Protests about U2 Playing

[russycarps]

Surely the most remarkable thing is that the selfish motivation for supporting the tax evaders seems to be one of ensuring that the same breaks are available to the individuals commenting should they ever find themselves turning into the mega-rich! I love the fact that Scott Fitzgerald's "American Dream" is alive and well at Glastonbury, just in case.

This time next year, Rodders....!

Edited June 7, 2011 by russycarps

[geebus]

i must be blind ive never seen a nasty protest [this one seems to be]at glasto ok you have people campaigning for good caurses and getting their point across but NO real personal protest against a single person [as this one is ]it just doesn't seem right.

[sifi]

(May have been posted before in this thread, but I don't think so.)

[the_hedge]

It is is interesting that the Art Uncut's main gripe is about losing funding for the Arts whilst U2 donated 5 million euros for The Music Generation project in Ireland

[The Nal]

It is is interesting that the Art Uncut's main gripe is about losing funding for the Arts whilst U2 donated 5 million euros for The Music Generation project in Ireland

[guypjfreak]

So do you retract what you said earlier, about there being no need for it etc.?

[bamber]

And without that daily trading, we would not have the Glastonbury festival we have today, nor the computers we are using to discuss these issues.

Nothing to do with anything here, really.

[Torcs4]

It is is interesting that the Art Uncut's main gripe is about losing funding for the Arts whilst U2 donated 5 million euros for The Music Generation project in Ireland

[Torcs4]

And offshore tax trickery is not the exclusive preserve of the very wealthy. It is generally far easier though for those who are 'floating' internationally for one reason or another. It's just as easy for some kid from Australia or Canada or New Zealand who is in the UK on a 2 year working holiday visa earning very little in pubs and whatnot to set themselves up as an offshore entity and pay close to zero UK tax while here as it is for U2 to do it off their multi-million earnings.

[geebus]

Who has actually left, exactly?

[sifi]

Bono/U2. That's what the whole thread is about .

[geebus]

also completely meaningless to the genuinely poor in the world. Try suggesting to the starving in Uganda (for example) that they can move somewhere where they don't have to pay such high taxes... you might as well ask them to fly to the moon

[sifi]

The genuinely poor don't really pay taxes in most cases. Either direct or indirect.

[geebus]

The person working their land to sell some crops by the side of the road in Uganda is unlikely to charge VAT on that.

Similarly, the 5th-hand clothes they buy with the money are unlikely to have VAT charged on them.

Indeed for the UK, rather a lot of "Non Dom's" here, despite the £30k charge they now get I believe (which ironically drove out quite a lot of the less well paid 'useful' people I believe). Don't know of specific cases in the UK, but I think this is a good 'proof of concept' at least .

[sifi]

The person working their land to sell some crops by the side of the road in Uganda is unlikely to charge VAT on that.

Similarly, the 5th-hand clothes they buy with the money are unlikely to have VAT charged on them.

[scorp]

Some figures:-

Chris Moyles radio marathon raised- £2.4m

Comic relief typically raises - £60m

Live Aid eventualy raised - £150m.

U2 are worth £440m

UK stock exchange alone turns over £600m every DAY

Our best efforts as charitable givers are dwarfed buy the rich's daily devotions

[eFestivals]

The point being their taxes were put up .....

No, their taxes weren't "put up". A specific tax break that they were entitled to use was removed.

OK, I realise that from U2's end of things it amounts to much the same thing because they'd pay more money in taxes than they did previously, but it's important to remember that what they paid previously was at a discount - they were paying less in tax than the average.

So it's the case that U2 object to paying just standard taxes - they weren't being hit with high taxes.

That difference is important when considering this issue.

[guypjfreak]

i bet all of you have at least one U2 song on mp3 or wot ever not one person is perfect

why arent the band of horses playing ooooooooooooolllllllllllldddddddddddddssssssssssooooooooooooooooonnnnnnnnnnnnnnn init

Edited June 9, 2011 by guypjfreak

[Torcs4]

It wasn't just the removal of that tax break, but that U2 couldn't then qualify this business under Irish corporate tax, but only under the new royalty tax. They were going to be paying (I *think*) 40% on their royalties - above and beyond what they've already paid in tax on these royalties in the countries they were earned - when corporations in Ireland only pay around 12%. Of course, this super low 12% figure is because Ireland themselves play the global tax game to attract others away from their 'rightful' tax home, so they're not exactly some innocent party getting 'ripped off.'

And so... U2 played the game too. And that's exactly the way they see it. They pay a truckload of tax globally, including substantial business and personal tax in Ireland, and when it comes to tax everyone tries to play the game of slipping into this category or that category, claiming this benefit or that benefit, this deduction or that deduction, and U2 are a global business so they are afforded the opportunity to play that exact same tax game globally. It's less about wealth and more about simply being global.

And it is a game: Ireland offers substantial tax breaks for corporations so they move their base away from whatever more 'deserving' country, but they don't offer it to U2's royalty business. Holland offer substantial tax breaks on royalties. Google goes into Ireland, U2 go off to Holland. And?

Edited June 9, 2011 by Torcs4