Author Topic: Unpopular Opinion: U2 Edition  (Read 1531 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline wons

  • Party Girl/Boy
  • **
  • Posts: 658
Re: Unpopular Opinion: U2 Edition
« Reply #15 on: July 05, 2018, 04:29:12 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Its interesting that this thread is now the most popular in the general forum. One wonders what that says about this forum, or the nature of message boards in general.

Wouldn’t it be more logical to wonder what it says about the direction U2 has been headed?  The simplest most direct and obvious answer is usually the correct one.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Amen to that, Tortuga-- 100% agree

Re this forum, it is the oldest independent U2 fan site- some of us have been here since 1995. There is a large cross section of fans of all generations who became fans at all the different points in the band's musical history. That's why it has been so enduring, and was the original setlist place to go back in the days when we were all trading bootlegs.

I'm not sure what your point is about message boards?

See above. Its also a message board that was shut down for two months last year.

Offline U2FlyXC

  • Stranger in a Strange Land
  • *
  • Posts: 9
Re: Unpopular Opinion: U2 Edition
« Reply #16 on: July 05, 2018, 04:50:42 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Its interesting that this thread is now the most popular in the general forum. One wonders what that says about this forum, or the nature of message boards in general.

Wouldn’t it be more logical to wonder what it says about the direction U2 has been headed?  The simplest most direct and obvious answer is usually the correct one.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That is not the thread topic. The topic is unpopular opinions about U2 which often means sh**ting on the band and its music. It raises the question that if your a fan and enjoy their music, why you would spend time on a message board attacking them. I typically don't comment about music I don't like or care for. I also would not be spending any time on a message board for a band I had been so disappointed in for years. One thing I have found about the internet in general is that its more popular to make critical or scathing remarks about something someone doesn't like than to compliment something they do like. This thread seems to fit that general theme. Sort of a lets take the band behind the woodshed and beat them up for everything we don't like, type of thread.

While I agree that "unpopular opinions" often can be seen as negative. The opinion that started off this thread was positive as have other ones shared on this thread. Sure, there is a negative connotation of having to imply most people don't like a certain thing but, in reference to the first post I made, I truly loved SOI and dont know why people didnt enjoy it as much.
 
I suppose it comes down to the simple fact that people are passionate about U2 on here, sometimes to a fault but don't make it like this is just a hate thread. You're completely missing the point if you think that.

Offline Tortuga

  • Refugee
  • *
  • Posts: 201
Re: Unpopular Opinion: U2 Edition
« Reply #17 on: July 05, 2018, 04:52:12 PM »
I don’t understand your logic.  I’ve been a U2 fan since 1982.  That doesn’t mean I think everything they have done is awesome.  Look at my comments.  I’m not saying they stink now.  I’m just saying its not their best work and that My personal opinion is that they should look for fresh inspiration.  It seems that for you that means I need to turn in my fan club card.  The purpose of a forum is discussion and sharing of thoughts.  Everybody doesn’t have to agree on everything and fall at the feet of U2.  I’m focused on their art, not the band itself.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Offline U2FlyXC

  • Stranger in a Strange Land
  • *
  • Posts: 9
Re: Unpopular Opinion: U2 Edition
« Reply #18 on: July 05, 2018, 05:25:28 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I don’t understand your logic.  I’ve been a U2 fan since 1982.  That doesn’t mean I think everything they have done is awesome.  Look at my comments.  I’m not saying they stink now.  I’m just saying its not their best work and that My personal opinion is that they should look for fresh inspiration.  It seems that for you that means I need to turn in my fan club card.  The purpose of a forum is discussion and sharing of thoughts.  Everybody doesn’t have to agree on everything and fall at the feet of U2.  I’m focused on their art, not the band itself.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

While I don't believe you were replying to me I will say that I do agree with not everybody falling at the feet of U2. U2 has done some great and some terrible things and a discussion board like this is the perfect place to do that. Obviously you don't want everything being negative but you also don't just want glowing praise because then you miss out on some of that meaningful discussion. For example, we disagree of SO I and SOE, that's perfectly fine. I'm sure there are things you really enjoy about them that I don't.

Again, I don't believe you were responding to me but I felt that your comment gave me an opportunity to say that.

Offline ToRontoRon

  • Wanderer
  • *
  • Posts: 67
Re: Unpopular Opinion: U2 Edition
« Reply #19 on: July 05, 2018, 05:34:31 PM »
War is my least favourite album.

How To Dismantle An Atomic Bomb is fantastic.

Elvis Presley And America is a great song.  It's so incredibly raw, and the disjointed lyrics, (since Bono made it up on the spot), go perfectly with what I see the song is about.  Literally the last minutes of Elvis' life as he's overdosing and the affects of America's overindulgence on things, in this case drugs, catch up with him.

Offline Luzita

  • Headache in a Suitcase
  • *
  • Posts: 363
Unpopular Opinion: U2 Edition
« Reply #20 on: July 05, 2018, 05:42:28 PM »
I appreciate the OP's point that unpopular opinions does not necessarily mean negative opinions. So on to my own unpopular opinions (at least unpopular to some).

* U2's last couple of albums, esp. SOE, are very high quality and stack up well against the rest of their catalog.
* The 90s were not a good decade for them overall. They did create Achtung Baby, which is a great album, but the other albums they produced are not among their best.
* The criticism that U2 receives for their "tax avoidance" is not only absurd, it is harmful. U2 get bashed far more than other bands, even though they haven't done anything worse and, in fact, have done very little wrong at all.  The reason is their philanthropy and social activism. Those who get off on hating U2 for their "hypocrisy" are discouraging people with money and fame from using their resources on behalf of those who have nothing. Others in a similar position to U2 can look around and realize, "Hey, I can be a selfish pig with my money, and treat my family and associates like dirt, and it won't hurt my reputation. But I better stay the hell away from saving people dying of AIDS and starvation or I'll earn myself no end of grief!"
« Last Edit: July 05, 2018, 06:36:09 PM by Luzita »

Offline hotty375

  • Babyface
  • *
  • Posts: 29
Re: Unpopular Opinion: U2 Edition
« Reply #21 on: July 05, 2018, 06:20:09 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Its interesting that this thread is now the most popular in the general forum. One wonders what that says about this forum, or the nature of message boards in general.

Wouldn’t it be more logical to wonder what it says about the direction U2 has been headed?  The simplest most direct and obvious answer is usually the correct one.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Amen to that, Tortuga-- 100% agree

Re this forum, it is the oldest independent U2 fan site- some of us have been here since 1995. There is a large cross section of fans of all generations who became fans at all the different points in the band's musical history. That's why it has been so enduring, and was the original setlist place to go back in the days when we were all trading bootlegs.

I'm not sure what your point is about message boards?

See above. Its also a message board that was shut down for two months last year.

And?

Offline shineinthesummernight

  • Child of Grace
  • **
  • Posts: 1,659
Re: Unpopular Opinion: U2 Edition
« Reply #22 on: July 05, 2018, 06:36:23 PM »
My unpopular opinions are that October, NLOTH and SOE are in the top five of all U2 albums.

Offline laoghaire

  • Numb
  • **
  • Posts: 912
  • IT MEEEEEEEANS SOMETHING!!!!!!
Re: Unpopular Opinion: U2 Edition
« Reply #23 on: July 05, 2018, 06:48:06 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
My unpopular opinions are that October, NLOTH and SOE are in the top five of all U2 albums.

I admire that.

Offline hotty375

  • Babyface
  • *
  • Posts: 29
Re: Unpopular Opinion: U2 Edition
« Reply #24 on: July 05, 2018, 07:03:03 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I appreciate the OP's point that unpopular opinions does not necessarily mean negative opinions. So on to my own unpopular opinions (at least unpopular to some).

* U2's last couple of albums, esp. SOE, are very high quality and stack up well against the rest of their catalog.
* The 90s were not a good decade for them overall. They did create Achtung Baby, which is a great album, but the other albums they produced are not among their best.
* The criticism that U2 receives for their "tax avoidance" is not only absurd, it is harmful. U2 get bashed far more than other bands, even though they haven't done anything worse and, in fact, have done very little wrong at all.  The reason is their philanthropy and social activism. Those who get off on hating U2 for their "hypocrisy" are discouraging people with money and fame from using those resources on behalf of those who have nothing. Others in a similar position to U2 can look around and realize, "Hey, I can be a selfish pig with my money, and treat my family and associates like dirt, and it won't hurt my reputation. But I better stay the hell away from saving people dying of AIDS and starvation or I'll earn myself no end of grief!"

I totally disagree with you re your first comment, but musical taste is subjective so fair enough. But really? Stack up well- really really?

I totally disagree with you re the 90's - AB is a universally acclaimed classic album and rightfully so. Followed by the ground breaking Zoo TV tour and followed by Zooropa which was  equally successful and equally amazing. Zooropa album has some major U2 highlights- the title track, Stay ( surely one of the best ever U2 songs of all time),  Lemon. It's pretty sonically  experimental ( as were the visuals) and yeah, the latter half isn't anywhere near as good as AB but pees all over anything they have done in the last decade. Pop has some great songs on it and amazing guitar sounds, but didn't translate particularly well to the live arena. The UK end of the tour suffered badly by coinciding with Princess Diana's death which put a bit of a subdued feel to it all. But has some great songs on it nonetheless-- Mofo, Gone, Last Night on Earth, Miami but definitely not a classic U2 album. And Adam was busy putting the rock-n-roll into U2 then too--supermodels, missed gigs etc :-) I can tell you stacks of non-U2 fans gave them plenty of deference in the whole AB/ Zooropa early 90's era.

I totally disagree with you re the tax avoidance. It is not absurd at all. The U2 tax loophole can be explained as follows:
Rock bands such as U2 and the Rolling Stones take advantage of this loophole to manage royalty payments from their records and performances.
The bands license their copyright to companies that they set up in the Netherlands, which in turn license it to companies in other countries.
While the Netherlands companies receive the bands’ global royalties, they only pay tax on what is earned in the Netherlands itself, allowing the groups to cut their tax bills.
To give an example of this, pre-this, U2 Ltd paid tax of $46500 in Ireland. The next year, they paid $1.1m after the Irish govt. capped the tax relief on royalty income. 3 months later, U2 moved their tax affairs to The Netherlands

Frankly, they should be paying the  appropriate rate of corporation tax on the profits generated by the revenues in any particular country in which they 'trade' or generate income. And yes, it's not the 'rules' , but they would be setting a great example ( a Christian example, even lol)

Fair? Or sensible taxation? The rules are set by the mega-rich to benefit the mega-rich. Except Bono continually pontificates about debt relief and third world aid whilst continuing to do anything to minimise his own tax liabilities. Shopping centres in Lithuania--really? What about championing ethical investing? Adam Clayton is so rich he didn't even notice his maid stealing £400K from him until it was too late. The Edge embarks on a mission to build property on a protected beach front-- for what? To sell real estate? Larry Mullen sues his accountant because his investments lost 11m Euros. Bono has consistently called on the Irish government to do more to help developing nations. That he is doing so while at the same time doing anything he can to remove cash from the Irish tax coffers is what annoys people - in Ireland especially. There was an interview on Irish TV where Bono talked about how people need to get over any “warm, fuzzy feeling” they might have about the band. They’re a business, he insisted. It is interesting that he spoke on behalf of Ireland in their bid to get a seat on the UN Security Council . Ireland only contributes 0.4% of GDP to foreign aid, well below the target of 0.7% ( which hardly anyone does, but the UK does). Norway- one of Ireland's competitors for the seat-- contributes 1.05%. Perhaps U2 should make up the Irish shortfall--that would give them real kudos.

And forgive my cynicism, but how many people have U2 personally saved from dying of AIDs or starvation? Really? (again)
« Last Edit: July 05, 2018, 07:16:06 PM by hotty375 »

Offline Tortuga

  • Refugee
  • *
  • Posts: 201
Re: Unpopular Opinion: U2 Edition
« Reply #25 on: July 05, 2018, 07:40:53 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I appreciate the OP's point that unpopular opinions does not necessarily mean negative opinions. So on to my own unpopular opinions (at least unpopular to some).

* U2's last couple of albums, esp. SOE, are very high quality and stack up well against the rest of their catalog.
* The 90s were not a good decade for them overall. They did create Achtung Baby, which is a great album, but the other albums they produced are not among their best.
* The criticism that U2 receives for their "tax avoidance" is not only absurd, it is harmful. U2 get bashed far more than other bands, even though they haven't done anything worse and, in fact, have done very little wrong at all.  The reason is their philanthropy and social activism. Those who get off on hating U2 for their "hypocrisy" are discouraging people with money and fame from using those resources on behalf of those who have nothing. Others in a similar position to U2 can look around and realize, "Hey, I can be a selfish pig with my money, and treat my family and associates like dirt, and it won't hurt my reputation. But I better stay the hell away from saving people dying of AIDS and starvation or I'll earn myself no end of grief!"

I totally disagree with you re your first comment, but musical taste is subjective so fair enough. But really? Stack up well- really really?

I totally disagree with you re the 90's - AB is a universally acclaimed classic album and rightfully so. Followed by the ground breaking Zoo TV tour and followed by Zooropa which was  equally successful and equally amazing. Zooropa album has some major U2 highlights- the title track, Stay ( surely one of the best ever U2 songs of all time),  Lemon. It's pretty sonically  experimental ( as were the visuals) and yeah, the latter half isn't anywhere near as good as AB but pees all over anything they have done in the last decade. Pop has some great songs on it and amazing guitar sounds, but didn't translate particularly well to the live arena. The UK end of the tour suffered badly by coinciding with Princess Diana's death which put a bit of a subdued feel to it all. But has some great songs on it nonetheless-- Mofo, Gone, Last Night on Earth, Miami but definitely not a classic U2 album. And Adam was busy putting the rock-n-roll into U2 then too--supermodels, missed gigs etc :-) I can tell you stacks of non-U2 fans gave them plenty of deference in the whole AB/ Zooropa early 90's era.

I totally disagree with you re the tax avoidance. It is not absurd at all. The U2 tax loophole can be explained as follows:
Rock bands such as U2 and the Rolling Stones take advantage of this loophole to manage royalty payments from their records and performances.
The bands license their copyright to companies that they set up in the Netherlands, which in turn license it to companies in other countries.
While the Netherlands companies receive the bands’ global royalties, they only pay tax on what is earned in the Netherlands itself, allowing the groups to cut their tax bills.
To give an example of this, pre-this, U2 Ltd paid tax of $46500 in Ireland. The next year, they paid $1.1m after the Irish govt. capped the tax relief on royalty income. 3 months later, U2 moved their tax affairs to The Netherlands

Frankly, they should be paying the  appropriate rate of corporation tax on the profits generated by the revenues in any particular country in which they 'trade' or generate income. And yes, it's not the 'rules' , but they would be setting a great example ( a Christian example, even lol)

Fair? Or sensible taxation? The rules are set by the mega-rich to benefit the mega-rich. Except Bono continually pontificates about debt relief and third world aid whilst continuing to do anything to minimise his own tax liabilities. Shopping centres in Lithuania--really? What about championing ethical investing? Adam Clayton is so rich he didn't even notice his maid stealing £400K from him until it was too late. The Edge embarks on a mission to build property on a protected beach front-- for what? To sell real estate? Larry Mullen sues his accountant because his investments lost 11m Euros. Bono has consistently called on the Irish government to do more to help developing nations. That he is doing so while at the same time doing anything he can to remove cash from the Irish tax coffers is what annoys people - in Ireland especially. There was an interview on Irish TV where Bono talked about how people need to get over any “warm, fuzzy feeling” they might have about the band. They’re a business, he insisted. It is interesting that he spoke on behalf of Ireland in their bid to get a seat on the UN Security Council . Ireland only contributes 0.4% of GDP to foreign aid, well below the target of 0.7% ( which hardly anyone does, but the UK does). Norway- one of Ireland's competitors for the seat-- contributes 1.05%. Perhaps U2 should make up the Irish shortfall--that would give them real kudos.

And forgive my cynicism, but how many people have U2 personally saved from dying of AIDs or starvation? Really? (again)

I don’t really care about the band members personal traits (within reason).  Has nothing to do with my enjoyment of their music.  But just as matter of reason, with regard to taxes, if its legal its ethical.  The real question is what do they do with the financial blessings they’ve received.  What did they do with the tax saved?  None of us know.  You can’t win if you’re a celebrity.  If you let people know about what you give then your just doing it so people will like you.  If you keep it secret, people assume your selfish.

Offline Luzita

  • Headache in a Suitcase
  • *
  • Posts: 363
Re: Unpopular Opinion: U2 Edition
« Reply #26 on: July 05, 2018, 07:54:58 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I appreciate the OP's point that unpopular opinions does not necessarily mean negative opinions. So on to my own unpopular opinions (at least unpopular to some).

* U2's last couple of albums, esp. SOE, are very high quality and stack up well against the rest of their catalog.
* The 90s were not a good decade for them overall. They did create Achtung Baby, which is a great album, but the other albums they produced are not among their best.
* The criticism that U2 receives for their "tax avoidance" is not only absurd, it is harmful. U2 get bashed far more than other bands, even though they haven't done anything worse and, in fact, have done very little wrong at all.  The reason is their philanthropy and social activism. Those who get off on hating U2 for their "hypocrisy" are discouraging people with money and fame from using those resources on behalf of those who have nothing. Others in a similar position to U2 can look around and realize, "Hey, I can be a selfish pig with my money, and treat my family and associates like dirt, and it won't hurt my reputation. But I better stay the hell away from saving people dying of AIDS and starvation or I'll earn myself no end of grief!"

I totally disagree with you re your first comment, but musical taste is subjective so fair enough. But really? Stack up well- really really?

I totally disagree with you re the 90's - AB is a universally acclaimed classic album and rightfully so. Followed by the ground breaking Zoo TV tour and followed by Zooropa which was  equally successful and equally amazing. Zooropa album has some major U2 highlights- the title track, Stay ( surely one of the best ever U2 songs of all time),  Lemon. It's pretty sonically  experimental ( as were the visuals) and yeah, the latter half isn't anywhere near as good as AB but pees all over anything they have done in the last decade. Pop has some great songs on it and amazing guitar sounds, but didn't translate particularly well to the live arena. The UK end of the tour suffered badly by coinciding with Princess Diana's death which put a bit of a subdued feel to it all. But has some great songs on it nonetheless-- Mofo, Gone, Last Night on Earth, Miami but definitely not a classic U2 album. And Adam was busy putting the rock-n-roll into U2 then too--supermodels, missed gigs etc :-) I can tell you stacks of non-U2 fans gave them plenty of deference in the whole AB/ Zooropa early 90's era.

I totally disagree with you re the tax avoidance. It is not absurd at all. The U2 tax loophole can be explained as follows:
Rock bands such as U2 and the Rolling Stones take advantage of this loophole to manage royalty payments from their records and performances.
The bands license their copyright to companies that they set up in the Netherlands, which in turn license it to companies in other countries.
While the Netherlands companies receive the bands’ global royalties, they only pay tax on what is earned in the Netherlands itself, allowing the groups to cut their tax bills.
To give an example of this, pre-this, U2 Ltd paid tax of $46500 in Ireland. The next year, they paid $1.1m after the Irish govt. capped the tax relief on royalty income. 3 months later, U2 moved their tax affairs to The Netherlands

Frankly, they should be paying the  appropriate rate of corporation tax on the profits generated by the revenues in any particular country in which they 'trade' or generate income. And yes, it's not the 'rules' , but they would be setting a great example ( a Christian example, even lol)

Fair? Or sensible taxation? The rules are set by the mega-rich to benefit the mega-rich. Except Bono continually pontificates about debt relief and third world aid whilst continuing to do anything to minimise his own tax liabilities. Shopping centres in Lithuania--really? What about championing ethical investing? Adam Clayton is so rich he didn't even notice his maid stealing £400K from him until it was too late. The Edge embarks on a mission to build property on a protected beach front-- for what? To sell real estate? Larry Mullen sues his accountant because his investments lost 11m Euros. Bono has consistently called on the Irish government to do more to help developing nations. That he is doing so while at the same time doing anything he can to remove cash from the Irish tax coffers is what annoys people - in Ireland especially. There was an interview on Irish TV where Bono talked about how people need to get over any “warm, fuzzy feeling” they might have about the band. They’re a business, he insisted. It is interesting that he spoke on behalf of Ireland in their bid to get a seat on the UN Security Council . Ireland only contributes 0.4% of GDP to foreign aid, well below the target of 0.7% ( which hardly anyone does, but the UK does). Norway- one of Ireland's competitors for the seat-- contributes 1.05%. Perhaps U2 should make up the Irish shortfall--that would give them real kudos.

And forgive my cynicism, but how many people have U2 personally saved from dying of AIDs or starvation? Really? (again)
Wow, you sure do like to type! Guess my opinions were definitely unpopular with you. Yay for me!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Offline Luzita

  • Headache in a Suitcase
  • *
  • Posts: 363
Unpopular Opinion: U2 Edition
« Reply #27 on: July 05, 2018, 08:04:45 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
My unpopular opinions are that October, NLOTH and SOE are in the top five of all U2 albums.
October is also in my top 5, and SOE comes in about 6th.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Offline hotty375

  • Babyface
  • *
  • Posts: 29
Re: Unpopular Opinion: U2 Edition
« Reply #28 on: July 05, 2018, 08:07:28 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I appreciate the OP's point that unpopular opinions does not necessarily mean negative opinions. So on to my own unpopular opinions (at least unpopular to some).

* U2's last couple of albums, esp. SOE, are very high quality and stack up well against the rest of their catalog.
* The 90s were not a good decade for them overall. They did create Achtung Baby, which is a great album, but the other albums they produced are not among their best.
* The criticism that U2 receives for their "tax avoidance" is not only absurd, it is harmful. U2 get bashed far more than other bands, even though they haven't done anything worse and, in fact, have done very little wrong at all.  The reason is their philanthropy and social activism. Those who get off on hating U2 for their "hypocrisy" are discouraging people with money and fame from using those resources on behalf of those who have nothing. Others in a similar position to U2 can look around and realize, "Hey, I can be a selfish pig with my money, and treat my family and associates like dirt, and it won't hurt my reputation. But I better stay the hell away from saving people dying of AIDS and starvation or I'll earn myself no end of grief!"

I totally disagree with you re your first comment, but musical taste is subjective so fair enough. But really? Stack up well- really really?

I totally disagree with you re the 90's - AB is a universally acclaimed classic album and rightfully so. Followed by the ground breaking Zoo TV tour and followed by Zooropa which was  equally successful and equally amazing. Zooropa album has some major U2 highlights- the title track, Stay ( surely one of the best ever U2 songs of all time),  Lemon. It's pretty sonically  experimental ( as were the visuals) and yeah, the latter half isn't anywhere near as good as AB but pees all over anything they have done in the last decade. Pop has some great songs on it and amazing guitar sounds, but didn't translate particularly well to the live arena. The UK end of the tour suffered badly by coinciding with Princess Diana's death which put a bit of a subdued feel to it all. But has some great songs on it nonetheless-- Mofo, Gone, Last Night on Earth, Miami but definitely not a classic U2 album. And Adam was busy putting the rock-n-roll into U2 then too--supermodels, missed gigs etc :-) I can tell you stacks of non-U2 fans gave them plenty of deference in the whole AB/ Zooropa early 90's era.

I totally disagree with you re the tax avoidance. It is not absurd at all. The U2 tax loophole can be explained as follows:
Rock bands such as U2 and the Rolling Stones take advantage of this loophole to manage royalty payments from their records and performances.
The bands license their copyright to companies that they set up in the Netherlands, which in turn license it to companies in other countries.
While the Netherlands companies receive the bands’ global royalties, they only pay tax on what is earned in the Netherlands itself, allowing the groups to cut their tax bills.
To give an example of this, pre-this, U2 Ltd paid tax of $46500 in Ireland. The next year, they paid $1.1m after the Irish govt. capped the tax relief on royalty income. 3 months later, U2 moved their tax affairs to The Netherlands

Frankly, they should be paying the  appropriate rate of corporation tax on the profits generated by the revenues in any particular country in which they 'trade' or generate income. And yes, it's not the 'rules' , but they would be setting a great example ( a Christian example, even lol)

Fair? Or sensible taxation? The rules are set by the mega-rich to benefit the mega-rich. Except Bono continually pontificates about debt relief and third world aid whilst continuing to do anything to minimise his own tax liabilities. Shopping centres in Lithuania--really? What about championing ethical investing? Adam Clayton is so rich he didn't even notice his maid stealing £400K from him until it was too late. The Edge embarks on a mission to build property on a protected beach front-- for what? To sell real estate? Larry Mullen sues his accountant because his investments lost 11m Euros. Bono has consistently called on the Irish government to do more to help developing nations. That he is doing so while at the same time doing anything he can to remove cash from the Irish tax coffers is what annoys people - in Ireland especially. There was an interview on Irish TV where Bono talked about how people need to get over any “warm, fuzzy feeling” they might have about the band. They’re a business, he insisted. It is interesting that he spoke on behalf of Ireland in their bid to get a seat on the UN Security Council . Ireland only contributes 0.4% of GDP to foreign aid, well below the target of 0.7% ( which hardly anyone does, but the UK does). Norway- one of Ireland's competitors for the seat-- contributes 1.05%. Perhaps U2 should make up the Irish shortfall--that would give them real kudos.

And forgive my cynicism, but how many people have U2 personally saved from dying of AIDs or starvation? Really? (again)
Wow, you sure do like to type! Guess my opinions were definitely unpopular with you. Yay for me!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ha- I've got fast fingers ;D

I'm sure my opinions were equally unpopular with you so yay for me too  :)

Offline Rasmus

  • Refugee
  • *
  • Posts: 247
Re: Unpopular Opinion: U2 Edition
« Reply #29 on: July 06, 2018, 03:28:28 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I appreciate the OP's point that unpopular opinions does not necessarily mean negative opinions. So on to my own unpopular opinions (at least unpopular to some).

* U2's last couple of albums, esp. SOE, are very high quality and stack up well against the rest of their catalog.
* The 90s were not a good decade for them overall. They did create Achtung Baby, which is a great album, but the other albums they produced are not among their best.
* The criticism that U2 receives for their "tax avoidance" is not only absurd, it is harmful. U2 get bashed far more than other bands, even though they haven't done anything worse and, in fact, have done very little wrong at all.  The reason is their philanthropy and social activism. Those who get off on hating U2 for their "hypocrisy" are discouraging people with money and fame from using those resources on behalf of those who have nothing. Others in a similar position to U2 can look around and realize, "Hey, I can be a selfish pig with my money, and treat my family and associates like dirt, and it won't hurt my reputation. But I better stay the hell away from saving people dying of AIDS and starvation or I'll earn myself no end of grief!"

I totally disagree with you re your first comment, but musical taste is subjective so fair enough. But really? Stack up well- really really?

I totally disagree with you re the 90's - AB is a universally acclaimed classic album and rightfully so. Followed by the ground breaking Zoo TV tour and followed by Zooropa which was  equally successful and equally amazing. Zooropa album has some major U2 highlights- the title track, Stay ( surely one of the best ever U2 songs of all time),  Lemon. It's pretty sonically  experimental ( as were the visuals) and yeah, the latter half isn't anywhere near as good as AB but pees all over anything they have done in the last decade. Pop has some great songs on it and amazing guitar sounds, but didn't translate particularly well to the live arena. The UK end of the tour suffered badly by coinciding with Princess Diana's death which put a bit of a subdued feel to it all. But has some great songs on it nonetheless-- Mofo, Gone, Last Night on Earth, Miami but definitely not a classic U2 album. And Adam was busy putting the rock-n-roll into U2 then too--supermodels, missed gigs etc :-) I can tell you stacks of non-U2 fans gave them plenty of deference in the whole AB/ Zooropa early 90's era.

I totally disagree with you re the tax avoidance. It is not absurd at all. The U2 tax loophole can be explained as follows:
Rock bands such as U2 and the Rolling Stones take advantage of this loophole to manage royalty payments from their records and performances.
The bands license their copyright to companies that they set up in the Netherlands, which in turn license it to companies in other countries.
While the Netherlands companies receive the bands’ global royalties, they only pay tax on what is earned in the Netherlands itself, allowing the groups to cut their tax bills.
To give an example of this, pre-this, U2 Ltd paid tax of $46500 in Ireland. The next year, they paid $1.1m after the Irish govt. capped the tax relief on royalty income. 3 months later, U2 moved their tax affairs to The Netherlands

Frankly, they should be paying the  appropriate rate of corporation tax on the profits generated by the revenues in any particular country in which they 'trade' or generate income. And yes, it's not the 'rules' , but they would be setting a great example ( a Christian example, even lol)

Fair? Or sensible taxation? The rules are set by the mega-rich to benefit the mega-rich. Except Bono continually pontificates about debt relief and third world aid whilst continuing to do anything to minimise his own tax liabilities. Shopping centres in Lithuania--really? What about championing ethical investing? Adam Clayton is so rich he didn't even notice his maid stealing £400K from him until it was too late. The Edge embarks on a mission to build property on a protected beach front-- for what? To sell real estate? Larry Mullen sues his accountant because his investments lost 11m Euros. Bono has consistently called on the Irish government to do more to help developing nations. That he is doing so while at the same time doing anything he can to remove cash from the Irish tax coffers is what annoys people - in Ireland especially. There was an interview on Irish TV where Bono talked about how people need to get over any “warm, fuzzy feeling” they might have about the band. They’re a business, he insisted. It is interesting that he spoke on behalf of Ireland in their bid to get a seat on the UN Security Council . Ireland only contributes 0.4% of GDP to foreign aid, well below the target of 0.7% ( which hardly anyone does, but the UK does). Norway- one of Ireland's competitors for the seat-- contributes 1.05%. Perhaps U2 should make up the Irish shortfall--that would give them real kudos.

And forgive my cynicism, but how many people have U2 personally saved from dying of AIDs or starvation? Really? (again)

I agree with everything in your post. Nice one!