Bono

Tim Robbins

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I haven't put a great deal of thought into it, tbh.

I think if you did you'd change your opinions.

U2 are operating within the confines of the law (they are not evading tax) when they decided to keep part of their earnings in Holland. As a part time resident in this country, I have no problem with Bono keeping his cash wherever he wants.

Surely you can spot the hypocriscy? What's the point lobbying governments about wealth distribution when you use loopholes to so you don't pay your share?

However, this really is only a side issue.

It's not it's a very central issue. You think the problems in Africa have nothing to do with money?

Bono is a clown. I don't see how he's made any sort of positive contribution. He's knowledge of geo-politics is simplistic. His knowledge of development economics is non - existent.

He doesn't even live in anything close to the real world, But yet he's so arrogant he think he can lecture everyone?

I expect higher - both intellectually and ethically.

Fanny Cradock

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I think if you did you'd change your opinions.

I see that you edited your arrogant reply. Good man!

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Surely you can spot the hypocriscy? What's the point lobbying governments about wealth distribution when you use loopholes to so you don't pay your share?

If Bono, Geldof and others were simply advocating that more money was the solution then, yes, it might very well be hypocritical. However, throwing good money after bad isn't the suggestion.

I wonder have you done a thorough audit on Bono's finances to determine how much he gives to charity? You must if you are criticising him about paying his share. Let's take a flight of fancy and assume that he saves €1 million each year from royalty tax by being registered in Holland. What if he then decides to give €500,000 directly to African aid organisations each year (not to mention using his fame to further the charities)? I would prefer him giving that €500,000 directly to charity rather then giving it to the Government of a country he doesn't exclusively reside in.

We must also remember that only a tiny fraction would make it's way to Africa. For every €1 one gives to the Government in tax, how much do you suppose actually makes its way to Africa? Paying taxes =\= freely giving to charity.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

It's not it's a very central issue. You think the problems in Africa have nothing to do with money?

I'm not sure where you are getting this from. Did I say that problems in Africa had nothing to do with money? No. As you have clearly forgotten what point you originally made, I feel it only fair to refresh your memory - you were talking about tax avoidance. A thing which is perfectly legal.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Bono is a clown. I don't see how he's made any sort of positive contribution. He's knowledge of geo-politics is simplistic. His knowledge of development economics is non - existent.

He doesn't even live in anything close to the real world, But yet he's so arrogant he think he can lecture everyone?

Yes, you don't like Bono - something that was established from your first post. That's just fine.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I expect higher - both intellectually and ethically.

After all your words you offer nothing positive; you provide no solutions to the problems you have so briefly outlined. There is no input from your posts beyond the drumming of your tiresomely negative and self-righteous pontification.

Tim Robbins

If Bono, Geldof and others were simply advocating that more money was the solution then, yes, it might very well be hypocritical. However, throwing good money after bad isn't the suggestion.

You still don't see the contradiction. He's telling these governments the should be contributing 0.7 % GNP to Developoment AID. Governments get that money from people's taxes. We pay them. He doesn't.

After all your words you offer nothing positive; you provide no solutions to the problems you have so briefly outlined. There is no input from your posts beyond the drumming of your tiresomely negative and self-righteous pontification.

Incorrect. We return to the basis of intellectual enquiry which means we if we wish to express opinions than those opinions must be questioned, argued and debated.

That means, if Bono wants use up political and media time, he gets his opinions questioned like everyone else.

Secondly, if he really wants to help then the simple maxim, actions not words wouldn't go amiss. He should set an example, pay all his tax instead of engaging in scams and hypocriscy.

Thirdly, if Bono kindly could shut up, people with real knowledge of ethics and politics could get the media / air time and we could progress resolving the humanitarian issues we wish to progress. Any book I've read on global poverty including most recently, The Bottom Billion and even Bono's mate Jeffrey Sachs's, The End of Poverty immediately give an indication that these problems aren't simple. We need to think about them intellectually not just ethically.

Bono, or even Clinton in his poorly written diatribe, Giving just really dumb the problems and it can more money goes on the wrong things purely so politicians feel they getting public approval they are doing something.

What we really need is to use all hearts and all our heads, Rock stars on ego trips don't help.

Fanny Cradock

Tim Robbins wrote: »

You still don't see the contradiction. He's telling these governments the should be contributing 0.7 % GNP to Developoment AID. Governments get that money from people's taxes. We pay them. He doesn't.

He does pay taxes. It's that simple.

ejmaztec

ejmaztec wrote: »

They all seem to have rolled in since the last time that I was here – like a Bonothon fund-raising event.



It makes me aware that a person wasting money having his favourite hat flown to a charity event is a hypocrite. That money could have fed quite a few starving people – but he had to have his hat! Even Pavarotti could have done with some of that, the poor chap being up to his eyeballs in debt when he died.

If sane people cannot see how ridiculous this is, then there’s no hope at all.

Members of the Saint Bono fan-club will have none of this however as they have a blinkered view of the situation, much like those political party devotees and their unwillingness to accept that their TDs should all go back to the jobs they had before somehow getting elected.

World-class political leaders tolerate people like Bono because they are too diplomatic to tell them to take a hike.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Firstly - match the colours.

Secondly - the bold print comment is spot on.

No further comment - I'll just thank Tim Robbins.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Fanny Cradock

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Bono, or even Clinton in his poorly written diatribe, Giving just really dumb the problems and it can more money goes on the wrong things purely so politicians feel they getting public approval they are doing something.

The irony! I love it

You bitch and moan because Bono had a 3 minute slot on Prime Time. Then you poo-poo Clinton because you have read a few books and think you know better the machinations of world politics. Well done, Tim. That certainly trumps any research, experiences or personal interactions with world leaders and experts that Clinton, Geldof and Bono have had.

Funnily, I don't remember anyone claiming that the problem is simple or has a simple fix, so I'm not sure why you are even bothering to discuss this. However, two things that are glaringly obvious from your rants.

Firstly, you are unable to provide any solutions to problems that you haven't even bothered to discuss in detail. Your below suggestion to cure the worl of it's ills constitutes diddly-squat.

What we really need is to use all hearts and all our heads, Rock stars on ego trips don't help.

Secondly, what we actually get from your posts are your personal attacks on Bono, which really misses the collective aims of all of those trying to make poverty a thing of the past. Oddly enough other figureheads such as Geldof are exempt from any criticism. You know, I actually think that you are one the intellectual ego trip here. Tell me when you are through regarding yourself in the pool. I'm stepping out of this jig.

Tim Robbins

tomcosgrave wrote: »

Not to any that I've ever been at, he doesn't.

UK Labour party.

Tim Robbins

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

It's an ethical problem not a legal one.

But by demanding that Bono "pay all his tax" and suggesting that he is "engaging in scams," you are coming within a hair's breadth of accusing him of illegal tax evasion.

I am accusing him of tax avoidance. Denis O'Brien did the same thing.
Except Denis O'Brien doesn't lecture us all how to solve the world's problems.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Tim Robbins

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

The irony! I love it

You bitch and moan because Bono had a 3 minute slot on Prime Time.

Oh come on. He gets a lot more political and media time then that.
I made that clear in my opening post.

Then you poo-poo Clinton because you have read a few books and think you know better the machinations of world politics.

Anyone with a modicum of moral philosophy or social economic knowledge could pull Clinton's book apart. He was a suprisingly bad book as he usually speaks as he has a bit of a clue. Perhaps if you read the book you might like to offer your opinion on it, or perhaps you could clarify you are just offering your opinion on something you've never read.

Funnily, I don't remember anyone claiming that the problem is simple or has a simple fix, so I'm not sure why you are even bothering to discuss this. However, two things that are glaringly obvious from your rants.

Bono is not explictly claiming that. But is implicitly conveying that by his stupid and poorly thought out rhetoric.

The hole idea of a debate and questioning is that it eliminates the probability of dumped down thinking. For example, if Bono got a few tough questions from someone like Paxman he'd quickly realise he had to think about his points of view a lot more. However, he engineers his media apperances and his rants so that no-one questions him.

Do you seriously think that's healthy for public discourse?

Firstly, you are unable to provide any solutions to problems that you haven't even bothered to discuss in detail. Your below suggestion to cure the worl of it's ills constitutes diddly-squat.

The solutions aren't simple. If you'd like me what I think is important (rule of law, education) I'll do that in a separate thread.

Secondly, what we actually get from your posts are your personal attacks on Bono, which really misses the collective aims of all of those trying to make poverty a thing of the past.

Look it's very simple:
1. I can't take anybody seriously if they haven't bothered to question their own opinions. It's clear Bono only stays in environments where his opinions are questioned. I'd prefer to read or give my brain time to someone who was at least prepared to question their opinions.

2. I can't take a rich man who engages in needless tax avoidance seriously when he makes points about poverty. One part of him is arguing for wealth distribution, the other part of him is doing his best to avoid it.

Oddly enough other figureheads such as Geldof are exempt from any criticism. You know, I actually think that you are one the intellectual ego trip here. Tell me when you are through regarding yourself in the pool. I'm stepping out of this jig.

And if they did 1 and 2 above, it would also annoy the cr*p out of me.
I just feel you aren't listening to anything I am saying Fanny. As I gave this reason already but you're talking as if I have no reason.

tallaght01

The real unfortunate thing is that there are guys I've worked with, and being lectured by, who are experts in international health/aid/politics.

But I never see them being interviewed.

They're not as charismatic as Bono, and I guess they might be a bit more boring to watch.

We need proper political TV that questions experts, and then puts their views to politicians.

It is completely and utterly in the interests on the political elite to promote Bono as a world expert on these things, as his solutions are always simplistic and populist. His views are never going to particularly challenge anyone's foreign policy.

Tim Robbins

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Gates - I have seen him have his opinions, arguments questioned. So he doesn't annoy me as much as Bono.

He also seems to be a lot more clued in and knows what he's talking about. I take your points about Microsoft.

Soros - I gave up reading one of his books, because I thought in was incoherent, verbose babble.

I personally don't know anyone who pays more tax than they legally have to—do you? If tax avoidance were a "scam," then practically everybody who hires an accountant is guilty.

Me. I never bothered claiming for a few medical expenses I was entitled to.
I'm sure there are one or two business people who think it's not very ethical changing countries to pay less tax.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

ejmaztec

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I haven't seen the CEO of Facebook giving speeches about starving people - so he isn't being a hypocrite.

I'm afraid that Bono is still in the frame.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

ejmaztec

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Directors and staff are all company employees for taxation purposes. One would also imagine that Bono and the others are shareholders in receipt of dividends.

Johannes Favie is a very successful tax accountant specialising in reducing tax liabilities, thereby minimising funds available for foreign aid.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

tallaght01

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Gaza isn't something Bono has been getting involved with. The point I was making was in relation to third world poverty, which is his baby, rather than disaster relief.

He certainly gets much more airtime than the international health experts that I've come across.Most of them are based in London, too...home of the BBC! There's also a big international health research department in TCD. I never see them being interviewed.

I'm always gosbsmacked when he meets heads of states for private meetings about these issues.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

pigeonbutler

The people criticising Bono because of his tax affairs obviously get their business news from sources like the Sunday World or the Star as they've exhibited a complete lack of understanding of business.

Bono has been compared to Denis O'Brien. WRONG

Bono is Irish resident and as an INDIVIDUAL is subject to tax on all income he receives anywhere in the world.

Denis O'Brien is resident in Malta so is subject to their tax laws but in any event is subject to Irish tax on all income from Irish sources (dividends from Irish companies, rents from Irish property, Irish employments etc.)

Also people are assuming that Bono controls "U2 Limited" or whatever it's called. Bono is only 20% of that company (four members + Paul McGuinness reportedly split everything 5 ways) so for all we know he could have voted against shifting the ownership of the royalties to Holland.

In any event as the Dutch company earns that income, Bono and the lads can never get their own hands on it without paying Irish tax. It's stuck in the company otherwise.

Why was royalty ownership shifted to Holland? Because for years Ireland offered "Artists" the opportunity to have all their income from royalties from "works of art" (i.e. books, music albums, films etc.) exempt from tax. In U2's case this meant that the proceeds of album sales were tax free in Ireland but income from merchandise and tours would have been taxable.

A few years ago the government (responding to media criticism of this regime) limited the amount of the artists exemption to c. €250k. So U2 moved the royalties to Holland where the tax treatment is more favourable. But as mentioned above, the individuals themselves cannot do anything with that money until it has been extracted from the Dutch Company, subject to Irish tax and paid to them!

That probably won't stop some of ye spouting uninformed rubbish but at least I tried.

FlutterinBantam

Bono?

Isn't that the guy who didn't VOTE in the last Presidential election in Ireland?


Don't lecture me buddy.

tallaght01

pigeonbutler wrote: »

The people criticising Bono because of his tax affairs obviously get their business news from sources like the Sunday World or the Star as they've exhibited a complete lack of understanding of business.

Bono has been compared to Denis O'Brien. WRONG

Bono is Irish resident and as an INDIVIDUAL is subject to tax on all income he receives anywhere in the world.

Denis O'Brien is resident in Malta so is subject to their tax laws but in any event is subject to Irish tax on all income from Irish sources (dividends from Irish companies, rents from Irish property, Irish employments etc.)

Also people are assuming that Bono controls "U2 Limited" or whatever it's called. Bono is only 20% of that company (four members + Paul McGuinness reportedly split everything 5 ways) so for all we know he could have voted against shifting the ownership of the royalties to Holland.

In any event as the Dutch company earns that income, Bono and the lads can never get their own hands on it without paying Irish tax. It's stuck in the company otherwise.

Why was royalty ownership shifted to Holland? Because for years Ireland offered "Artists" the opportunity to have all their income from royalties from "works of art" (i.e. books, music albums, films etc.) exempt from tax. In U2's case this meant that the proceeds of album sales were tax free in Ireland but income from merchandise and tours would have been taxable.

A few years ago the government (responding to media criticism of this regime) limited the amount of the artists exemption to c. €250k. So U2 moved the royalties to Holland where the tax treatment is more favourable. But as mentioned above, the individuals themselves cannot do anything with that money until it has been extracted from the Dutch Company, subject to Irish tax and paid to them!

That probably won't stop some of ye spouting uninformed rubbish but at least I tried.

To be honest, I'm notso pushed about Bono's taxes.

I just don't understand why we regard him as an authority on world affairs.

I mean, no world leader would let me into their gaff to hear my thoughts on the Dharfur situation!!

OhNoYouDidn't

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Come on, surely you can see the paradox of a businessman offshoring and then lecturing the government who can no longer tax him on what they should do with their now reduced revenues?

No-one is disputing that Bono is legally entitled to move part of his business empire away form Ireland for tax reasons. But its a bitter pill to swallow when he then decides he is a champion of the poor and pressures the Irish government to fulfill our commitments to overseas aid.

Other than that I think there is some appaling snobbery and begrudgery at play. Fair play to Bono - he has taken his fame and at least tried to do some good with it.

Húrin

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

My main issue with Bono is that he lectures the Irish taxpayer while being an exile. Its an untenible position.

It's outrageous that he calls himself a Christian and still moves his half a billion to tax havens in order to keep it for himself.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

MadsL

Did someone say he was a 'musician' early in this thread, strange....think the other 3 might be, but Bono?

No-one mentioned the Clarence Hotel yet?

Mikel

pigeonbutler wrote: »

In any event as the Dutch company earns that income, Bono and the lads can never get their own hands on it without paying Irish tax. It's stuck in the company otherwise.

Why was royalty ownership shifted to Holland? Because for years Ireland offered "Artists" the opportunity to have all their income from royalties from "works of art" (i.e. books, music albums, films etc.) exempt from tax. In U2's case this meant that the proceeds of album sales were tax free in Ireland but income from merchandise and tours would have been taxable.

A few years ago the government (responding to media criticism of this regime) limited the amount of the artists exemption to c. €250k. So U2 moved the royalties to Holland where the tax treatment is more favourable. But as mentioned above, the individuals themselves cannot do anything with that money until it has been extracted from the Dutch Company, subject to Irish tax and paid to them!

So why bother moving it then?

Tim Robbins

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Do Facebook try to tell us all how to solve global poverty and AIDs?

No, we don't. We welcome such companies with open arms. But the logic cuts both ways.

There's absolutely no logic in the first place. Those companies employee thousands here.

Artists employ very few. Corporate Tax was set low purely to create jobs. Artists tax was set very low, because artists were making very little money at the time and they contribute to the society in ways facebook etc never could.

For example, Stephen's Green on a Sunday, would you like to see all the lines of code behind facebook on display or a couple of nice paintings - which you don't even have to by.