Lets Hope This Is A Joke

[mattressjedi]

All you can say about all that tax stuff is that it's a good business decision for U2.

[Sugarcube]

All you can say about all that tax stuff is that it's a good business decision for U2.

That's not strictly true - a thinking person could write a dissertation about how full of sh** they are.

[mattressjedi]

Yes, but why? They're not going to leave the Netherlands because of it.

So I will focus on the positive: great business move.

[imaginary friend]

All you can say about all that tax stuff is that it's a good business decision for U2.

That's not strictly true - a thinking person could write a dissertation about how full of sh** they are.

how would you quantify that?

[Tumbling Dice]

All you can say about all that tax stuff is that it's a good business decision for U2.

It is a good business decision by U2, and unfortunately, a perfectly legal thing to do.  In fact, U2 could register all their companies in the Netherlands or the Dutch Antilles and officially leave Ireland for most of the year, in order to avoid any Irish income tax or corporation tax.  The would be an even better business decision from a strictly financial point of view.

[tigerfan41]

That doesn't mean they're obligated to financially support the country when (a) they're taxed globally and (b) they make their money globally. Though that was a silly thing to say because it obviously gave the Irish the wrong idea.

Also, that's a double standard about the Beatles. Chalk it up to people just looking for some reason, ANY reason to bash U2. Even if it's not always justified.

How about instead of whining about U2's decision to move a global business to a place where it's taxed fairly, those protesters find another way to help Ireland rebound economically? Speaking as someone who lives in an area heavily affected by the recession, if the same thing happened here, I'd rather go see what I could do to change things than expect protesting to solve anything. Blame the politicians and the leaders in the country who F'd things up. Guilting U2 clearly isn't going to make a difference.

Are you suggesting an unemployed Irish citizen who has no job and no future prospects should not have an opinion on mega wealthy rock stars who on the on the one hand use their native country to market their music but on the other hand go to great lengths to avoid paying taxes into their native country?

I was going to suggest you remove your head from your arse but I suspect you might be American

Yes, because Americans are so gawd awful, right?  They're entitled to their opinion, just as I am. But to me, logically speaking, if you want change, complaining alone isn't going to accomplish that. Actually going out and doing something, well, you might just get what you want then.

BTW, I graduated in one of the worst states for unemployment. I was unemployed for a while after graduating with no real prospects for a decent job, or even a job at all. I complained and whined about it, then decided to go out and do whatever it took to find work. And I did.

That doesn't mean they're obligated to financially support the country when (a) they're taxed globally and (b) they make their money globally. Though that was a silly thing to say because it obviously gave the Irish the wrong idea.

They're not taxed globally on income tax or corporation tax, but they may pay withholding taxes locally.   The fact they make their money globally is irrelevant as to whether they should pay their fair share of tax in their home country.

Yes, that's what I meant. They get taxed in other countries where they make money, as it should be. I don't know a ton about the tax law, but I recall reading an article that mentioned that. The thing is, if they're not really based in their home country anymore, how's it fair to expect them to pay taxes there? Don't they all live outside of Ireland now? For instance, if I start a band in Canada, stay there for a decade or two, then move myself and my band out of that country, should I still be expected to pay hefty taxes there?

All you can say about all that tax stuff is that it's a good business decision for U2.

It is a good business decision by U2, and unfortunately, a perfectly legal thing to do.  In fact, U2 could register all their companies in the Netherlands or the Dutch Antilles and officially leave Ireland for most of the year, in order to avoid any Irish income tax or corporation tax.  The would be an even better business decision from a strictly financial point of view.

And yet they don't do this. Perhaps they do still care about Ireland, but not enough to give up a ridiculous portion of their income to the government there. Especially if they disagree with how things are going in the country now.

Let's also not forget, there's more to U2 than just the four guys. There's the crew, the people who run the website, fan club etc. that are probably all on salary and paid by U2. Perhaps the tax break or whatever you call it was truly necessary to be able to meet the probable massive expenses the band has?

[Tumbling Dice]

All you can say about all that tax stuff is that it's a good business decision for U2.

It is a good business decision by U2, and unfortunately, a perfectly legal thing to do.  In fact, U2 could register all their companies in the Netherlands or the Dutch Antilles and officially leave Ireland for most of the year, in order to avoid any Irish income tax or corporation tax.  The would be an even better business decision from a strictly financial point of view.

And yet they don't do this. Perhaps they do still care about Ireland, but not enough to give up a ridiculous portion of their income to the government there. Especially if they disagree with how things are going in the country now.

I don't think the tax rates for the highest earners in Ireland are particularly punitive or 'ridiculously' high.  And many of us may well disagree with how things are going in our own countries or how our tax money is spent by politicians, but, alas, most of us don't get the option to decide how much we're willing to pay.  Do you not realise how elitist you sound on U2's behalf?

Let's also not forget, there's more to U2 than just the four guys. There's the crew, the people who run the website, fan club etc. that are probably all on salary and paid by U2. Perhaps the tax break or whatever you call it was truly necessary to be able to meet the probable massive expenses the band has?

Many, many, many businesses and companies in Ireland have employees; is that a reason why all companies should pay less tax?  And any business expenses a business incurs are tax deductible anyway.

[tigerfan41]

Not trying to sound elitist at all. But again, should they really be expected to pay if they don't live in the country anymore and don't make their income in the country anymore, either? I'm all in favor of taxing the wealthy appropriately, being working class myself, but I think it's ridiculous to expect someone who no longer resides in the country (or makes their money there) to continue paying the same tax rate as, say, a company that still bases its operations there. I'd say the same thing about any other band or artist that is in U2's shoes and does the same thing.

Now if they're still living in Ireland and still making most of their money there, that's one thing and I would agree, they should be subjected to the same tax rate as everyone else who operates there.

[Tumbling Dice]

Not trying to sound elitist at all.

You seem to suggest and seek to justify that there's one set of rules for the uber-rich like U2, to pick and choose how much tax they think they should pay, and another set of rules for the rest of us ordinary taxpayers.

But again, should they really be expected to pay if they don't live in the country anymore and don't make their income in the country anymore, either? I'm all in favor of taxing the wealthy appropriately, being working class myself, but I think it's ridiculous to expect someone who no longer resides in the country (or makes their money there) to continue paying the same tax rate as, say, a company that still bases its operations there. I'd say the same thing about any other band or artist that is in U2's shoes and does the same thing.

Then where do you propose they pay their income tax and corporation tax?

Now if they're still living in Ireland and still making most of their money there, that's one thing and I would agree, they should be subjected to the same tax rate as everyone else who operates there.

If they're resident in Ireland - regardless of where they make their money - then they should be subjected to the same tax rates as everyone else who resides in that country.  Paul McCartney, Elton John, Sting and Simon Cowell are in the UK.  Why shouldn't U2 in Ireland?

[tigerfan41]

You seem to suggest and seek to justify that there's one set of rules for the uber-rich like U2, to pick and choose how much tax they think they should pay, and another set of rules for the rest of us ordinary taxpayers.

Nope, not at all. I just am not sure the "uber rich" mentality fully applies in this case or any other similar cases. I'm all for taxing the rich more than the middle class/poor.

Then where do you propose they pay their income tax and corporation tax?

I propose they pay it in the countries where they make money. They should also be taxed fairly and not be subject to the exact same taxes as a company that actually operates 100% of the time in that country. And I'd say the same thing for any other company or musician in their position.

If they're resident in Ireland - regardless of where they make their money - then they should be subjected to the same tax rates as everyone else who resides in that country.  Paul McCartney, Elton John, Sting and Simon Cowell are in the UK.  Why shouldn't U2 in Ireland?

If you read my post a little more carefully, you'll see that I said "if they're still living in Ireland....they should be subjected to the same tax rate." Do we even know that they are? As far as I know, Bono and Edge are either in France or the U.S. I don't know about Adam or Larry because I don't follow U2 close enough to know exactly where they all have their residences. If they're living in Ireland, that would imply that they are taking advantage of certain privileges as residents. Therefore, they should pay the tax just like everyone else does in that country. If they're not living in Ireland (and not making most of their money there, as we know is the case given their sales in other countries) why should they have to pay the same tax rate as a full-time resident there?

[Tumbling Dice]

Then where do you propose they pay their income tax and corporation tax?

I propose they pay it in the countries where they make money. They should also be taxed fairly and not be subject to the exact same taxes as a company that actually operates 100% of the time in that country. And I'd say the same thing for any other company or musician in their position.

That's not how the global tax regimes operate at the moment.  I suspect it would be extremely difficult to divide up the portion of income that U2 earns - let alone makes from investments - depending on where the income came from, and then levy national taxes - which may vary - on that income.  For example, if U2 made 2% of their income from France, would they then be assessed by the French tax authorities for income tax on that income based on French income tax rates, and then if 5% comes from the UK would they would be similarly assessed by the UK authorities based on UK income tax rates etc ect?  Another problem would then be how to make sure that U2 pay a progressive tax rate on their total global income, say, for example, 40%, so that they pay a fair marginal rate of income tax.  Also, would they have to register a separate company in every single country that they earned any income in, in order to pay corporation tax in the same way as their personal income tax?  Sounds very problematic to me and basically unworkable.

If they're resident in Ireland - regardless of where they make their money - then they should be subjected to the same tax rates as everyone else who resides in that country.  Paul McCartney, Elton John, Sting and Simon Cowell are in the UK.  Why shouldn't U2 in Ireland?

If you read my post a little more carefully, you'll see that I said "if they're still living in Ireland....they should be subjected to the same tax rate." Do we even know that they are? As far as I know, Bono and Edge are either in France or the U.S. I don't know about Adam or Larry because I don't follow U2 close enough to know exactly where they all have their residences. If they're living in Ireland, that would imply that they are taking advantage of certain privileges as residents. Therefore, they should pay the tax just like everyone else does in that country. If they're not living in Ireland (and not making most of their money there, as we know is the case given their sales in other countries) why should they have to pay the same tax rate as a full-time resident there?

From what I understand - from members of this forum - all the members of U2 are resident in Ireland for income tax purposes, and pay income tax in Ireland.  I don't know for a fact if that is true, or how much tax they actually pay, if indeed they do.  The fact they may live and work abroad at various times is irrelevant to their tax position if they pay income tax in Ireland.  As I said earlier, under the current tax regime, it is irrelevant which territories their income comes from for income tax purposes.  What some geographically mobile wealthy people do is officially reside in a country which has much lower income tax - such as Switzerland, Monaco, Jersey or Bermuda - than most advanced countries.  They then don't pay any income tax whatsoever in their home country, but can only spend a limited amount of time in their home country each fiscal year.

[Sugarcube]

That doesn't mean they're obligated to financially support the country when (a) they're taxed globally and (b) they make their money globally. Though that was a silly thing to say because it obviously gave the Irish the wrong idea.

Also, that's a double standard about the Beatles. Chalk it up to people just looking for some reason, ANY reason to bash U2. Even if it's not always justified.

How about instead of whining about U2's decision to move a global business to a place where it's taxed fairly, those protesters find another way to help Ireland rebound economically? Speaking as someone who lives in an area heavily affected by the recession, if the same thing happened here, I'd rather go see what I could do to change things than expect protesting to solve anything. Blame the politicians and the leaders in the country who F'd things up. Guilting U2 clearly isn't going to make a difference.

Are you suggesting an unemployed Irish citizen who has no job and no future prospects should not have an opinion on mega wealthy rock stars who on the on the one hand use their native country to market their music but on the other hand go to great lengths to avoid paying taxes into their native country?

I was going to suggest you remove your head from your arse but I suspect you might be American

Yes, because Americans are so gawd awful, right?  They're entitled to their opinion, just as I am. But to me, logically speaking, if you want change, complaining alone isn't going to accomplish that. Actually going out and doing something, well, you might just get what you want then.

BTW, I graduated in one of the worst states for unemployment. I was unemployed for a while after graduating with no real prospects for a decent job, or even a job at all. I complained and whined about it, then decided to go out and do whatever it took to find work. And I did.

That doesn't mean they're obligated to financially support the country when (a) they're taxed globally and (b) they make their money globally. Though that was a silly thing to say because it obviously gave the Irish the wrong idea.

They're not taxed globally on income tax or corporation tax, but they may pay withholding taxes locally.   The fact they make their money globally is irrelevant as to whether they should pay their fair share of tax in their home country.

Yes, that's what I meant. They get taxed in other countries where they make money, as it should be. I don't know a ton about the tax law, but I recall reading an article that mentioned that. The thing is, if they're not really based in their home country anymore, how's it fair to expect them to pay taxes there? Don't they all live outside of Ireland now? For instance, if I start a band in Canada, stay there for a decade or two, then move myself and my band out of that country, should I still be expected to pay hefty taxes there?

All you can say about all that tax stuff is that it's a good business decision for U2.

It is a good business decision by U2, and unfortunately, a perfectly legal thing to do.  In fact, U2 could register all their companies in the Netherlands or the Dutch Antilles and officially leave Ireland for most of the year, in order to avoid any Irish income tax or corporation tax.  The would be an even better business decision from a strictly financial point of view.

And yet they don't do this. Perhaps they do still care about Ireland, but not enough to give up a ridiculous portion of their income to the government there. Especially if they disagree with how things are going in the country now.

Let's also not forget, there's more to U2 than just the four guys. There's the crew, the people who run the website, fan club etc. that are probably all on salary and paid by U2. Perhaps the tax break or whatever you call it was truly necessary to be able to meet the probable massive expenses the band has?

Good for you - unfortunately no jobs = no jobs. The unemployment rate is 14%. That's over 400,000 people who can't find a job - 180,000 of those are in long term unemployment. I'm sure they'd be thrilled to hear your noble story but for a lot of people there, they have had no choice but to emigrate to find work. Emigrating means leaving family and friends behind and starting a new life in a totally different country or continent.

Of course what these people really need rather than a job is another sermon from bono about social justice. Especially as bono urges the Irish government to do more in terms of foreign aid and debt forgiveness while actively avoiding paying taxes into the Irish system.

The icing on the cake was the heavy handed way Art Uncuts tax protest was dismantled at Glastonbury. U2 stop peaceful and legitimate protest - interesting approach for a band who bang on about human rights and freedom of speech.

[tigerfan41]

Honestly, I found the Glastonbury protest to be ridiculous. From what I've heard, the protesters held up signs that were blocking the view of many people at the festival. They were also, from what I've heard, being very loud and disrupting the performance. I think it's one thing to protest outside of the venue, but protesting inside especially when people have paid a lot of money to go in and see the show, well, it's ridiculous. I'd be super pissed if I paid good money to see an artist only to have someone's sign messing up my view.

Ironically enough, the U2 concert I went to last summer did have protesters who were basically calling us devil worshippers for going to a Rock and Roll concert (their words, not mine). They were pretty loud and rowdy outside of the stadium, but were allowed to carry on with it. Sort of funny considering that out of all the secular bands people could see live, U2's one of the most spiritually-relatable ones.

The unemployment rate here in Michigan is pretty close to that number. Lots of longterm unemployed here, too. Like you mention, many are forced to leave things behind and take up a job wherever they can get it. It sucks, but that's the reality of the economy today in many places. Either move for employment or strike it out on your own by starting a business.

I just find it hard to condemn U2 for the supposed "tax evasion" thing until we've heard all the facts. We don't know that they're even residing in Ireland anymore. We don't know how much of their money is made outside of Ireland. We don't know how much they're paying in taxes in other countries. It's one thing if they're residents of Ireland and refusing to pay taxes that they should be paying. It's another if they've simply chosen to move their operations to another country.

[Sugarcube]

Honestly, I found the Glastonbury protest to be ridiculous. From what I've heard, the protesters held up signs that were blocking the view of many people at the festival. They were also, from what I've heard, being very loud and disrupting the performance. I think it's one thing to protest outside of the venue, but protesting inside especially when people have paid a lot of money to go in and see the show, well, it's ridiculous. I'd be super pissed if I paid good money to see an artist only to have someone's sign messing up my view.

Ironically enough, the U2 concert I went to last summer did have protesters who were basically calling us devil worshippers for going to a Rock and Roll concert (their words, not mine). They were pretty loud and rowdy outside of the stadium, but were allowed to carry on with it. Sort of funny considering that out of all the secular bands people could see live, U2's one of the most spiritually-relatable ones.

The unemployment rate here in Michigan is pretty close to that number. Lots of longterm unemployed here, too. Like you mention, many are forced to leave things behind and take up a job wherever they can get it. It sucks, but that's the reality of the economy today in many places. Either move for employment or strike it out on your own by starting a business.

I just find it hard to condemn U2 for the supposed "tax evasion" thing until we've heard all the facts. We don't know that they're even residing in Ireland anymore. We don't know how much of their money is made outside of Ireland. We don't know how much they're paying in taxes in other countries. It's one thing if they're residents of Ireland and refusing to pay taxes that they should be paying. It's another if they've simply chosen to move their operations to another country.

All 4 of them have permanent homes in Ireland. While I totally accept tax and business can be a grey area in a global economy, the point here is a moral one.

Avoid taxes all you want, I couldn't care less. But don't moralise about what the Irish government should be doing and don't moralise about social justice when you're playing the system like everyone else.

This is why so many people dislike bono and co. You and I can argue the toss all we want but he is a very unpopular man outside of is forum - and not just because of those ridiculous sunglasses he insists on wearing.

[Fist-O]

I can see the 'topic' of this thread has been genetically altered. So we have this 'tax-evasion' thing here. U2 refuses to pay the Irish government their taxes and so start bashing them all you can (especially Bono). Just wanna remind you guys, do a little research and see how much U2 have done for Ireland in the past: Self Aid, etc. Before you start bashing anyone look at their history, even right now Adam Clayton is doing something about Irish youths being driven to suicide. It's so easy for people to start bashing others. How about 'thanking' them when they do something that you can't? tigerfan's right, you can't solve anything by complaining about it. You gotta ask yourself "what am I doing for my country?" Peace!