Put your money where your mouth is, Bono.

A bit unfair, we have no idea what Bono does with his private wealth, and surely any company is entitled to plan effectively to minimise their tax bill. Surely by this token, Bill Gates could be castigated for Microsoft having their European HQ here so as to minimise tax liabilities??
 
Perhaps with the failure to even meet the 0.7% goal for aid, Bono has decided he doesn't trust the Irish government with this money.

If he were to pay some of the money he saves directly in aid then moving off shore would be very consistent with the message he has preached.

He should issue one short press statement:

Dear Ireland,
If you do your bit I'll do mine, otherwise, I'm taking my business
outta here, and I'll do what I can without your involvement.

Love Bono

For the record I see absolutely nothing wrong whatsoever with what he's doing. If I was given a choice of giving money to the Irish government or keeping it and/or giving it to charities I know what I'd do, and most of the people calling for Bono's head would do the same. Including I suspect most of the politicians.

-Rd
 
IMHO ..

He's right to avail of opportunities to reduce/avoid tax obligations. I would.
He's right to use his celebrity to highlight development aid issues. Rather than comment about other Governments, he's aimed his sights at his own.

Do you think he should live in a cave and donate all of his wealth to overseas development ? Well, that would be his choice, but the point (he is using his celebrity to highlight) is the actions of the Irish Government.

How he chooses to conduct his own financial affairs is his business alone. If he made comments on my own or your personal choices, then he's fair game.
 
Yes very unfair. Bono does a lot, and spends a lot of his time (when he could be off sitting on a beach in the south of France) lobbying the US Government etc to do something about the AIDs problem in Africa etc etc.

Although I dont think any figures have ever been mentioned he has hinted a number of times that he gives quite a lot to charities.

U2 on the other hand is not just a band, its a huge business and of course that business is going to try to be as tax efficient as possible.

Very unfair on Bono, you have to admire him for his efforts and cause.
 
Glenbhoy said:
A bit unfair, we have no idea what Bono does with his private wealth, and surely any company is entitled to plan effectively to minimise their tax bill. Surely by this token, Bill Gates could be castigated for Microsoft having their European HQ here so as to minimise tax liabilities??
Click to expand...

Not really unfair at all I reckon. Bill Gates has indicated that he will be giving away 85% of his personal fortune ($37bn) to charitable activities.

You reckon if someone with a gob as big as Bono was doing something even closely similar that we wouldn't be hearing about that as well?
 
Maybe Bill Gates should start preaching about Aids in Africa everytime someone opens a Microsoft programme like you now get at U2 concerts from Bono.
 
The excuse that the Irish government has come up with to explain not meeting it's commitment on overseas aid is....

We're much richer now than when we made that committment, so we can't afford 0.7%.

Boggles the mind. Double standards anyone?...One rule for the rich and another for the government.

-Rd
 
well I happen to like the fact that U2 still live here, yes they get tax benefits on the copyright of their songs, but so do a lot of performers. They rest of their money is as open to being taxed as the rest of ours.... And at least they have invested visibly in Ireland, property in city center, a hotel....
So they are looking at being tax efficeint, completlely legally.... hands up which AMM-er are diddling the tax man by paying the max in their pensions, or buying section 23 apts? Lets admit it we all want to cut our tax liabilities... unlike a lot of the big mmoney names... wasn't michael smurfit act the 'acting Irish Ambassador' while living in south of france to avoid paying tax?!?! A bigger swizz in my personal opinion...
 
I have absolutey no bone:) to pick with anybody who pays their taxes here venting their feelings on how such taxes should be spent ie hospitals, overseas aid, roads, pensions etc. But I do object to someone who avoids paying tax here telling the government how MY taxes should be dispensed.
 
the point is he berates the government for not giving more but the money the government gives is in fact our money that we give through taxes. So by his company moving their buisness offshore to avoid payimng tax that could be used for overseas aid then he has lost the argument. You cant preach one thing and then allow his business to act totally contrary to his viewpoint. He has lost the argument. He and the boys are so rich now they should not sanction such a tax move. He should MAKE a point of saying his business ventures also do their bit and pay tax in Ireland, FFS he still gets tax free on his writings.

I wont buy any more of his records and give the money to charity instead.

no--
 
I agree, none of us trust the irish government with our hard earned cash do we? but the difference is we have no choice as the taxman would be hard on our tails if we did not pay. How nice for Bono that he can choose to do something else.

Is it something that happens to people when they get money....they can afford an accountant, a good one, and thus work out how to make more money...seems to be! :)
 
Did anyone ask Bono to lecture our government about the percentage we (taxpayers) should contribute to third world aid? And if/when that aid is increased, will that be because of Bono's plea? Not likely! IMO he's a little man looking for attention - over and above that he has earned as a rock star and is entitled to have. It's a long time since he started cosying up to politicians (does anyone remember him with Garret Fitzgerald?). Now if he donated to Aid even half of the tax saved by moving part of his business to the Netherlands, then I would be impressed and more inclined to respect him.

As it stands, he's a big pain, a pain, a pain - I feel a Bloomsday Joycean monologue coming on...... hopefully not the drivel we were subjected to in June of this year by the man himself - Bono.:eek: There's even talk of that painful monologue being issued as a CD!!

It's OK to avoid tax by legal means but someone needs to tell him to spare us his self-serving lectures which are simply sanctimonious twaddle. I don't think there's much likelihood he'll ever be given a Social Entrepreneur award - as John O'Shea of Goal was last year. Even the late Princess Diana walked on land strewn with unexploded mines to raise awareness - maybe Bono should take a leaf out of her book. On second thoughts, the little man is much too precious.;)
 
Last edited:
To my mind, he has lost the moral authority to preach to anyone - he is looking after number 1, as Bob Geldof would have put it. Also, his pleading and lecturing in the past are just part of his image, creating a brand identity in the same way Madonna is doing in Malawi right now.

Celebrities, you can have 'em.
 
NOAH said:
the point is he berates the government for not giving more but the money the government gives is in fact our money that we give through taxes. So by his company moving their buisness offshore to avoid payimng tax that could be used for overseas aid then he has lost the argument. You cant preach one thing and then allow his business to act totally contrary to his viewpoint. He has lost the argument. He and the boys are so rich now they should not sanction such a tax move. He should MAKE a point of saying his business ventures also do their bit and pay tax in Ireland, FFS he still gets tax free on his writings.

I wont buy any more of his records and give the money to charity instead.

no--
Click to expand...
I've never bought his records, nor gone to his concerts so I'm not a fan, and he does drone on and on, but the fact remains, we have no idea as to what he does with his own after tax income.
Re the point above that his tax revenue could be used for paying the overseas aid, is he not preaching that a percentage (0.7?) of GDP/GNP be set aside for distribution, thus, by moving this business to another country, the business no longer contributes to GDP/GNP and thus we do not have to include that when we try to reach our target. In fact, the netherlands are actually donate 0.8% of GNP, so maybe that's why they decided to set up there:rolleyes:
Foreign Aid
The Netherlands is among the world's leading aid donors, giving about 0.8% of its gross national product (about $4.2 billion in 2004) annually in development assistance, a ratio maintained as a firm policy target. The Dutch thus rank as the sixth largest donor nation in dollar terms and the fifth most generous relative to GNP. The country consistently contributes large amounts of aid through multilateral channels, especially the UN Development Program, the international financial institutions, and EU programs. A portion of Dutch aid funds also are channeled through private ("cofinancing") organizations that have almost total autonomy in choice of projects. Minister for Development Cooperation Agnes van Ardenne oversees the aid portfolio.
Click to expand...
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/3204.htm
 
sherib wrote:
> Did anyone ask Bono to lecture our government about the percentage
> we (taxpayers) should contribute to third world aid?

He's not. He's lecturing them on keeping promises, they are the ones that made promises about how much they'd give, and then broke them. He didn't dream up the 0.7% figure.

If he chooses to give some of his his tax to a country that is paying more in aid than Ireland then that's his choice. I doubt that's the reason for his move, but if NL was paying no aid U2 might have looked elsewhere. You don't know what U2 or Bono does with their money, so sanctimonious posturing about their morals isn't a good idea.

Given that the tax cuts you've received here have in part been financed by evading the overseas aid commitments we've made, how many of you have taken up the shortfall and sent the money saved in your tax cuts to charity? Not many of you I suspect.

markjbloggs wrote:
>To my mind, he has lost the moral authority to preach to anyone - he is >looking after number 1

So, because you pay your taxes in Ireland you retain the right to make comments on someones morals, but people who pay tax elsewhere and do tireless work to improve peoples lives around the world, they give up that right. So... you are actually superior morally to Bono.

I didn't realise a Tax Clearance Cert from Ireland carried moral as well as financial credit.

As it happens they still live in Ireland and pay irish tax on their other income, all they have done is moved their music publishing business overseas. If I were them, considering the attitude of my fellow Irish men, I'd say fine, stuff it, and I'd move all my wealth, and my home overseas. But that's just me. I'm sure U2 will stick it out.

sherib wrote:
> someone needs to tell him to spare us his self-serving lectures

Who does your lecture above serve?

The complaints about U2 would carry more weight with me if I thought that the people complaining would do differently in the same boat, or if the people complaining were actually working hard to improve peoples lives.

Finally, Bono is one member of the U2 empire, his personal crusade is third world aid and debt and he's been allowed and encouraged by the other members of the U2 "board" to pursue that.

But that does not mean that business decisions for U2 as a whole must be dictated by the personal crusades of individual members of the board. First and foremost his obligation is to do his best for the finances of the company. What he chooses to do with his own time or his own money is his concern.

People get this worked up about U2 moving one part of their business oveseas, where a greater percentage of the tax paid will go in aid,
and yet when your own government defaults on it's overseas aid pledges there's hardly a whimper.

And we wonder why governments priorities are skewed.

-Rd
 
Dalton,

all I'm saying is that the guy is a hypocrite and that all his bleating is self-serving and part of a Bono-brand awareness campaign. If he'd just shut up, I'd have a lot more respect for the guy, regardless of his tax situation,

M
 
Oct. 16 (Bloomberg) -- Bono, the rock star and campaigner against Third World debt, is asking the Irish government to contribute more to Africa. At the same time, he's reducing tax payments that could help fund that aid.

For years, Bono and U2 got a better deal than most Irish taxpayers because songwriters paid no tax on earnings from music publishing. That will change next year, when Ireland limits the tax exemption, which also applies to writers and artists. From Jan. 1, artists that make more than 500,000 euros ($625,450) will pay tax on half their "creative'' income, according to Ireland's Revenue Authority.

Remaining in Ireland would have forced Bono to pay a 42 percent tax on such earnings. Alternatively, the band could have channeled profits through a company to pay the 12.5 percent corporation tax
Click to expand...
So, it's OK for citizens to pay tax up to 42% (and up to 70% not so long ago) but when you're a rock star it's admirable to avail of the right to be treated as a charity case? He should keep quiet considering the millions+ he and his group have saved in tax over the years. The Artists' Exemption was intended to help artists who contribute greatly to our society - actors, writers, painters etc and not to make already rich people even richer whilst people on the lowest incomes continue to pay their dues in support of the State.

"I can see no connection between what he is doing and Make Poverty History,'' said Richard Murphy, a director at U.K.-based Tax Research Ltd. and author of a book called "Money Matters: Artist's Financial Guide.'' "He is setting a poor example by his tax affairs.''
Click to expand...
The people of Ireland have already and continue to contribute far more to Third World Aid than "the little man" and they don't go around bragging about it. Quite apart from contributing via taxation, Irish people are renowned for their generosity to charities - hopefully they won't imitate "the little hero".

Originally posted by daltonr
sherib wrote:
someone needs to tell him to spare us his self-serving lectures
Who does your lecture above serve?
Click to expand...
Moi? I was Letting Off Steam ;)
 
Mark,

From what I know, (a little, but not a lot) he is sincere in what he believes in, he does put his energy and I'm sure some money (though that's noones business but his own) where his mouth is.

I don't believe he needs to promote his "brand" through these activities, if anything his crusades probably do more to harm his music career than help it, if the comments on this thread are to be believed.

For me the hypocrits are the people who criticise him for his actions, while they would all do the same thing themselves. Those who claim his actions are insincere, even though they have no knowledge of how sincere or otherwise he is.

I understand your point that it's not his move overseas that annoys you, but is preaching. That's a valid opinion. everyone has a right to have a crusade and everyone else has a right to criticise them for it.

But I don't think anyone has a right to claim that a particular persons crusade is insincere, or self-serving.

As to whether someone has to right to move their company to another jurisdiction. Yes they do, and yes Ireland Inc can complain and call it unpatriotic, but they can't call it hypocritical.

The Netherlands gives more in aid than Ireland. They also have a more favourable tax regime for Music publishing. U2 would be stupid to ignore the tax savings, and hypocritical to ignore the better aid.

Staying in Ireland would be the wrong thing to do no matter how you slice it.

-Richard
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top