U2 being accused of robbing the poor

[walkon274]

I'll throw my two cents in. I loved the fact U2 was politically active all through the 90's. However, somewhere between ATYCLB and HTDAAB Bono went from dabbling enough in humanitarian efforts into becoming a freefalling diplomat out to save the world. However, from the beginning, as a millionaire rock star who lives in the south of France most of the time, he was setting himself up for hypocrisy.

Seriously, what's the first thing most people think about when they here some loaded celebrity asking normal people on shite wages to give more to the poor? They think, if you care so damn much, why don't you give your entire fortune to the poor and live on my wages?

So now fast forward to 2006-2007 when U2 decided to mosey on over to the Netherlands. Bono's mouth was biggest right when he and his band were trying to contribute less to the government they live under. It just smacks of hypocrisy.

PR damage big time IMHO. I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle. I don't think they're scheming to rob the poor. However, I also don't think they're innocent angels either. I think, just like any other self-concerned individuals, they are trying to maximize their wealth, which is fine. However, don't do that while at the same time tell others to do the exact opposite.

 

[gvox]

Ok I don't feel like wading through 9 pages of mostly ill-informed blabbering, so I ask the following questions:

1. What part of U2 moved to the Netherlands?

2. Why did they do so?

3. What is the corporate tax rate (or whatever rate applies) in the Netherlands and what is it in Ireland?

4. Which country is honoring their obligations/promises to drop the debt and which country does more for people in need with the tax dollars they collect?


A couple of things I don't think matter, including Edge's comment are the fact that they pay taxes around the world. Big deal, so does everyone else that earns a foreign income. They still pay tax in their home country. Also I don't think that whether or not U2 band members privately donate funds to charities is relevant here.

I've had a couple of different opinions on this but right now I'm leaning towards more of the 'this is a bit problematic for me to reconcile' U2 fan, but I need some better, more informed answers. Hell, factual links would be great also.

 

[VintagePunk]

Ok I don't feel like wading through 9 pages of mostly ill-informed blabbering, so I ask the following questions:

All your questions can be answered within the thread, and not all of it's ill-informed, it's worth a read.

 

[VintagePunk]

the reason they go after Bono/U2 rather than Corporation X is because it just seems more shocking when you look at the ethos of the band and the philosophy and image associated with the band, not to mention Bono's high-profile work outside the band (which i respect greatly)

everyone expects corporations to do this kind of thing, to be The Man and avoid paying taxes even though they are fully able to pay their dues (and not struggling to make ends meet but still forced to pay like your average family/small business for instance) and i think it's been really damaging for the band's whole image (and detrimental to Bono's campaigning credibility, sadly) whether rightly so or not... because it's just waiting to be used as ammo...

mind you, some governments are threatening to look into these tax havens and tax loopholes now aren't they, as they needing all the extra resources they can get in these times... so it will be interesting to see how things pan out...

I'm well aware of why they're going after Bono. I said why in the post you quoted. That still doesn't make it right, or make it so that the accusations are founded. Sadly, as I mentioned before, the most people don't bother to look into the truth, and the take home message from the sound bytes is that U2 don't pay taxes, so they're hypocrites. It's really unfortunate, and those aid organizations whom Bono's basically given over a decade of his life to should know better than to use one of their best allies to further their cause. They're the much bigger hypocrites, In my opinion.

 

[BVS]

They think, if you care so damn much, why don't you give your entire fortune to the poor and live on my wages?

I agree there are people who think this, but it honestly has to be one of the most ignorant lines of thinking I've ever seen.

However, don't do that while at the same time tell others to do the exact opposite.

HOW are they telling you to do the EXACT OPPOSITE? No one has been able to answer this for me...

 

[innocent_eyes]

I agree there are people who think this, but it honestly has to be one of the most ignorant lines of thinking I've ever seen.




HOW are they telling you to do the EXACT OPPOSITE? No one has been able to answer this for me...

This is true. Never once was I told to give up money for the cause, I did buy the One wristbands, but because I wanted one and the cause was a good one. I was however, asked to use my voice and email my Prime Minister about debt cancelkation and aids in Africa, and sign petitions, etc...all that cost me was a little bit of time.

 

[boNOSE]

LOL, come ON !

I would sincerely doubt U2 are above doing what's best for them tax-wise, just as I would doubt any one else is. The tax laws are there to be taken advantage of, and an accountant's job is to push the law right up to the wall without going over it. There's a big difference between breaking the law and taking full advantage of it.

But Bono is a character played by Paul David Hewson born may 10 1960. Bono is about as real a person as Siendfeldt, ALice Cooper, Oprah Winfrey or Super Mario. They are personnas. But it should come to no one's surprise that Paul David would rather have a yacht lol.

 

[VintagePunk]

HOW are they telling you to do the EXACT OPPOSITE? No one has been able to answer this for me...

Oh! Oh! I think I know this one! Is it because there is no answer?

This is true. Never once was I told to give up money for the cause, I did buy the One wristbands, but because I wanted one and the cause was a good one. I was however, asked to use my voice and email my Prime Minister about debt cancelkation and aids in Africa, and sign petitions, etc...all that cost me was a little bit of time.

Some of the people in this thread and otherwise are arguing that Bono is asking people to contribute more via their governments, because the governments will have to charge more in taxes to make up for the extra they give in ODA funding. However, that's a fallacy that some are clinging to, and when you think of it, it makes very little sense. What BVS was trying to get through to an obtuse poster a few pages back is that increased funds in ODAs can be achieved by restructuring how their foreign aid is spent - by making sure it's spent more effectively and going to the right places, those most in need. And even if they did put extra funding beyond that into the ODA, that doesn't automatically mean there will be a tax increase for citizens. Governments opt to spend more money on specific things all the time. Every time this happens, does that mean an automatic tax increase for citizens? Certainly not. These are just a few things that critics like to gloss over, though.

 

[Salome]

I know. That's why I asked if my hypothetical would be better, if they paid in the country that taxes artists' royalties at the highest rates, a country that also had the highest rate of aid sent to Africa. So far no one has answered this. Because if the issue really is the poverty stricken Africans, the answer would obviously be yes.


The very, very obvious point I'm attempting to make is that to some, it's obviously not about African aid, it's about slamming a very wealthy and powerful band. Slamming a band for doing something completely legal. And what if the money that they gained by doing what they're doing in taxes, they paid that out in personal donations? Which I'd be willing to bet is the case, and more, probably.

So to pretend it's about Africa is ridiculous. Ireland's not losing a damn thing - it's money earned worldwide, a very, very tiny percentage of which was earned in Ireland. They still pay a hell of a lot of taxes there.

I don't see where this is anything but pettiness and utter jealousy. The fucking aid groups should be grateful for the attention that Bono has brought to their cause.

this thread should have ended here
it's almost laughable that Bono is the one being accused of being a hypocrite

 

[YBORCITY]

why aren't all of you focusing on the most important issueof all?

Will Bono be okay?

Is Bono going to be okay?

 

[MikeyJB]

I'll throw my two cents in. I loved the fact U2 was politically active all through the 90's. However, somewhere between ATYCLB and HTDAAB Bono went from dabbling enough in humanitarian efforts into becoming a freefalling diplomat out to save the world. However, from the beginning, as a millionaire rock star who lives in the south of France most of the time, he was setting himself up for hypocrisy.

Seriously, what's the first thing most people think about when they here some loaded celebrity asking normal people on shite wages to give more to the poor? They think, if you care so damn much, why don't you give your entire fortune to the poor and live on my wages?

So now fast forward to 2006-2007 when U2 decided to mosey on over to the Netherlands. Bono's mouth was biggest right when he and his band were trying to contribute less to the government they live under. It just smacks of hypocrisy.

PR damage big time IMHO. I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle. I don't think they're scheming to rob the poor. However, I also don't think they're innocent angels either. I think, just like any other self-concerned individuals, they are trying to maximize their wealth, which is fine. However, don't do that while at the same time tell others to do the exact opposite.

I agree with you 100% on this. From a general standing-back vantage point it looks awful on them. I understand the reasons and don't necessarily condone them for doing it, I just think its the most poorly managed business move they've ever made.

 

[U2isthebest]

Will Bono be okay?

Is Bono going to be okay?

No.

 

[susanp6]

Funny thing is that only today Bono announced on radio 1 that they are trying to sort out cheap concert tickets

 

[gvox]

VP you are making good points and all, but have U2 out and out stated why they have moved their tax base, other than the standard tax efficiency explanation?

I mean, if it was truly to achieve what you are hypothesizing, ie, to pay more taxes in a country which does more or honors it's promises more, wouldn't they say something like that?

I think that's a bit of a stretch, honestly. I guess I'm going to have to wade thru all the pages to find out that the tax rate in the Netherlands is more than anywhere else they could have relocated? More than Ireland? Why am I getting the feeling that after all that digging, it will still seem like a fairly remote explanation?

Put it to you this way: a U.S. citizen pays taxes and their government spends an obscene amount of money on armaments and funding wars. Does that person necessarily have the right to move their tax base offshore as a sort of 'concientious objection' to the way the US misuses that person's tax dollar? If U2 have a problem with what their government is doing with their taxes and how it relates to foreign aid, well then they should rightfully be doing everything they can to pressure change. "Tax efficient restructuring" which involves them paying less taxes should not necessarily be one of them.

I just think that there is this hypothetical correlation floating around between their tax decisions and their opinion on how the Irish government is spending said taxes and I'm not so sure it's a logical one, that's all I'm saying.

I'll go read some and come back, tho

 

[oceane]

As much as I think some people are exagerating about this story and saying a lot of false things (such as U2 don't pay taxes etc.), the fact is what they are doing IS tax avoidance, and I am dissapointed in their decision, and the way they have dealt with it. The fact that they did not do anything illegal does not mean it's ok. Putting all your profit into Cayman Islands can be legal, but it doesn't mean that tax evasion is not a serious problem in the world economy (and one that Obama has promised to tackle, fortunately).

The reality is Bono is held to higher standards because of what he stands for, and he should be. I don't like seeing people talking shit about U2, but I must admit that if I was a campaigner against corporate tax avoidance, I woud consider U2 and Bono in particular a very good and legitimate target.

I think it was a terrible decision, not to mention a PR catastophe. This issue is not going away, simply because, not matter what the accounting details are, symbolically it looks terrrible and yes, hypocritical. They should recognise they made a mistake and go back on this decision IMO.

Btw, I am 100% behind Bono on all his activism work, and I have no doubt in my mind that he truly believes in what he does. But this was very poor judgment on his part, and I find the ways he's been justifying it quite dissapointing.

 

[VintagePunk]

Put it to you this way: a U.S. citizen pays taxes and their government spends an obscene amount of money on armaments and funding wars. Does that person necessarily have the right to move their tax base offshore as a sort of 'concientious objection' to the way the US misuses that person's tax dollar? If U2 have a problem with what their government is doing with their taxes and how it relates to foreign aid, well then they should rightfully be doing everything they can to pressure change. "Tax efficient restructuring" which involves them paying less taxes should not necessarily be one of them.

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.

I just think that there is this hypothetical correlation floating around between their tax decisions and their opinion on how the Irish government is spending said taxes and I'm not so sure it's a logical one, that's all I'm saying.

I'll go read some and come back, tho

I suggest you do, because I didn't make that claim at all. In fact, I stated that all we have to go on are facts, not their intentions, but that being Bono has immersed himself in the world of international aid for a long time now, I'm sure he knows which nations contribute the most, right off the top of his head. Who knows if that factored into his decision or not, though. And also, his is only 1/5th of the decision, as I'm sure you're aware.

 

[mama cass]

The fucking aid groups should be grateful for the attention that Bono has brought to their cause.

"fucking aid groups"?

but aren't these the people on the ground doing all the thankless hard work day in day out?

 

[mama cass]

I mean, if it was truly to achieve what you are hypothesizing, ie, to pay more taxes in a country which does more or honors it's promises more, wouldn't they say something like that?

I think that's a bit of a stretch, honestly. I guess I'm going to have to wade thru all the pages to find out that the tax rate in the Netherlands is more than anywhere else they could have relocated? More than Ireland? Why am I getting the feeling that after all that digging, it will still seem like a fairly remote explanation?

...

I just think that there is this hypothetical correlation floating around between their tax decisions and their opinion on how the Irish government is spending said taxes and I'm not so sure it's a logical one, that's all I'm saying.

I'll go read some and come back, tho

i agree with this - i think people are clutching at straws trying to defend the band's decision...

i don't know if their decision to move to the Netherlands had such noble reasons re. aid contributions

because for a start, Bono, when interviewed briefly in France after meeting with Sarkozy at the Elysee and challenged on this tax issue, wasn't too happy and said the decision wasn't anything to do with him

but of course because he is the frontman and because of his work, he's the one that gets slammed for it by the general masses sadly...

 

[Salome]

of course they didn't move part of the business to The Netherlands because that way they contribute more to 3rd world countries
they did it to pay less business taxes (and at least they didn't move their business to the Cayman Islands)

I just understand what is hypocritical about U2 setting up their business so they pay less money and Bono asking governments to allocate more money to 3rd world nations
I just don't see it really
they do pay millions of taxes as it is
surely the suggestion that how the U2 business is set up is even 0.000001% as important as government decisions on foreign aids is ludicrous
the statement that Bono robs the poor would even suggest that U2 business decisions have a noticable effect on the poor
it's not even a drop in the ocean

for me the hypocrisy is that for the benefit of your own campaign you target the 1 person who has actually accomplished something in this field
perhaps if Bono indeed is such a hypocrite he should stop his campaigning - problem solved!

 

[A stor]

What bothers me the most about all of this, is the timing.....

U2 LTD as we all know, moved a part of their corporation out of Ireland in 2006. I am assuming that "royalties" would fall under some sort of a smaller personal income. Since, most of the money made by U2 is from cd sales and even more so, from touring. At least this is the way it is for most bands.

The demonstration, which took place on the eve of their album release and to launch a worldwide talent search, of who can poke the most fun, at Bono's lyrics. Would be almost laughable, if it wasn't so hurtful. I can't imagine Catholic Relief or Doctors Without Borders, ever using such cheap tactics.

I have a much lower opinion of those who represented these aid groups. Than, I do of U2 LTD's business affairs.

 

[Chief43]

It just comes down to the fact that everybody suffers from tall poppy syndrome and needs a whinge. I come from a country where the media suffers chronically from it. I still love you Australia.

Simple fact of the matter is Bono has stated that people use their voice to create action, not always their wallets, and has continually achieved more as an advocate than most charities. I worked for one a few years back and I can tell you that almost a third of the donations do not make it to the source and go into administration costs. Yet U2's tax haven has been much more damaging right?

Simply put, this isn't about Africa, this is about the middle class cutting down the highest branch on the tree. If that's the perception - apply for a citizenship in Soviet Russia and tell me how that goes. Then everyone can be 'equal'

 

[A stor]

It just comes down to the fact that everybody suffers from tall poppy syndrome and needs a whinge. I come from a country where the media suffers chronically from it. I still love you Australia.

Simple fact of the matter is Bono has stated that people use their voice to create action, not always their wallets, and has continually achieved more as an advocate than most charities. I worked for one a few years back and I can tell you that almost a third of the donations do not make it to the source and go into administration costs. Yet U2's tax haven has been much more damaging right?

Simply put, this isn't about Africa, this is about the middle class cutting down the highest branch on the tree. If that's the perception - apply for a citizenship in Soviet Russia and tell me how that goes. Then everyone can be 'equal'

Well said!

And I think you have brought up an important point. Next time any of us donate to a charity, find out how much of your money is actually going to aid and not administration cost. At least eighty percent of it. Should be directed to aid.

And in the U.S. The wealthiest five percent, pay a much higher percentage of taxes on income earned, then I do.

 

[mama cass]

little quote from an article in The Guardian:

As you may recall, the Tax Justice Network estimates that if tax was paid on the money the world's rich have protected in tax havens, it would raise enough to finance those millennium development goals five times over.

Marina Hyde: Give to the rich to help the poor? An idea worthy of Bono | Comment is free | The Guardian

the article has some interesting points but is pretty mean though with Bono getting a lot of flak, see, people will just keep on using it as ammo!

 

[ybab gnuthca]

Well, if we can actually do what DATA etc. suggest and avoid this "completely avoidable catastrophe" in Africa just by spending what is already spent a little more effectively, then I'd say we really are fools for not doing so.

 

[mikal]

am i the only one that could really care less about this?

 

[hcbiggs2002]

am i the only one that could really care less about this?

Make that two! I mean really surely U2 have every right to do whatever they want, within the law, with their own money! Although I agree this has been a major PR nightmare for U2, and I suspect that U2 didn't expect that, them moving a small portion of the company to The Netherlands, would still be making head lines 3 years later!!

And I honestly don't see the connection between Bono asking governments to keep to their promise of allocating 0.7% of their GDP to foreign aid and U2s business decision!!

The reasons why U2 did what they did, is their business and no body elses as far as I'm conerned and I personally don't even care!! Can't we agree to disgree on this subject and let it go all ready?!?

 

[VintagePunk]

I never said that Bono/U2 moved part of their income base to The Netherlands because that country contributes more to African aid, people, use your reading comprehension skills.

I brought out those numbers because the claim was being made by those aid groups protesting, and by some in this thread, that the main motivation for protesting in the first place, and bringing Bono/U2 into this is, concern for Africa - that African aid is being decreased because businesses (including U2) are seeking tax shelters - and NOT just for the sake of slamming Bono/U2.

So, by showing that The Netherlands pays a higher rate to aid, I dispelled that argument. It doesn't matter what Bono/U2's motivations were, the fact is, where they're seeking their tax haven contributes considerably more in aid than Ireland does, period.

If the main argument/protest is really out of concern for Africa, then that fact should end it, right? But surprise, it didn't.

So, what does this tell you? It's not really about Africa after all, it's about using Bono/U2 to gain publicity.

It's really very simple.

"fucking aid groups"?

but aren't these the people on the ground doing all the thankless hard work day in day out?

Yes, "fucking aid groups." What they're currently doing to Bono/U2 is deplorable.

Yes, they are doing the work. But then, so is Bono. And I think if numbers were crunched, Bono has probably achieved more dollars for the cause then they have, at least over the last decade. It's insane to take someone who should be thought of as your closest ally and stab them in the back. Go after the billion dollar corporations, sure, but not U2.

 

[mama cass]

edited to say: zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

[YBORCITY]

Funny thing is that only today Bono announced on radio 1 that they are trying to sort out cheap concert tickets

First not paying taxes that will end up NOT FEEDING everyone in Africa NOW THIS???

the little Bastrd

I wouldn't trust any of them any more.

 

[mama cass]

First not paying taxes that will end up NOT FEEDING everyone in Africa NOW THIS???

the little Bastrd

I wouldn't trust any of them any more.