Lola's at it again

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
indra said:
The publishing wing of their business may well be a small percentage of their business, but if the amount was truly insignificant, they would not have bothered to move it. You can bet your ass it's a pretty hefty chunk of change.

The negative press makes it sound as if U2 has taken away money that they already owed Ireland. They have made it sound like tax evasion. All U2 did was make a very smart, legal business decision to avoid having to START paying 42% tax on their publishing income. The problem is that the Irish government was probably salivating over the prospect of getting 42% of U2's incredible publishing catalogue and now they won't get it. I've said it before and I'll say it again, find my ONE reasonably sane person who would happily pay 42% tax on any of their income when they have a perfectly legal way to avoid it.

What I admire is that U2 have refused to be drawn into any kind of arguement in defense of this move. They could defend themselves easily by publishing what they give to charity but they have stood by their belief that charity is private and will not defend themselves by publishing what they do. There is a DVD called Out of Ireland which is about Irish musicians and there are comments made by other artist about the incredible contribution U2 have made to the Irish economy with Van Morrison in particular saying that there would be no Music Idustry in Ireland without U2. Another unauthorized biography DVD has interviews with various people who talk about how U2's ongoing support of many charities is dependant on those charities not disclosing the fact or any details about their contributions. Many of their concerts over the years have had all profits donated to various charities with this often not being made public until someone leaks it. I remember seeing a throw away comment in an article about The Clarence losing money that said maybe if they didn't let their down and out friends stay there for free they might make a profit.

As for Lola Cashman, Bono said once before the book was originally published that they tried to settle things with Lola but not only did she refuse to return their stuff but she basically tried to blackmail them with the threat of the book. There was no way they were rolling over for that. He was furious about the book because she betrayed their privacy and confidence. From various comments in articles and interviews it seems that Lola rubbed everybody the wrong way right off the bat and Bono actually defended her and tried to mediate between her and others in the U2 camp so to me that makes what she did an even stronger betrayal of him. Personally she sounds like stalker material to me.

Dana
 
Aside from the tiny issue of the tax rate being 43% (I'd like to see anyone making as much money as U2 not trying their best to avoid paying nearly half on their royalties earnings) and the part that this is only one part of the taxes U2 is paying, what doesn't get mentioned is that what U2 did was going back to the way the things were, in that they weren't paying that same tax for the past 25 years (I'd like to think the Ireland economy has got, is getting and will continue to get quite a bit of money out of U2 yet, as long as they continue living and working there). Where was the "hypocrits" crying of the media then?

Of course, not newsworthy material like for instance each member of U2 and McGuiness donating a million of euros each during the last tour for charity gets skipped. But then again, assuming they do not donate for charity is easier than doing some research. Or that Bono = U2.

Someone asked why U2 gets ragged on by the Irish newspapers. Well, titles like "Big bad Bono bullies the ex stylist" sell. Even if she took this whole thing to court first, and has issues with letting things go.
 
Last edited:
Ralphie said:
Why is the Irish Independent so hard on U2?

Here it's called The Jante Law, Down Under it's called The Tall Poppy Syndrome... can't remember what it's called in Ireland... :shrug:
 
U2girl said:
Aside from the tiny issue of the tax rate being 43% (I'd like to see anyone making as much money as U2 not trying their best to avoid paying nearly half on their royalties earnings)

What bothers me about that is that Bono is always preaching about helping the poor, and begging for money for other countries, but when it comes to doing his share (finally after all these years) to help out his OWN country, he runs and hides his stash. There are people in Ireland who need help too. His money would go a long way. In America, there are 'tax shelters' for those who give a lot to charity, and donations can be written off on your taxes. I'm sure Ireland must have something like that. If he were to set up his own Irish charity, he'd know where the money is going, and he'd be able to deduct it from what he owes in taxes. But no, he wants it all for himself. I don't know how much he's got, but BEFORE the Vertigo tour he was worth over 100 million US dollars. Sorry, to me it makes him come off as greedy and cold and rude that he would leave his own country to avoid helping his own countrymen, even in the form of a tax relief charity. I lost a lot of respect for him for that, and I can't excuse it.

Reading Lola's comments, I see in them what I was really kind of suspecting all along, and I think she may have a point. After all she knows him better than any of us do. And money always talks.

Of course I don't know him personally so I can't make complete judgements, but those are my observations and opinions.
 
U2Kitten said:
Sorry, to me it makes him come off as greedy and cold and rude that he would leave his own country to avoid helping his own countrymen, even in the form of a tax relief charity.

1. Bono does not equal U2.

2. Where did you get the idea that the taxes on royalties would be given to charity by the Irish government? :eyebrow:

Your theory is backwards. If you want Bono to give MORE money to charity, then wouldn't it make more sense for him to move business elsewhere, retain what he would have paid in taxes, and give that to charity? How do you know he's not?

3. U2 are not the first big band to move their business to the Netherlands. Apparently they are a better country for this type of business. What they are doing is not illegal or cheating. If I was selling a product that was demanded exclusively in the Netherlands, I'd go there to sell it. Ireland changed the law that protected U2 for so long, so if we're going to complain about countrymen cheating each other, complain that they should not have changed the law.

4. Bono has never been about charity. That is what his mission is trying to avoid. I've heard him say it in person multiple times "it's not about charity, it's about justice." We can't make assumptions about what he should and shouldn't do if we're not even getting the point.
 
U2Kitten said:


What bothers me about that is that Bono is always preaching about helping the poor, and begging for money for other countries, but when it comes to doing his share (finally after all these years) to help out his OWN country, he runs and hides his stash. There are people in Ireland who need help too. His money would go a long way. In America, there are 'tax shelters' for those who give a lot to charity, and donations can be written off on your taxes. I'm sure Ireland must have something like that. If he were to set up his own Irish charity, he'd know where the money is going, and he'd be able to deduct it from what he owes in taxes. But no, he wants it all for himself. I don't know how much he's got, but BEFORE the Vertigo tour he was worth over 100 million US dollars. Sorry, to me it makes him come off as greedy and cold and rude that he would leave his own country to avoid helping his own countrymen, even in the form of a tax relief charity. I lost a lot of respect for him for that, and I can't excuse it.

Ya know, it's not just Bono's money we're talking about here, there are 3 other members in the band! :huh: No make that 4, doesn't Paul get part of the royalty fees as well?!? You're making the usual assumption that Bono MEANS U2!! And the money made out of royalties also probably goes towards paying for employees wages, tours, and part of it probably even ends being donated to charities. And that 100 million you quote Bono being worth, I'm sure includes the houses, the cars companies etc. he owns. :eyebrow:
 
hcbiggs2002 said:


Ya know, it's not just Bono's money we're talking about here, there are 3 other members in the band! :huh: No make that 4, doesn't Paul get part of the royalty fees as well?!? You're making the usual assumption that Bono MEANS U2!! And the money made out of royalties also probably goes towards paying for employees wages, tours, and part of it probably even ends being donated to charities. And that 100 million you quote Bono being worth, I'm sure includes the houses, the cars companies etc. he owns. :eyebrow:

But you see, BONO is the one who is always whining about the poor, and how for the price of a movie or a lunch out you can save so many from poverty, yadda yadda yadda. Edge has helped a few things lately, but I have never heard of the others professing humanitarianism over materialism the way Bono does. So that's why he's being singled out as the 'hypocrite'.:|

Did you know Bono didn't even acknowledge the African Well Fund, which online fans started in his honor, until one of them met him at an airport and brought it up? Then some kind of statement was issued. I would have expected him to publically praise the charity and match the funds. If ordinary working folk can raise 18,000 for 18 wells, why wouldn't he match it, if he cares as much as he says? I was very disappointed about that. Bill Gates has given more of his fortune than Bono is even worth. I like guys who put their money where their mouth is. IMO Bono should do the same, or stop complaining that politicians don't do enough. I know anything he does is better than nothing, but he's really making himself look like a hypocrite to non-U2 worshippers.
 
Last edited:
Yes but my point is that the idea to move the royalty portion of the business wasn't just Bono's decision to make! For we know Bono may have been against the idea but got voted down by the other 4!?! :shrug:
 
It doesn't help;)

I have really always thought this stuff but didn't have the balls to say it. Maybe I shouldn't have. Sorry :reject:
 
Of course you're entitled to your opinion but this a business we're talking about and what company with any good business sense is going to start paying 43% taxation when they can LEAGELY avoid doing so, well as a student at business college I can tell you NOT ONE! Coz all companies have financial plans, some are even 5 year plans, that have to be followed meticulously, sure there's some wriggle room but a sudden 43% tax increase would certainly send most companies on a downward curve!!! :huh:

I know it's hard to perceive U2 as a company in the ordinary sense but they have many people in their employ, real estate taxes and utilities to pay for, not to mention the cost of tours etc. and where do you think they get most of the money to pay for all that? Their ROYALTIES!! :eyebrow:
 
hcbiggs2002 said:
Of course you're entitled to your opinion but this a business we're talking about and what company with any good business sense is going to start paying 43% taxation when they can LEAGELY avoid doing so, well as a student at business college I can tell you NOT ONE! Coz all companies have financial plans, some are even 5 year plans, that have to be followed meticulously, sure there's some wriggle room but a sudden 43% tax increase would certainly send most companies on a downward curve!!! :huh:

I know it's hard to perceive U2 as a company in the ordinary sense but they have many people in their employ, real estate taxes and utilities to pay for, not to mention the cost of tours etc. and where do you think they get most of the money to pay for all that? Their ROYALTIES!! :eyebrow:

:up: I also have a degree in business and I'll second this. U2 is a business unit made up of five individuals and whatever savvy consultants they employ. U2 is not a charity and is not a humanitarian campaign. On paper, it's not even a band. The move to the Netherlands was affected by Bono's personal commitments only insofar as they affect the other four members (which is probably not that much).

I'm not sure what Bono's humanitarian endeavors have to do with anything in this thread....
 
Last edited:
U2Kitten said:


But you see, BONO is the one who is always whining about the poor, and how for the price of a movie or a lunch out you can save so many from poverty, yadda yadda yadda. Edge has helped a few things lately, but I have never heard of the others professing humanitarianism over materialism the way Bono does. So that's why he's being singled out as the 'hypocrite'.:|

Did you know Bono didn't even acknowledge the African Well Fund, which online fans started in his honor, until one of them met him at an airport and brought it up? Then some kind of statement was issued. I would have expected him to publically praise the charity and match the funds. If ordinary working folk can raise 18,000 for 18 wells, why wouldn't he match it, if he cares as much as he says? I was very disappointed about that. Bill Gates has given more of his fortune than Bono is even worth. I like guys who put their money where their mouth is. IMO Bono should do the same, or stop complaining that politicians don't do enough. I know anything he does is better than nothing, but he's really making himself look like a hypocrite to non-U2 worshippers.

Again you are assuming because it is not publicized that U2 and Bono do not do anything for charity. I have run across numerous quotes from other individuals outside of the U2 influence who say that 90% of what U2 do for charity is not publish because U2 refuses to allow it to be published. Also no one calculates the value of the time Bono donates to these issues. Since 1999 he has basically worked the equivalent of a full time job doing work for Drop the Debt and AIDS campaigning. Even the politicians have been amazed and astounded at the level of commitment that he has shown to these causes. What we see in the press is only a small fraction of the time Bono puts into these efforts. That time and effort does more good than donating his entire fortune would.

This is a small excerpt from Chapter 1 of Noreena Hertz book "The Dept Threat" which details Bono's efforts leading up to the Millenium in getting $435 million dollars in debt cancelled much of which was relatively unpublicized. A little background, Clinton had pledged 100% debt relief for 33 countries, $6 billion dollars of debt which would cost the US about $600 million after devalueing.
--------------------
In November 1999, two months after Clinton's historic pledge, Congress agreed to appropriate $100 million. Although this was a start, the $110 million was far less than the $545 million the campaigners had been after. This would cover only the first year of America's own debt cancellation schedule, and it didn't cover any financing for the participation of the regional development banks in the debt cancellation initiative; nor provide for the IMF and World Bank, the poor world's major creditors, to cancel any of their debts. If the Cologne international initiative was not to crumble, an additional $435 million had to be found.
"I called Bono," recalls Sandberg (Larry Summers, Treasury Sec, chief of staff), "and said, 'If you want to help get this through, you've got to come back to town.' We needed him. Bono could get in to see any member of Congress, and we needed to rally support. He said that he was recording his new album and making a documentary, and couldn't come to town over the next few weeks because they were filming. And I said if you can't come now it'll be too late. Two days later, he was here. And once he landed in D.C., he was a machine. He went around from member to member telling them that they could change the world if they got behind us. He would get up early in the morning, and would walk the halls and work it all day. And then we would have dinner late at night and he would still bring a member of Congress or some staffer. He was tireless. And when you think of the combination of a rock star who can get in to see anyone and someone who knows as much as some staffer who works on it full time and can speak with the kind of passion that he speaks with, well, the world had never seen anything like it."
--------------------------

Giving all of his money away would never equal the impact that he has had in the political arena. The problems facing Africa cannot be solved only by debt cancellation or aid or trade reform or private contribution. All of these approaches are necessary. If you look at all he is involved in Bono is pushing for all of these things and only a small fraction of what he does becomes visible to the public.

What I have noticed is that the most vocal negative opinions of Bono's actions come from people who have not worked with him directly or have done very little research into what he is doing. For those who have worked with him directly even the ones who don't support him have an immense amount of respect for him.

Dana
 
A 43% tax!!! That's pretty much half your earnings right off the top! I had no idea it was so high. And I thought I had it rough with my taxes.
 
Ralphie said:
A 43% tax!!! That's pretty much half your earnings right off the top! I had no idea it was so high. And I thought I had it rough with my taxes.

yup, and in Holland it is *drum roll* 1,5 % :happy:
 
Ralphie said:
A 43% tax!!! That's pretty much half your earnings right off the top! I had no idea it was so high. And I thought I had it rough with my taxes.

Do you make what U2 makes? I am sure it's adjusted per income levels, like it is in the US. The poorest pay no tax, the richest pay very high rates (I have heard some stars in the US and Britain pay as much as 90%, most people pay about 25-33%, which is a lot when you have bills) I would say it's a safe bet that the average worker in Ireland doesn't pay 43%, and if that is the highest income bracket there, they're still much better off than the US and Britain.
 
Do you make what U2 makes? I am sure it's adjusted per income levels, like it is in the US. The poorest pay no tax, the richest pay very high rates (I have heard some stars in the US and Britain pay as much as 90%, most people pay about 25-33%, which is a lot when you have bills) I would say it's a safe bet that the average worker in Ireland doesn't pay 43%, and if that is the highest income bracket there, they're still much better off than the US and Britain. [/B]

I'm no expert so this may be incorrect, but I looked it up and I think the highest income tax rates ever in place in the US were about 70%. With tax reforms in the 1980s they came way down to around 39% for the wealthiest individuals. Again, that was from a quick Google search, so I'm not 100% certain.
 
The highest income tax rate in the UK is 40%, (it used to be much higher). I think Ireland's is broadly similar.
I've no problem at all with U2 moving some of their business for tax reasons. Noone wants to pay higher tax than necessary if there are options available to reduce it but I can't help thinking it will make it more difficult for Bono to challenge Bertie Ahern next time if the Irish Goverment still doesn't meet the 0.7% target of funds it is supposed to give to Africa. Afterall this money comes from the taxes paid to the government by Irish people. U2 as individuals probably still pay some of the highest sums in taxes in Ireland but if Bono confronted the government, I bet the press would just concentrate on the fact that it is losing a sizeable sum of revenue as a result of U2's business move.
 
U2Kitten said:


What bothers me about that is that Bono is always preaching about helping the poor, and begging for money for other countries, but when it comes to doing his share (finally after all these years) to help out his OWN country, he runs and hides his stash. There are people in Ireland who need help too. His money would go a long way. In America, there are 'tax shelters' for those who give a lot to charity, and donations can be written off on your taxes. I'm sure Ireland must have something like that. If he were to set up his own Irish charity, he'd know where the money is going, and he'd be able to deduct it from what he owes in taxes. But no, he wants it all for himself. I don't know how much he's got, but BEFORE the Vertigo tour he was worth over 100 million US dollars. Sorry, to me it makes him come off as greedy and cold and rude that he would leave his own country to avoid helping his own countrymen, even in the form of a tax relief charity. I lost a lot of respect for him for that, and I can't excuse it.

Reading Lola's comments, I see in them what I was really kind of suspecting all along, and I think she may have a point. After all she knows him better than any of us do. And money always talks.

Of course I don't know him personally so I can't make complete judgements, but those are my observations and opinions.

Don't assume he didn't donate (to Africa, to Ireland...wherever) just because it doesn't get reported. In which case the critics have ammo yet again: "Look at the braggart, I'd donate too if I had that much money".

He didn't "leave his own country" nor was this a Bono solo decision.
 
U2Kitten said:


Do I would say it's a safe bet that the average worker in Ireland doesn't pay 43%, and if that is the highest income bracket there, they're still much better off than the US and Britain.

The 43% rate is NOT for "workers", average or not. This is the rate that is now imposed on income earned from royalties only, not any other type of income. Up to now, all artists in Ireland were exempt from paying any taxes on royalty income. They all paid 0% tax. Now, higher earning artists like U2 must pay a 43% rate on money that was previously not taxed at all. It's not as if they are suddenly refusing to pay taxes that they previously did pay. This is a NEW tax that has been imposed. By moving the royalty-related part of their business to the Netherlands they are still paying MORE than they did before.
And of course they are still paying all of the other taxes that residents and business owners must pay, as well as taxes on any other non-royalty related income (like touring).
 
Ralphie said:
Hmmm...how to report my earnings in Holland...:hmm:

Make a lot of earnings from royalties? :wink:

Reminder: The 43% applies to taxes on royalties, NOT income taxes, ONLY royalties. As people pointed out earlier, U2 has and will continue to pay their income taxes to Ireland just like any other Irish citizen.

ETA: biff beat me to it.
 
U2girl said:


Don't assume he didn't donate (to Africa, to Ireland...wherever) just because it doesn't get reported. In which case the critics have ammo yet again: "Look at the braggart, I'd donate too if I had that much money".

Exactly. On the subject of giving, Bono has several times quoted Matthew 6:

"Be careful not to do your ‘acts of righteousness’ before men, to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven."

"So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you."

And in the Assayas book he said that if he were to give all of his money away, not only would it not be of much help but it would only gain him further criticism. He's pretty much damned if he does and damned if he doesn't.
 
Thanks for the explaination, biff.

I got the 'as high as 90%' from stories abou the Beatles ("Should 5% appear too small, be thanksful I don't take it all"), and from a TLC Behind the Music where one of the girls stated one of the reasons they went bankrupt was because they were in the '90% tax bracket.' Guess they were exaggerating.
 
U2Kitten said:
Thanks for the explaination, biff.

I got the 'as high as 90%' from stories abou the Beatles ("Should 5% appear too small, be thanksful I don't take it all"), and from a TLC Behind the Music where one of the girls stated one of the reasons they went bankrupt was because they were in the '90% tax bracket.' Guess they were exaggerating.

What "girls"?

Most musicians go bankrupt b/c they spend ALL of their money on luxury cars, drinks, partying, vacations, and homes they really cannot afford. Bono (or whoever does his business) is very business savvy in that he's invested large amounts of his money in different types of companies and primo real estate that will always increase in value. I bet he could blow everything in his accounts right now and just based on his stock and real estate has enough for his great-grandchildren to live comfortably ever after.
 
Liesje said:


What "girls"?


Read the post, the girls from TLC. (Chilly, Lisa left eye, I forget the other one's name)

Maybe they did blow all their money. I'm just saying one of them claimed they were in the 90% tax bracket, so I assumed such a thing existed. Maybe it was just an excuse.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom