax rate on artist royalty payments is about 20% (Ireland Individual Artists Royalties). The 12.5% percent mentioned by some is the generic corporation tax rate, which is a different tax.
Hot air.
It was all facts.
Mostly responding to completely out there crap you said. Like say, calling in to question U2 Ltd paying employees.
What does your marginal rate have to do with the 12.5% corporate tax in Ireland?
Ut Ltd was never subject to this. The only things that might be are the studio, the Clarence, etc, depending on how they are set up and how much exactly they bring in.
When did I ever say you were a hypocrite?
I said you implied Bono was one, and endorsed others who flat out said this.
Get out of here with your marginal tax rate of 29%!
Bono's is about 40% in Ireland, and he pays taxes on a little more income than you.
So its not as if you contribute more.
So you are now the only one with access to U2 Ltd's tax returns?
You know for sure it is zero taxed. What, from reading articles like the left wing radical crap you linked, that somehow said the wrong headed neo con dream of shifting from wealth to consumption taxes was related to what U2 did?
I was no supporter of GW Bush or any like him, but to pretend that we were moving toward an international consensus on tax rates before he entered is laughable! Maybe on treaties, various loopholes, how we label ducks and rabbits, etc, but not on tax rates, no country would give up that sovereignty, even voluntarily.
The kind of left wing Socialist people that wrote that article have had a bias against Bono for years and years because he is a capitalist.
Everything I have read says they are paying taxes to the Netherlands.
Prove they're not or shut up.
Nothing to do with where you live.
I am not ideologically against taxes.
I would identify the Bush tax cuts as the single worst domestic policy decision in 35 years.
Nothing to do with psychologically ingrained anything, its just reality. Given the laws we are subject to and the means we have, we pay as few taxes as possible.
Everyone, everywhere does this.
I am not applauding the move, I really have no opinion on it, except for a big yawn and trying to get you to understand that it is how everyone operates. Read what VintagePunk said regarding child tax credits, expense deductions, etc. Who doesn't go to the tax guy and try to get the best deal possible? Who doesn't buy Turbo Tax or similar software?
Nothing to do with an ideological or psychological aversion to taxes.
You really consider journalists and the bs article you link international tax experts?
Some take a shot at the Dutch system in general, and if they want to include Bono, fine, I have no problem with that.
I laid out in detail how there is nothing even unethical about the Dutch trying to lure artists' headquarters with their tax rates. They're not hiding anything or allowing for massive sham paper corporations to be set up. Many experts and policy makers do not see a problem with this.
It is a fact that most of this crap about Bono is fueled by journalists.
International experts generally understand the mundane and innocent nature of headquartering a global business in the best tax climate very well. Too bad you don't.
These people are far less in number than the ones who criticize legitimate tax shelters like the Cayman Islands(places with little or no treaties, etc).
It is when others use this as a way to say that Bono is a tax evader or a hypocrite when he clearly is not.
So?
I don't think it was the fact that it was unrealistic that prompted the change in Ireland, but rather, and this is made clear in many articles, a perception that it was unfair to let U2 off the hook.
The move by Ireland was prompted by domestic rancor, nothing to do with a recognition or enlightenment of taxation and development in far off lands.
The Netherlands have a perfectly realistic system.
They get plenty of revenue, have a plenty vibrant financial sector, a progressive minded social structure and guess what, they're not bankrupt!
So how is it not realistic?
Ok, fine.
But stop going after those defending Bono against the hypocrite label by calling them mindless interference nuts, alright?
Hows that sound?
Again, I have no idea why you put so much stock in "optics" which are fueled by journalists and tabloids and especially given the fact that U2 still pay plenty of Irish taxes.
I'll never know why you or anyone wishes they'd headquarter a global business in Ireland for some obscure, intangible thing called "optics."
gvox
Ghost of Love
Martijn my understanding was that the corporate tax rate is 12.5% would be applied to the net profit of U2 Ltd's balance sheet (see 2006 by way of example?), because that is an incorporated entity, and the 20% as noted in the document you linked would be for individual direct royalties per musician.
Perhaps financeguy can provide a more learned interpretation there, as I think he's from there, isn't he?
gvox
Ghost of Love
U2387 you have nothing of any value to add. You can bluster and claim to know the facts all you want, but you've not added anything to this discussion except repeated unsubstantiated opinion. That's fine, your'e entitled to it. AP reported on publicly-available financial statements filed. None of the people I've read are necessarily socialists, commies, left-wing nutters, or anything else. You're just babbling on again.
I've stated my opinion and I'm done here.
I've stated my opinion and I'm done here.
Edge_Orchestra
Rock n' Roll Doggie FOB
Arguing seems silly. What is true is that it really doesn't matter.
A) What U2 did as a 'corporation' was 100% legal. They are not the first nor last to do such things. They are no lesser people for doing it. Simple effective business decision on their part.
B) Their tax money alone didn't cause the financial issue in Ireland nor would it cure those issues.
A) What U2 did as a 'corporation' was 100% legal. They are not the first nor last to do such things. They are no lesser people for doing it. Simple effective business decision on their part.
B) Their tax money alone didn't cause the financial issue in Ireland nor would it cure those issues.
Canadiens1131
ONE love, blood, life
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2004
- Messages
- 10,363
How are they going to "help out" by moving back to Ireland?
Put on white raincoats and stand on top of a factory and play music or something?
Put on white raincoats and stand on top of a factory and play music or something?
gvox
Ghost of Love
Canadiens1131
ONE love, blood, life
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2004
- Messages
- 10,363
Someone needs to edit some $$$ signs onto those barrels
Easier to do that than address the facts.
Nothing of value?
Just because I corrected you on a number of falsehoods does not mean that its opinion and bluster. You and James Kirk have been corrected on FACTS a number of times in this thread.
I do know the facts, fact is U2LTD pays taxes in the Netherlands. Its not zero, and you haven't provided any evidence that this is true.(there's the bluster, make stuff up with nothing to back it up)
And the crazy talk about optics, which is the opinion.
So that would be the opinion and bluster.
Notice again you didn't address how this DOES NOT in anyway conflict with any views or actions of Bono.
At a minimum, the article you linked was from a far left wing socialist source, the kind of people who dislike Bono anyway..........
Then you accuse Americans of hating taxes....not too hard to put 2 and 2 together as to what else you read.
You show no understanding of this issue, and have been flat out wrong on a number of things in this thread.
That's why you are done, not because of anything I did. Your done trying to defend what was a pretty stupid argument.
Good.
Someone said a long time ago here that GVOX creates and believes his own reality and he's certainly done nothing in the interim to show otherwise.....
james t kirk
Babyface
EXACTLY. Very well put.
Bottom Line, the optics of U2's decision to move to the Netherlands to avoid paying taxes in Ireland look very bad given the band / Bono's stand on feeding the poor (so to speak).
Now I'm not saying that Bono isn't doing a lot to advance the cause of elimintating extreme poverty, however, by moving its offices to the Netherlands to reduce their tax bill - the very place that Governments get their money to be able to finance their foreign aid, they (U2 and Bono in particular) do not appear to be sincere on the issue.
It's the old saying, "Put your money where your mouth is" and Bono is not doing that.
You don't see Bill Gates moving out of Seatle to the Caymen Islands.
Aygo
Rock n' Roll Doggie
I am socialist. Proud of the Western European Socialism... As it was a few decades ago. And I "vomit" the neo-liberal model "forced" in Europe since the late 1970's, as well as the Christian-conservative movements. In Portugal, I belong to what some call (unfairly) «The Caviar Left».
So, yes, I'm an aspiring dictator/monster and I'm going to invade America with massive destruction cold weapons... from the cold Russia and force fake-Socialism worldwide.
Popmartijn
Blue Crack Supplier
No, but the money Microsoft receives from selling its software license go through the corporation they have in Nevada (as it isn't taxed there) and royalty payments on patents go through their corporation in Ireland (as that isn't taxed there).
BTW, Bono isn't moving out of Dublin to the Cayman Islands either.
james t kirk
Babyface
It's simply a question of the sum of the parts.
Sure, even if U2 gave Ireland every cent they have in the bank it would not be enough.
BUT
Let's face it, you add up all the tax avoiders out there and it adds up to be a lot of money. Say U2 saves 10 million Euros a year by moving U2 Inc to the Netherlands. 10 million Euros is peanuts compared to the 80 billion Euros that Ireland is going to borrow from the IMF and the EU. But 10 million Euros pays a lot of teachers, a lot of nurses, might even build a bridge. None of which can be done otherwise.
It all adds up.
I recall reading about Greece that they only collect about half of the taxes that they should be because so many people are operating in the black market economy. It may not cure the problem, but boy, it sure would help.
U2 was for years Ireland's biggest export. If that is the case - it shows you how sad Ireland's economy is, but it also shows you how important they are.
Marien
Refugee
Surely you haven't heard the news, the Irish goverment is going to fire 25000 civil servants, pensions are going to be cut and VAT is going to be increased to a 23% (the highest, I think, in Europe) except for the foreing corporations, they will still pay 12% and that's the main reason why U2 moved their publishing business in the first place, because they were taxed and foreign business weren't or were paying a much lower percentage, the Irish wanted to become a tax shelter, they thought they were being smart, they didn't worry about unemployment and taxes in the countries these corporations were abandoning, but when one of their corporations took advantage of the idea and did the same in their own benefit they felt offended and thought they were stolen, of what? what is it that U2 have that they haven't worked for? Now here we are discussing this ridiculous idea that they should return to Ireland with their business to help the Irish while nobody thinks about asking reponsibilities to those that have caused this disaster, to those who have, are and will be getting richer and richer from all this, nobody thinks about asking the Irish goverment where is the money they have received from the European Union in the last 10 years, why there aren't any industries, why no roads have been built, what have they done with the money?
financeguy
ONE love, blood, life
They did build a few roads, in fairness. Not sure if we need all these roads any more, but anyway!
Btw, we had a zero rate of corporation tax before joining the European Community! It is not correct to say we did not compromise.
Ireland, to be blunt, isn't European, and neither is Britain. In my view both countries should aim to remove themselves from the European Union which is a crazy federalist project. We should ally ourselves with Britain and the Scandinavians.
We are quite prepared to destroy the Euro if our taxpayers are forced into starvation to pay the bad gambling debts of German, French and Belgian banks. We cannot repay these debts and we will not do so.
In her defence, Merkel is trying to put together a plan so that in the future bondholders have to take a hit if banks fail. I agree with her on this.
financeguy
ONE love, blood, life
Sorry, this is completely incorrect. U2 was never, ever, at any time, Ireland's biggest export in money terms (maybe in the cultural sense). If you travelled to Ireland even now in the middle of a depression you would see a relatively highly developed economy. You would not get the impression you were in a developing country.
Marien
Refugee
Well, you built the M-50 and the N-2 near Dublin, but nothing in the rest of the country, your governments have been getting lots of money for a long time, I know you were in a very bad situation before getting into the EU, so I don't ask about the first 20 years, you built homes for people, that's ok, but what's happened to the money from last years? I'm interested because part of this money was mine; you know there have been a few scandals about that, but in the end nothing has been done, you can travel to Portugal or Spain, that were also poor countries before they got into the EU, you can see their infrastructures, they are ten times better than those in the UK because they are new, where are your industries? and how do you want to have a good economy without having an industrial sector, of any kind?
The Irish may not feel European, which I doubt, but I don't think it is very fair to say that after getting money from Europe for over 30 years, I don't think you'd be much better off being allied with the British, last time I was In Ireland, people were still very happy of having their independence from them.
Finally about the taxes, I don't mind if you had them or not before getting into the European Union, the fact is that you attracted the multinationals because the taxes were very low or didn't exist and nobody talked about the countries and the employees they were leaving behind, you thought it was ok because it was good for your country, but then a new tax was created for the Irish corporations (and sometimes I think it was tailor-made for U2) and when U2 moved their business, you started to cry about it, well, you can't play a double game, if it is fair, legal and good when it is to your benefit, then it is fair, legal and good when it is not, the contrary is pure hypocrisy.
Aygo
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Isn't the VAT going to increase to 24%? In Portugal we already have 21% it will increase to 23% (but I'm sure that it'll go to 25% or more after the IMF)... Poor irish too...
- Status
Similar threads
