U2 being accused of robbing the poor

[Salome]

yep, they obviously try to minimize profits so that they will pay less tax in order to shaft Africa

 

[mama cass]

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)

 

[ybab gnuthca]

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)

BINGO!

We have a winner.

 

[Salome]

it's the not practising that you (U2) preach bit I still don't get
I truthfully don't see the implied connection at all
but oh well

 

[gvox]

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.

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

 

[VintagePunk]

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..)

Yes, I knew what you meant so I'm not really sure I needed another illustration, but thanks anyway. I still maintain that as long as the band/corporation/individual is working within the bounds of the law, then they're fine, it's not a problem. For me, this isn't even a grey area - it's legal so it's allowable. If the nation(s) in question have a problem with it, then it's time for them to tighten up their tax legislation to make this kind of activity illegal. Furthermore, the biggest offenders would be multi-billion dollar corporations, so it makes little sense to look to a rock band to make an example of, legal or not.

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.

Nothing in this changes my mind, either, so I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

I think that many people, yourself included, must be looking at this situation in very black and white terms, when it's not a black and white situation at all, there are many shades of grey. I feel like I'm repeating myself, but here goes - these are the reasons that I think U2/Bono are just fine with their decision:

-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.

-they still pay personal taxes as well as the bulk of their corporate taxes in Ireland, along with paying more corporate taxes to many, many other nations in the world. They also employ hundreds in Ireland, who also spend money and pay taxes there.

-it really IS a decision made by all of them, Bono isn't an independent entity within the band, he really is only 1/5th. It doesn't matter that the others have publicly supported his work. We don't know the extent to which they support it. Maybe they just support it in theory, but are not willing to lose money themselves, and that's fair. If I had a friend whose work required expensive equipment, I could be supportive of that friend's work without actually wanting to help pay for the equipment. Doesn't mean I'm not supportive, just doesn't mean I feel obligated to contribute.

-the nation they chose to seek their tax haven in does have a much higher rate of foreign aid per GDI than does Ireland. The original argument was that this is all about Africa, so IMO, that should matter a great deal. What doesn't matter is their motivation, if that factored in or not, because we can't know that. However, I would speculate (note: SPECULATE; CONJECTURE, thoughts on my part that have helped me to arrive at my opinions) that perhaps for Bono, this did have some importance. Maybe it was a compromise that was reached, and why he agreed to do this, taking part of their taxes to another nation that offered them a better rate, but also paid a higher portion to foreign aid. I'm sure that anyone that is familiar with Bono's work and his incredible memory for detail would agree that he could probably name the top 20 or so nations that contribute to foreign aid, in the correct order, off the top of his head. So yes, I have a strong feeling he knew what he was agreeing to.

-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.

-Finally, if there's some sort of perception problem on the part of the public, then isn't that kind of the public's fault, too, from not being informed, from just listening to sound bytes on the news, and not taking all the facts into account? The fact is, a lot of people like to think the worst of others, they like to see the mighty fall.

I'm sure I could come up with more, but I have other things I have to do. And as I said, I'm just repeating myself at this point, so unless something new comes up, I'm bowing out of this thread for now.

 

[Greenlight]

-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.

.

That may be so but as U2 own the copyright in their material the amount they earn in royalties per album is much more than most other groups. I also remember reading that when the new Irish tax law was introduced, U2 ended up paying millions more in tax for that year before they moved that part of the business to the Netherlands. Still I'm not knocking U2's decision at all but it doesn't sit well from a PR point of view.

-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.

Bono's apparently sponsoring the Red Nose climb up Kilimanjaro that a number of Brit celebs are doing for Comic Relief this year The BT Red Nose Climb of Mount Kilimanjaro
May well be wrong but it's the first time I've seen him publicly donating money to a cause (rather than just donating items he's owned for charity etc). I agree he's probably privately donated loads of money to his causes in the past but the timing of this suggests a bit of a damage limitation exercise.

 

[mystery girl]

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

 

[Bonoa]

It seems that they pay their taxes in the Netherlands now.
Yay!

 

[Muldfeld]

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. 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.

 

[BVS]

I like your style, Dude. All excellent points. While what U2 is doing might be legal, it's not very ethical.

Ethical? Why because they live in Ireland? Their income as far as royalties come from all over not just Ireland so the ethical argument comes crashing down.

By doing this, it hurts his moral argument about the rich (whether people or countries) doing their greater share to help the more needy.

You obviously didn't read the whole thread. The country they now base out of gives more % wise to the cause. So not only does it allow them to give more out of their own pocket(which they do) but now more of their taxes go toward the cause. So now the moral agument is shut down as well.

 

[Salome]

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 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?

 

[zwervers2]

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?

that is why I do not pay taxes so I can give more to Africa

 

[Salome]

that 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

 

[zwervers2]

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

The 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.

 

[mikal]

can we change the title of this thread to "OMG!!11 U2 r evildoers!!!111"?

 

[iacrobat]

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.

 

[zwervers2]

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.

aren't we the ones that pay actualy? I mean buying cd's , tourickets and t-shirts

 

[Salome]

The 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

 

[zwervers2]

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 am glad we can make a fresh start again

 

[A stor]

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.

 

[mystery girl]

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.

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.

 

[Copy]

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

Exactly. Tax is something you are forced to pay to help other people, because we have plenty of empirical evidence that proves that private donations are not enough. Avoiding tax is largely implying that you don't like to contribute to that pot. Fine, but don't pester other people, trying to give them a bad conscience for being better off than Africans every night, or tell governments how they are to use the tax money that you are trying to avoid paying yourself.

 

[U2girl]

"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."

 

[A stor]

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.

Hi Mystery Girl! And thanks for your reply. I don't necessarily agree with U2's business decision, either. Though, as an outsider, the timing of the protest. I felt, perhaps, not the best way to get their point across.

 

[ybab gnuthca]

Of course Bono is an easy target. he has made himself that.