Protests about U2 Playing

[possum]

I'd love to see what happened if such a protest were to take place; how U2 and their fans would react if it were noticeable. The only problem with this is that I'd have to put up with their music rather than doing something more interesting instead.

This thread reveals just how far Glastonbury has become just another music festival for some people who don't want their fun weekend ruined by anything remotely 'political'. I wonder if Bono & co would have a view on whether music should have a meaning?

[Aussie@Glasto]

There are companies like GE and Exon Mobile that generate billions of $$$ and pay f**k all tax. In the case of Exon they also f**k up the environment. Here is a link http://www.forbes.com/2010/04/01/ge-exxon-walmart-business-washington-corporate-taxes.html U2 may minimize tax but it's nothing compared to what the big companies do. At least we get some entertainment from U2, can't say the same for the others.

[muddyslingbax]

Caledonian Gonzo, I liked your post but couldn't +1 it.

The benefit fraud argument is a lie. I don't have the information to hand to illustrate why, but I am going to spend some time today with the issue and later will break it down with real evidence that is freely available (unless I get high and fall asleep in the sun!)

How has no one posted this yet?

[sisterofmercy]

I hate U2 and am not a fan of tax avoidance either, but I think there's a time and a place for that sort of thing. Glasto is the place for protests like this, but not during the headline slot. To me that just seems like people going out of their way to spoil it for everyone else. If they were going to protest at Leftfield then that would make more sense, but during a headline slot that people have been looking forward to for 2 years? Bear in mind that some people may have bought Glasto tickets for the sole purpose of seeing U2, to me that doesn't sound fair.

Now of course if they don't actually do anything disruptive then fair enough. I do admire the group in the majority of their protests, but the inflatable banner thing may impair someone's view and as we all know that's hard enough as it is.

On a more selfish level, if they bring it out during Moz I will be livid.

But I'm sure this is just something that has been blown out of proportion a little bit by the press, so we shall see.

[TwistedReligion]

somebody better tell the protesters nobody will be able to see anything because of the flags.

[The Nal]

Totally wrong.

[guypjfreak]

all a load of bollocks and not needed at a festival [any festival] they have the streets for protests why ruin other peoples enjoyment :angry: :angry: :angry:

[Torcs4]

Their argument against Philip Green/Top Shop and Bono/U2 is a bit different. Green is not just trying to skirt around paying UK tax on his international earnings, but is trying to skirt paying UK tax on his substantial UK business by ‘basing’ it offshore too. U2 are a rolling global business, not an Irish business. The Irish portion of their business is tiny, and they just happen as individuals to remain living in Ireland, and when U2 Inc. ‘earns’ in Ireland, it pays tax in Ireland. And when U2 Inc. rolls into the US or France or Australia or wherever, then they play some shows, sell some records, and in a sense, they get a cheque for it, and that cheque will have a substantial amount already removed as various local taxes. And both ‘hit and run’ earners, like touring bands (easy targets,) and entertainment products in general (not exactly essentials) already, generally, get hit very hard in most countries. So they’re already paying very healthy amounts of tax in every country they stop in. There’s nothing they can do about that, even if they wanted to.

So they take that cheque home, it already having been taxed 40,50% (?) and then Ireland says, we’re hitting that for another 40,50% (?) because you happen to live in Dublin for X months a year. That’s what they’re trying to avoid, by taking it ‘home’ to a country that says we’ll only hit you the second time for 10, 20% on top of the original 40,50%, not another 40,50% on top of the 40,50% you’ve already paid to the society/economy where you actually earned it.

I think you’ll find – given the few comments they have made on this - that their argument is for smarter taxation in Ireland for people in their situation, not just “We’re not paying tax dammit!” They already pay A LOT of tax, globally. They contribute, globally. And what is fairly Irelands, they give to Ireland.

As I said before, I get the hypocrite line in regards to the pure "this is how tax should be spent/but I limit my tax", I know it’s not quite ‘right’, but I think it is an absolutely understandable move. And I do agree that putting energy into challenging this particular target is pretty silly, given the other available options.

And just on another front, one of the lines against this is that his (Bono’s) Irish tax avoidance hurts the third world he claims to support. Worth noting that the One Campaign and DATA, the two organisations he founded/fronts/runs, are only bankrolled by five or six individuals. Those organisations themselves do not ask for cash from the public, ever. And really - it’s probably not that hard to guess the identity of one of those bankrollers. So you could easily argue that he’s not funding Irelands programs, but he’s very likely funding his own. It’s still going there.

And whenever asked or challenged on private/personal giving - as he quite often is - Bono will say (correctly) that to publicise such a thing is not only crass, but wrong and against the entire point of it. So you’re never going to see him at a press conference with an oversize novelty cheque. But would you really be that surprised if somehow it came out that he gave significant amounts of his own cash? He might not of course. He might actually, truly, be a huge hypocrite. But would it really be that surprising to find out he actually wasn’t, and actually gave a lot personally? I really don’t think it would.

As for protesting at Glastonbury – I think it (and this example) are fine, as long as it doesn’t actually disrupt the set or punters enjoyment of it. That’s where I think the line is. Make a point that is visible for the 100K+ that will be there, and if they’re lucky, maybe the tv viewers, but don’t do anything that will ruin anything for anyone. Some huge and visible-to-everyone banner to the side of the crowd? Absolutely fine. Some huge banner in the middle of the crowd blocking the view for hundreds or thousands? Definitely not cool.

And challenging/debating Bono at Leftfield would be very interesting. I mean that seriously. Billy Bragg is a very old/good friend of the bands. It would probably be a genuinely interesting debate.

Edited June 4, 2011 by Torcs4

[sisterofmercy]

all a load of bollocks and not needed at a festival [any festival] they have the streets for protests why ruin other peoples enjoyment :angry: :angry: :angry:

[Breeze]

This thread reveals just how far Glastonbury has become just another music festival for some people who don't want their fun weekend ruined by anything remotely 'political'. I wonder if Bono & co would have a view on whether music should have a meaning?

[Spindles]

To be fair I think Glasto's political bent and charitable efforts are WHY U2 are playing it as their first festival since the early 80's.

[bamber]

This.

I have to confess that tax avoidance pisses me off as much as anyone but really, U2 are one of the worst examples to hold up of people hiding their money. Bono is easy to pick on because he's pompous et al, however to ignore the tireless work he has done, the large amounts of his own money he has contributed and, more importantly, the HUGE amounts he has got businesses and states to contribute and the raising of awareness that his role has generated....well, don't be a twat, the bloke has done more than anyone one of us pious, self satisfied internet commentators has a dream of.

Edited June 4, 2011 by bamber

[bamber]

Governments set tax rules, like it or not. We all play by those rules, or vote them out. Very rich people get around the rules by subterfuge which isn't fair. It you don't like a Tax regime move somewhere else permanently. If you want to live in a particular country then you must pay for the welfare of those less fortunate than you, you are still frigging rich FFS.

[Cooter]

It's simple common sense accountancy, in fact Glastonbury Festival involves itself with some tax avoidance as well what with the different times of purchasing deposits and purchasing actual tickets, does it not!!? Good luck to them and U2.

If the government didn't want so much free money then people wouldn't want to find loopholes not to pay them, it's called pricing yourself out the market.

As for the protest, could be a laugh!

Edited June 4, 2011 by Cooter

[bamber]

It's simple common sense accountancy, in fact Glastonbury Festival involves itself with some tax avoidance as well what with the different times of purchasing deposits and purchasing actual tickets, does it not!!? Good luck to them and U2.

If the government didn't want so much free money then people wouldn't want to find loopholes not to pay them, it's called pricing yourself out the market.

As for the protest, could be a laugh!

Edited June 4, 2011 by bamber

[Kyelo]

I'm happy for my tax payments to subsidise Glastonbury. I'm not at all happy with my money subsidising rich tax avoiding bakers or rock stars. Every penny they avoid is paid for by the poor. Hospitals and Schools don't build themselves

Edited June 4, 2011 by BenchBuddah

[bamber]

Chances of them using said hospitals and schools are slim to none. Also many people would not be happy with subsidising Glastonbury.

Anyway tax avoidance is part and parcel of a capitalist society, the rich have bank accounts in Switzerland and Monaco for a reason and this will never change.

[Quadrant]

I was purely referring to this protest and the kind of people who involve themselves in it.

I wish that was the case, I really do. Sadly, its not.

Nope. I'm not. You are.

[Toilet Duck]

Haha, it's possible but I don't think so. The result of the last general election would suggest that most people did identify a particular group of politicians as culpable and voted accordingly.

[bamber]

people seem to think politicians have any influence whatsoever in a capitalist society.

[LondonTom]

Like most of these protests it ends up effecting the wrong people, no matter what your views on U2's tax situation, why effect what the average common working person has spent a good chunk of their income on to escape having to do a shit job to get by for a bit?

[Wooderson]

U2 are c€nts. Bankers are c€nts. Politicians are c€nts. Capitalists are c€nts. You're all c€nts

[Leedspete]

A few points about things that have been posted.

All good accountants find ways of paying less tax, paying invoices later (more money for longer in bank equals more interest) and generally cutting corners. My accountant does this for me as I am self employed - where's my protest?

The amount of money that Britain gives to countries such as Pakistan and India to feed their population because they won't, even though they have space and nuclear programmes would be a much better thing to. Why not? Skin too dark for you to protest against? Easier to pick on the white man?

For the record, I think the man must be a good voice for some charities but as I don't follow him I've never listened to one of his preaching rants. I can only say that even if he gives one minute of his time and uses his profile to raise awareness of issues then it's a good thing.

How many of the big acts on over the course of the weekend have said things worthy of protest - it will be in double figures, Morrissey for one, anyone protesting about him? Jay Z might come on and he said the word bitch as a name for his lady friend in at least one song title!

And as for Snoop Dogg, he uses the word "whore " as an indicator that something is good, where were you last year with your inflatable minge?

Some perspective please!

[Spindles]

The amount of money that Britain gives to countries such as Pakistan and India to feed their population because they won't, even though they have space and nuclear programmes would be a much better thing to. Why not? Skin too dark for you to protest against? Easier to pick on the white man?

[Leedspete]

Pardon?

I'm not going to get into a rant about just how wrong what you have written there is, but it IS. I hope you have just typed a bad example out of context, because if not those views are pretty reprehensible.