GEN
Active topics
  1. Originally posted by yeah[..]

    Sure not.
    But one thing seems odd. Bono constantly asks the richer countries to donate to the poor. What incomes does a state have? Taxes. And at the same time he tries to pay as little taxes as possible?


    Contradiction is a wonderful thing. Preach one thing, practice another.
  2. Everyone makes decisions to minimise there expences and maximise there earnings,especially when it comes to tax.U2 don't make all there own decisions,there job is to play there music there management company looks after the rest.
  3. Originally posted by scottoEveryone makes decisions to minimise there expences and maximise there earnings,especially when it comes to tax.U2 don't make all there own decisions,there job is to play there music there management company looks after the rest.


    I agree with you....partially. This is a pretty well-known topic (in the media and all), so I think if the bad wanted to do something besides the stance their management company took, I'm sure they would have spoken up. It's tough, because there is a bit of a contradiction there...
  4. Originally posted by 44rmanI was just looking at the current issue of Vanity Fair and Bono is listed in their "top 100". His positive attributes are listed, but it's also noted that U2's publishing catalogue is routed through a Dutch company to avoid paying taxes in Ireland. True?


    they're just saving some money to save the world!
  5. Sound business skills are sound business skills. The MANY skills include creating income, re-investing some or all of that income back into the business in an intelligent way, AND minimizing taxes, among others

    You are going to pay taxes no matter what, as an individual or as a company, so it makes NO sense to pay more than you need to.

    I don't believe it is at all dishonest because 1) it is a legal move, 2) they are still paying taxes and not evading them, AND 3) the overwhelming majority of their business comes from outside Ireland, so they should not be bound to Ireland's specific tax laws if they can legally pay less otherwise.

    Furthermore, saving on taxes means U2 can afford to charge less to their fans and to give more money and time to worthy causes, which we all know 100% that they do to an extreme extent.

    In general, there is an unfair stigma against "white musicians" (i.e., rock and pop) that applying business savvy is "selling out." All athletes and all actors are encouraged to make as much money as humanly possible with endorsements for products they will NEVER use; THAT to me is dishonest.

    Hip-hop artists (P. Diddy, Jay-Z, Dame Dash) are encouraged to be entrepreneurs, to start clothing lines and other businesses unrelated to hip-hop; I think this is totally cool. HOWEVER, "rock" music is for some reason held to such a strict, "pure" standard that "it's not about the money at all" which unconsciously translates into, "anything a rock star earns above baseline celebrity sustenance is unfair and dishonest," and I think this is BS.

    ...Well, there goes my ranting and raving. I guess in short, my beliefs line up in this situation line up with Aidan's and probably other people on here who's posts I can't remember off the top of my head.
  6. hey it could just be a case of "i don't want to give any money to the gov because they don't know how to use it". If you got the power and you belive that...well then, what hey?!!? right?!?!
  7. Who the hell would want to pay more taxes than they have to? I can't stand people who criticise other people over issues like this. It's a completley logical move to relocate to Holland to pay less taxes. I know i'd do it
  8. Wouldn't you do the same?
    I don't think Ireland would be of great help to Africa anyway, it's not one of the wealthiest countries.
    Plus, if U2's money could solve poverty they could give it to the poor directly and not through taxes that will take ages to get to the poor if they ever do.