U2 being accused of robbing the poor

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Tax free: Rupert Murdoch's zero status

As the end of the financial year beckons, your eyes may wander to how much tax you have paid over the last 12 months. How nice it would be not to have to pay quite so much, you may conclude.

The former New York property developer Leona Helmsley once famously opined that only little people pay taxes. Unfortuntely for her, a judge took issue and sentenced Ms Helmsley to four years' imprisonment for $1.2m tax evasion.

E-cyclopedia
Media baron Rupert Murdoch stands accused of no such wrong-doing. But the reputation of his myriad companies for tax avoidance - using legally safe loopholes to reduce tax payments - has been well documented.

A report in this week's Economist newspaper offers an intruiging update. It states that in the four years to 30 June last year, Mr Murdoch's News Corporation and its subsidiaries paid only A$325m (£128m) in corporate taxes worldwide. That translates as 6% of the A$5.4bn consolidated pre-tax profits for the same period.

By comparison another multi-national media empire, Disney, paid 31%.

The corporate tax rates for the three main countries in which News Corp operates - Australia, the United States and the UK - are 36%, 35% and 30% respectively.


[ image: Disney: Paid 31% next to News Corp's 6%]
Disney: Paid 31% next to News Corp's 6%
Further research reveals that Mr Murdoch's main British holding company, Newscorp Investments, has paid no net corporation tax within these shores over the past 11 years. This is despite accumulated pre-tax profits of nearly £1.4bn. Payments were made in some years, but in others rebates were claimed.

The Newscorp Investments stable includes newspapers such as The Times and The Sun as well as a 40% share in the satellite broadcaster BSkyB. Had it paid the full 30% rate on its 1998 profit of £309m, it would have netted the Exchequer £92m. (Enough to buy thousands of school textbooks, something that the Murdoch press is currently encouraging parents to do by way of collecting newspaper tokens.)

But while just about any company worth its stock valuation will seek to trim its annual tax bill, Mr Murdoch's die-hard loyalty to the tax loophole has drawn wide criticism.

Complexity puts off investors

It's impossible to know exactly how News Corp achieves such tax "efficiency". Despite being a quoted company, and therefore having to file accounts for public inspection, its financial make-up is a baffling web of inter-relationships between subsidiaries spread across the world.

Such opaqueness is thought to deter potential investors and therefore goes someway to explaining the downside of minimising tax payments.

However, analysts suggest Mr Murdoch's team broadly employ three strategies:

* Tax relief claimed on debt interest repayments.
* A reliance on off-shore tax havens.
* Exploiting global differences in accounting standards.

The first principle, which effectively allows companies to off-set profits against previous losses, is well established, says Iain Stewart, a partner with the accountancy firm KPMG.


[ image: News Corps financial report - details the group's accounts]
News Corps financial report - details the group's accounts
"If you were going into a country with a high tax rate you would tend to finance any investment into that country using debt," he says.

This effectively involves getting the holding company to lend money to the newly-formed, loss-making company.

About 60 News Corp subsidiaries are incorporated in tax havens such as the Cayman Islands, Bermuda and the British Virgin Islands.

No- or low-tax havens are a tried and tested method of minimising contributions to the public coffers. Havens such as the Isle of Man and Jersey simply require companies not trading there to make an annual one-off corporation tax payment.

Hong Kong, now a part of China, where Mr Murdoch is conducting an increasing amount of business, has a corporation tax rate which, at 17%, is more than half that of the US.

International dealings

News Corp's status as a truly multinational company enables it to make the most of varying accounting standards around the world. Australia, for example, where the company is incorporated, has some of the most relaxed accounting principles in the developed world.

Although tax avoidance, as practised by News Corp, is well within the law, the general public struggles to sympathise. But Mr Stewart calls for a wider understanding, saying tax avoidance is merely a counter to "tax nothings" - instances, such as creating employment, which go unrewarded by the taxman, despite helping the Exchequer.

And the higher the rates, the more likely they are to be avoided, he says.

"When the UK used to have 52% corporation tax, companies did so much in avoidance they used to end up paying 10%. Now it's 30% and companies in general pay 30%."

The only thing that separates Rupert Murdoch from the members of U2, and yes, Bono is the one with the biggest mouth, in this matter is that I don't recall Murdoch having encouraged other people to pay MORE taxes.
 
Frankly if I earned that much money, I wouldn't want the government taking it all in tax.

Tying this to depriving the poor, is just a smokescreen, (and I'm sure someone from the government or related thought of it)
 
what a load of bollocks! to tie in the business move to make a headline "U2 robbing the poor" is stupid! We all know U2 give to various charities but don't go to the press and make a song and dance about it! "Hey, look at us we are giving to charity are'nt we great?"

Blame the law changers I say, if it was me with a business I would of done the same as U2! its just common business sense! :)
 
what a load of bollocks! to tie in the business move to make a headline "U2 robbing the poor" is stupid! We all know U2 give to various charities but don't go to the press and make a song and dance about it! "Hey, look at us we are giving to charity are'nt we great?"

Blame the law changers I say, if it was me with a business I would of done the same as U2! its just common business sense! :)
Agree, this story is sensationalist and just makes a good headline.

They seem to have duped some gullible charities into going along with it as well.
 
If you suggest increasing aid to developing countries but do NOT suggest how to finance it (which Bono hasn't) then you would have to assume that taxes would have to be increased.
:lol:

you should become a politician
I never laughed this hard :up:
 
If you suggest increasing aid to developing countries but do NOT suggest how to finance it (which Bono hasn't) then you would have to assume that taxes would have to be increased.

Actually there have been many discussions on how to finance it without raising taxes, it was part of Bono's platform...

but nice try.
 
"U2 are depriving the Irish exchequer of much-needed revenue which could be spent on overseas aid."

Note the words depriving and cold, how does this = Theft? :mad: Wheres the proof that The Irish Govt will contribute U2's share to poverty relief in a meaningful way, like One, red, NGO's and the like. :doh:

"The band moved the company U2 Ltd, set up to deal with royalty payments, to a finance house in Holland in 2006 after the Irish Government scrapped an artist income tax exemption scheme. moved part of its business to a tax shelter in the Netherlands."

We all know that taxes on entertianment profits are unfair on any terms. :hmm:
 
"Tax avoidance and tax evasion costs the impoverished world at least $160 million"

This is a problematic notion for a number of reasons:

Firstly, it conflates tax avoidance (legal) with tax evasion (illegal)

Secondly, it's socialistic presumption implies that the fruits of people's labor belong by right to someone other than themselves (the state, the "impoverished world", etc.). It's one thing to give one's own money to charity of one's own free-will; it's quite another thing to have one's money confiscated by government force and given to someone else.

I think this is a case of certain people, especially in Ireland, simply being jealous of U2's success and wishing to find any reason to bash them.
 
What do you do for a living?

Your life and profession must be incredible boring if this statement of common sense gave you the hardest laugh of your life.
well, I am an auditor
hence
1. my life is indeed boring
2. your insightful comment regarding government spending did almost cause me to lose my bladder control
 
"Tax avoidance and tax evasion costs the impoverished world at least $160 million"

This is a problematic notion for a number of reasons:

Firstly, it conflates tax avoidance (legal) with tax evasion (illegal)

Secondly, it's socialistic presumption implies that the fruits of people's labor belong by right to someone other than themselves (the state, the "impoverished world", etc.). It's one thing to give one's own money to charity of one's own free-will; it's quite another thing to have one's money confiscated by government force and given to someone else.

I think this is a case of certain people, especially in Ireland, simply being jealous of U2's success and wishing to find any reason to bash them.

Good Points!:applaud::up:
 
Really? Could you state just one of the suggestions then?

Part of it was to restructure a lot of the existing aid that was being mismanaged. Also Bono, Data, and other organizations involved sat down this congressional leaders as well as phamaceutical companies in order to try and find means to give tax breaks for donated drugs, etc...

Now I'm not saying any of this will happen, we all know politicians aren't the best at looking in the past to make cuts or restructuring, they would rather just throw more on top, but I know people who work for DATA and it was definately a part of the platform to try and find means to increase aid without increasing taxes.
 
Part of it was to restructure a lot of the existing aid that was being mismanaged. Also Bono, Data, and other organizations involved sat down this congressional leaders as well as phamaceutical companies in order to try and find means to give tax breaks for donated drugs, etc...

Now I'm not saying any of this will happen, we all know politicians aren't the best at looking in the past to make cuts or restructuring, they would rather just throw more on top, but I know people who work for DATA and it was definately a part of the platform to try and find means to increase aid without increasing taxes.

I remember Bono asking for aid to be increased, not just restructured. In particular, he asked for an additional 1 percent in the U.S.

How was that supposed to be financed?
 
Have you ever seen anything come from nothing?

The only thing that does that is fluff.
there must be a couple thousand different ways in which governments can allocate their spending
politicians would have nothing to do if that wasn't the case

have you ever thought when you heard that your government was going to increase or decrease their contribution in healthcare, military or whatever that this would of course affect your taxes?? surely not
 
I remember Bono asking for aid to be increased, not just restructured. In particular, he asked for an additional 1 percent in the U.S.

How was that supposed to be financed?

Like I said, they came in with many suggestions on where to make cuts, the problem with that is no one likes to make cuts anywhere, Bono probably did very little of that himself in order not to piss off certain folks but his organizations did. One of the persons I know that worked with Bono, she's a lawyer and she's tried to get the federal government to cut down a lot of their restrictions and involvement with international adoption with Africa.
 
there must be a couple thousand different ways in which governments can allocate their spending
politicians would have nothing to do if that wasn't the case

have you ever thought when you heard that your government was going to increase or decrease their contribution in healthcare, military or whatever that this would of course affect your taxes?? surely not

No, not always. But I do wonder what other budget post they are going to cut to finance that :)

Yes, to finance new initiatives, you'd have to reallocate your spending - which means cutting down on other things. If you won't cut down on how much you spend on schools, healthcare, etc. already, then you would have to increase taxes if you want to spend more, and hope it doesn't affect growth to much.

A tax CUT might be self-financed, if it creates enough growth, but that's a different issue.

AND it seems you and I practically agree on this. Are you laughing hard at yourself now? No need to act like a douchebag before you're sure you understand the other person's post. :sexywink:
 
Like I said, they came in with many suggestions on where to make cuts, the problem with that is no one likes to make cuts anywhere, Bono probably did very little of that himself in order not to piss off certain folks but his organizations did. One of the persons I know that worked with Bono, she's a lawyer and she's tried to get the federal government to cut down a lot of their restrictions and involvement with international adoption with Africa.

The bottom line is that that one additional percent would almost entirely have to be paid by American tax payers one way or the other - by additional tax or by cutting down their current social benefits.
 
by additional tax or by cutting down their current social benefits.
:huh:

again
where does this assumption come from?
government expenses are always being revaluated and this would just be part of the revaluations

to equal this to robbing the poor is downright ridiculous
 
:huh:

again
where does this assumption come from?
government expenses are always being revaluated and this would just be part of the revaluations

to equal this to robbing the poor is downright ridiculous

Where did I equal this to robbing the poor? We were talking about whether Bono's suggestions would mean taxes would have to be increased or not.

Yes, revaluations. Increase one thing and you'd have to cut the other OR increase tax. And don't focus too much on my use of the term "social benefits" here. By that I mean everything that benefits the common american taxpayer. Healthcare, Education System, and yes military etc. too.

What is downright ridiculous is to think that aid can be increased by the scale Bono was suggesting, and that it wouldn't affect the common American tax payer in some way.
 
If you suggest increasing aid to developing countries but do NOT suggest how to finance it (which Bono hasn't) then you would have to assume that taxes would have to be increased.

Erm, just because he hasn't suggested it to you personally doesn't mean it wasn't addressed.
 
"U2 are depriving the Irish exchequer of much-needed revenue which could be spent on overseas aid."

Note the words depriving and cold, how does this = Theft? :mad: Wheres the proof that The Irish Govt will contribute U2's share to poverty relief in a meaningful way, like One, red, NGO's and the like. :doh:

"The band moved the company U2 Ltd, set up to deal with royalty payments, to a finance house in Holland in 2006 after the Irish Government scrapped an artist income tax exemption scheme. moved part of its business to a tax shelter in the Netherlands."

We all know that taxes on entertianment profits are unfair on any terms. :hmm:

And during this recession the Irish Government don't have any money to contribute to foreign aid.

It's a political move to even suggest that corporate U2's taxes are going to pull Ireland out of their financial hole.
 
What is downright ridiculous is to think that aid can be increased by the scale Bono was suggesting, and that it wouldn't affect the common American tax payer in some way.


Well let's see, the cost of our ridiculous war for starters? Take about .00000003% of that and that covers the $160mil the Yahoo article is griping about.
 
Back
Top Bottom