U2 Glastonbury Tax Protest

[malumbu]

I hear that some of the more right on Glastonbury Festival goers are planning a protest against Sir Bonio's tax dodging. If I had realised I may have got a ticket, as it would have been worth going just for that. I was previously hopeful of getting tickest to Live8 or Live Earth or whatever it was called so I could publicly rip up (or burn) the ticket outside Hyde Park. Personally I'd happily protest just because he is a annoying gobs*ite.

Can all of you going join in the proest on my behalf please?

As for his musical talent here's one I made earlier: www.youtube.com/watch?v=VfKgooVacz8

[Mick Mac]

Absolutely agree. Have posted here before about U2 double standards with very public charity activities but paying little Irish taxes when the whole country is struggling.

[MrBen]

Worth noting that until 2006, artists in Ireland were tax exempt. You can't really blame Bono for the fact that the celtic tiger is now whimpering. And anyway the Stones have long had the same arrangement with a Netherlands domicile, ltd co and low corporation tax but they don't get any stick because they are cool.

Granted he can be a bit of a %$?& but there are more deserving targets for this type of protest than Bono.

[Mick Mac]

You are off the mark there Mr B my friend, the exemption you refer to is intended to apply to small time musicians and only applies to 250k pa which is a small percentage of U2s annual income of many squillions.

They use Netherlands double tax traties and pay little tax in their home country. As they are unwilling to pay Irish taxes the man in the street picks up his extra share of the bill, which he can ill afford.

So much for them being Irish heroes. Take, take, take (and very publically try to help Africa while letting down their home country).

The comparison with Rolling Stones is wrong too as RS moved to France when the tax rate here was 85%. U2 feel a corporate tax rate of 12.5 % in Ireland is too much for them. Shameful.

[MrBen]

Mickster - you're correct in that the Irish tax exemption was (and still is) intended to benefit and support smaller artists with average incomes i.e. < 25,000 Euros and not corporate behemoths like U2. However the 250k limit you refer to was only introduced in 2007...for 30 odd years before that it was zero. U2 would have benefited from that when they started out back in the 80's. Perhaps when they got their success (insert arbitrary number here) they should have stuck their hand up and offered to exempt themselves from the artists exemption and pay the government more tax - but who has ever done that?

If they were truly a band of conscience, then perhaps they could have taxed themselves in kind, by setting up some kind of visible charitable foundation but the press would have panned them for that too. Their regular donations like the 5Million euros this year to Music Generation (Irish charity to help Musicians) go largely unnoticed. In many ways they can't win.

I don't doubt for a second that Bono's a twat and guilty of rank hypocrisy. Didn't he fly his hat half way around the world by private jet? Surely the mark of a man lost in his own rectum. But the average man on the street in Ireland is struggling because of property greed, corruption and ill monetary policy throughout the system.

From the politicians to your average Joe who took a massive remortgage to fund some nice holidays and new car or whatever. Laying the financial woes of Ireland on Bono just seems a bit harsh and misguided.

The Art uncut protest at Glasto is a protest at the use of what is legal off shore financial planning to be tax efficient. It's what every incorporated entity has been doing for the last century; banks, insurance companies, telecos, rock stars, children's novelists. They're entitled to their view but I'd rather Art had a pop at the politicians, legislators and regulators instead.

Mick - My Rolling Stones example was based on their use of Netherlands holding company structure similar to that of U2 and run by the same people (Promogroup). Between 1986 and 2006 the Stones paid less than ?5M tax on earnings of approx ?235 Million. Granted, Jagger steers clear of the Mandela/Geldof political posturing but when it comes to the cash he's just as guilty. Yet because Brown Sugar's better than "When Love comes to Town" we kind of let them off don't we?

[huncamunca]

all this technical tax stuff just confuses me - but I get the gist of things - Bono should be killed, yes ?

[Alan Medic]

No, no, no...........his money should be given to the people in Ireland who lost all their money..........and then kill him.

[Moos]

Mick Jagger is famously money-oriented, and does nothing for nothing. But he doesn't set himself up as an arbiter of ethics. Bono is getting bad publicity because he spends a lot of time admonishing people and governments for not doing more to help others. Other than that, I agree with Mr. Ben.

[Mick Mac]

The point is about double standards, see my first post.

I know a fair bit about offshore tax structures too Mr B, but the point is not the nature of their tax structure, but the principle that as soon as they no longer benefit from the artists tax exemption, we see them trying to avoid their home country responsibilities.

Having benefitted from the exemption for so many years you would think they would be winning to pay their bit now, but no, apparently not.

They cultivate image of being chartiable but charity begins at home and in these times of great difficulty for the people of Ireland I find their reluctance to pay their way astonishing. Noone is blaming U2 for Irelands financials woes - I don't know where you got that from.

[????]

rich trendy liberal in massive hypocrite shocker

[????]

...actually, you can take the 'rich trendy' away and it still makes sense

[Jeremy]

There's a huge difference - The Rolling Stones don't constantly preach about easing poverty, and Mick Jagger doesn't pretend to be a politician.

[huncamunca]

kill him.

[Salsaboy]

What's the difference between God and Bono?

God doesn't walk round Dublin pretending he's Bono.

[MrBen]

An oldie but a goldie.

Mick - I was clearly exaggerating on him taking the blame for Ireland. My point is that despite being a twat and dabbling in politics he's a soft, lazy target when there are other more worthy ones out there (if that's their beef).

And as Art Uncuts argument is about rightful financial contributions (and not who is the biggest knobhead) I just don't see how the Stones are any better. Surely they'd also be worthy of equal wrath?

As anyone who's been will know, each Glasto needs a public villain to fuel the fires of the right on massive. It's either Jay-Z, George Bush or anyone who pees in the stream. They'll all still get off their tits and enjoy it all the same.

[maxxi]

Glastonbury festival goers protesting? What are they going to do, refuse to pay by credit card? Ignore the official phone app? Snub the ?15 t-shirts? or really let them have it and flash mob the 'recycling team'?

This must not be allowed - next thing you know there'll be picnic rage at Glyndebourne and sit-ins at the Proms.

[malumbu]

Glad I started some good debate. But anyone who uses the word 'Glasto' should also be up against the wall with Bonio. Only the Grauniad still seems to use this pretentious term.

[flocker spotter]

glamping glasto wellie wearing scum.

[Moos]

snorky?

[huncamunca]

I think its a Snorky Bot bile app.

[Moos]

My apologies. You can see why the confusion, although I should have spotted the missing 'shite'

[huncamunca]

back on subjet, the alchemists of inoffensive Rawk lite use the same tax set up in the Netherlands as Trafigura.

Trafigura just dumps its toxic shite in West Africa, U2 shovel their rancid shite on a global level and then proceed to lecture on the evils of global capital.