Protests about U2 Playing

[essex_jim]

I'm sorry, but yeah. Kinda. Why should you pay more tax than you're supposed to? The government isn't a charity. I'm not gonna send a £20 to Downing St if I'm feeling a bit flush after a nice win on the horses, similarly I wouldn't pay any more tax than I am legally required to do.

I don't agree with the various tax avoidance (not evasion) loopholes, but they're there. And they're legal, not semi legal, just legal. Protests should be focused at people who would have the power to close the loopholes, not people who are prudent enough to take advantage of them. In the grand scheme of things, any tax the members of U2 are avoiding amount to basically nothing compared to the hundreds of millions if not billions of tax avoided by all the similarly rich people in Ireland.

[geebus]

I'm sorry, but yeah. Kinda. Why should you pay more tax than you're supposed to? The government isn't a charity. I'm not gonna send a £20 to Downing St if I'm feeling a bit flush after a nice win on the horses, similarly I wouldn't pay any more tax than I am legally required to do.

[strudders]

Exactly and it's not like U2 don't even pay tax. They're fundamentally an international business. They pay their tax in each country they make earnings, who the f*ck does Ireland think it is asking for a massive chunk out of those earnings? Fair enough when they play gigs in Ireland or sell CD's there, but otherwise look to blame someone else. The whole things been blown out of proportion and makes a nice sound bite 'U2 avoid paying tax' when in reality they don't at all. They pay their tax fair and square to the countries they make those earnings in, total opposite of the BHS fella.

[Ed209]

It takes some pretty brave people to protest during a U2 gig. I'm fairly sure Bono has some kind of giant claw mechanism with a laser to exterminate any of the haters.

Failing that the U2 fanatics will hunt them down like a pack of velociraptors

[eFestivals]

who the f*ck does Ireland think it is asking for a massive chunk out of those earnings?

Ireland thinks itself a sovereign state, that has the power to implement and enforce taxes. What did you think it was?

As for "massive chunk", what 'offended' U2 so much was being asked to pay taxes at the same rate as average earners and average tax payers.

Every Euro not paid in tax by U2 means that someone else is paying it instead of them. That 'someone else' is far poorer than they are - someone just like you in fact.

Ireland used to give a huge tax break to 'cultural' businesses, but when Ireland decided to change things so that there was less of a tax break - as is its right as a sovereign state - U2 decided that they didn't want to pay tax the same as everyone else had to, and so moved their affairs to Holland.

Until - or if/when - Ireland introduces laws so that the likes of U2 can no longer escape Irish taxes in this way, then U2 are entitled to move their tax affairs wherever they like. But nothing about that says that people aren't allowed to criticise them for doing so.

And given that poverty in the 3rd world is largely caused by tax avoidance - something Bonio has campaigned against - then Bonio is putting the joke on himself.

[Spindles]

..or worse still, every euro not paid results in someone in need not having the provision of a service that would assist.

Glastonbury 2011 - the year of the tax debate.

Trying not to get involved in this debate anymore as the arguing bums out my buzz

Now, back to being excited and positive for me!

[fur_q]

Ireland used to give a huge tax break to 'cultural' businesses, but when Ireland decided to change things so that there was less of a tax break - as is its right as a sovereign state - U2 decided that they didn't want to pay tax the same as everyone else had to, and so moved their affairs to Holland.

[eFestivals]

Im posting on my phone so can't do a thorough fact check, but didn't this change in the Irish tax system come into force in the same budget as Ireland announced increases in aid to africa in response to live8.

I've no idea, but if that's the case it's even more despicable.

I believe it's the case that this tax-break change happened in 2006, if that's any help.

Anyway, just remember this true fact folks:- one person's tax avoidance is another person's - YOUR - higher taxes.

[Torcs4]

Ah but you could say that in moving their business to a place where royalty payments are not taxed as greatly as their homeland, they have avoided paying tax (quite legally).

Merchandises bought in the global market place and various taxes paid locally is one thing, royalties is another....

Edited June 6, 2011 by Torcs4

[jimmyt]

I've no idea, but if that's the case it's even more despicable.

I believe it's the case that this tax-break change happened in 2006, if that's any help.

Anyway, just remember this true fact folks:- one person's tax avoidance is another person's - YOUR - higher taxes.

[sifi]

I know they are a huge band, but I can't imagine the liability to the Irish tax man would be £7 billion.

[Torcs4]

I know they are a huge band, but I can't imagine the liability to the Irish tax man would be £7 billion.

[eFestivals]

In most cases, royalties do get taxed in the country they're earned in. So in a very very loose sense, they get taxed once on the way out of a country, and then again when brought into another country. U2 are trying to limit the second hit.

And again, I don't really see how this is the same as, say, some guy who lives full time in Country A, sets up a business in Country A, earns millions from the business in Country A, but moves the legal 'base' of the business to Country B to skirt paying tax in Country A.

These are people who are citizens of Country A, but divide their time equally living in Countries A, B and C, who run, essentially, a global and ever-traveling business between Countries A-Z, with no real home 'base' for this business - that base is wherever they are at the time - and so equally they're getting taxed in all of Countries A-Z. The part of their taxation they can control is the secondary tax they pay when they collate their (already taxed) global royalties. And the feeling is that they must do this in Country A, because that is whose coat of arms is on the front of their passports.

But why Country A anyway? So U2 are citizens of Ireland, and spend a few months of every year living in Ireland. But they also spend a few months of the year living in the US, and they probably do somewhere between 30-50% of their business there. So morally, shouldn't they formally base themselves there? Wouldn't basing themselves in Ireland, where they only do probably about 5% of their business, be 'unfair' on the good people of the US, given that's where by far the largest chunk of these royalty dollars are coming from, and that they live there just as much as they do Ireland? But then they also spend a few months of the year living in France, and I'm guessing the French taxes are the highest of the three, so shouldn't they base their business there, where they'll be giving the good vibes of giving the most?

let's all encourage the rich to shirk their taxes and admire them for it, cos we all want to pay much more in taxes ourselves to cover what they don't pay, eh?

[marketsqhero]

I wonder how many people have bought items from Play.com or any other offshore company to get something cheap? You do realise that you've just avoided paying tax to save yourself some money don't you?

Do you feel guilty now? ;-)

In future I suggest you find the most expensive place for your shopping so you pay that little bit extra in VAT. Then you can sleep soundly in your bed knowing you're doing your bit for the country...

Edited June 6, 2011 by marketsqhero

[eFestivals]

I'm getting this now!!! Basically, it's not fair for people to have to pay for others' selfish mistakes and money moving. No disagreement from me - U2 are, at least morally, in the wrong for this.

I think there should be a protest where an inflatable £7bn moves from an English flag to the Irish flag. Honestly, if U2 would just pay their taxes they wouldn't need all the money that's been diverted from English hospitals and schools to prop up their banks, would they?!!

it's certainly the case that Ireland wouldn't need as much of a bailout if U2 paid their taxes in Ireland and not elsewhere.

So it's certainly also the case that U2's tax avoidance means higher taxes for 'normal' people in Ireland .... including, rather amusingly, some Irish people who have posted in this thread in support of U2. Do those people really think that they want to pay higher taxes cos Bono doesn't pay any?

[jimmyt]

it's certainly the case that Ireland wouldn't need as much of a bailout if U2 paid their taxes in Ireland and not elsewhere.

So it's certainly also the case that U2's tax avoidance means higher taxes for 'normal' people in Ireland .... including, rather amusingly, some Irish people who have posted in this thread in support of U2. Do those people really think that they want to pay higher taxes cos Bono doesn't pay any?

[Bobser]

it's certainly the case that Ireland wouldn't need as much of a bailout if U2 paid their taxes in Ireland and not elsewhere.

So it's certainly also the case that U2's tax avoidance means higher taxes for 'normal' people in Ireland .... including, rather amusingly, some Irish people who have posted in this thread in support of U2. Do those people really think that they want to pay higher taxes cos Bono doesn't pay any?

Edited June 6, 2011 by Bobser

[Bobser]

But most gallingly it means higher taxes in England to support the failing Irish economy, as well as higher taxes so we can give money we haven't really got to the charitable causes Bono champions, whilst he gets off scot-free (more or less)! I must be having a bad day because my love for Bono has fallen off a cliff. I'm still really excited about U2 playing and hope they're not ruined by protesters. I'm sure they won't be; not like Nick Cave (nearly) was by people just being ignorant!

[J1mbo]

There seems to be an element of hypocrisy to both the protest arguments and U2's infamous pontificating.

What I find most depressing though is the amount of posters in this thread who seem to have missed the fact that Glastonbury is very, very much about highlighting charity work, protesting injustice and encouraging what might be called 'better living' - the whole place is soaked in this ethos. You don't get people like Greenpeace, Oxfam, WaterAid and so forth operating at similar scales at other festivals, nor do other festivals give over such massive chunks of their earnings to such charities.

This doesn't mean spending your weekend weaving hemp jumpers for the poor or giving away all your beer money to Save the Children, but it does allow you to sign up to campaigns, chuck a bit of change in the buckets and *GASP* maybe learn something that will alter how you think about certain issues.

It's not a 'downer', just part and parcel of what Glastonbury stands for - this is what makes Glastonbury different and is contributory to the 'everybody be nice' vibe the festival has.

Perhaps some people would be better suited to V Festival...?

Edited June 6, 2011 by J1mbo

[guypjfreak]

theres no need or place for protesters at a festival where people are trying to relax and forget the out side world if you really wont to protest dont buy a ticket that way you wont be supporting bono ..or have you forgotten he gets paid to play glasto you donder heads :angry: :angry:

im there to enjoy myself i dont want people ruining my time at glasto ..if they do ill be telling them so

[jimmyt]

Do your own research and stop being a Neil fanboy.

[fur_q]

theres no need or place for protesters at a festival where people are trying to relax and forget the out side world if you really wont to protest dont buy a ticket that way you wont be supporting bono ..or have you forgotten he gets paid to play glasto you donder heads :angry: :angry:

im there to enjoy myself i dont want people ruining my time at glasto ..if they do ill be telling them so

[bubbsio]

If I work a forty five hour week, I pay my taxes and I've made my contribution to society. If I work my bollocks off and work weekends and longer days I can double my pay but I also double my tax. If I could get out of paying this extra tax I would. If I was a lazy arse and didn't do the overtime the government wouldnt have any extra money and I wouldn't be knackered! I think Bono is on to something, anyone know which Dutch bank they use??

[Torcs4]

That's a bizarre point but there's an element of truth to it. U2s 360 tour grossed around €600 million since it kicked off, last I checked. Ireland obtained a bailout worth around €100billion plus whatever else the ECB pumped into the banks to balance the money that flowed out of irish bank accounts due to people not having faith in the banks, which may add up to an extra €100+ billion.

So yeah, U2 paying tax on €600 million would have helped but not to the extent you're implying.

Also I'm not sure officials in the States would be happy if the Irish government were taxing U2 on all of that €600 billion considering the bulk of that money was generated in the States.

[thesecretingredientiscrime]

theres no need or place for protesters at a festival where people are trying to relax and forget the out side world if you really wont to protest dont buy a ticket that way you wont be supporting bono ..or have you forgotten he gets paid to play glasto you donder heads :angry: :angry:

im there to enjoy myself i dont want people ruining my time at glasto ..if they do ill be telling them so