U2 Responds to Critics of Their Deal With the Taxman

[Frank Booth]

Source: NY Times

In an interview published on Friday in The Irish Times, two members of U2, Bono and The Edge, said that criticism of the band’s decision to move part of its business out of Ireland after the country ended its tax-free deal for artists was unfair. Bono told the newspaper that “the thing that stung us was the accusation of hypocrisy for my work as an activist.”
- - -

In the interview published on Friday, the band’s two leading members defended themselves, and their decision not to talk about the issue. The Edge told the newspaper, “We don’t comment on it for a very good reason, and that’s because it’s our own private thing.” He added: “We do business all over the world, we pay taxes all over the world and we are totally tax compliant.”

Bono mounted a somewhat more robust defense. “We pay millions and millions of dollars in tax,” he said, and went on to defend the group’s right to act as any other business would. According to Bono, it is his critics in Ireland who are being hypocritical, because the country benefited greatly in recent years from offering low tax rates to attract foreign businesses to the country. U2, in his view, is simply availing itself of Dutch laws that do the same thing for the Netherlands. As he told The Irish Times:

"What’s actually hypocritical is the idea that then you couldn’t use a financial services center in Holland. The real question people need to ask about Ireland’s tax policy is: ‘Was the nation a net gain benefactor?’ and of course it was — hugely so. So there was no hypocrisy for me –- we’re just part of a system that has benefited the nation greatly and that’s a system that will be closed down in time. Ireland will have to find other ways of being competitive and attractive."

Read more: http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/27/u2-respond-to-critics-of-their-deal-with-the-taxman/?hp

---

:rofl:

Who knew U2 were such big fans of race to the bottom economics? This should make them heroes on Free Republic.

[cobalt1999]

1. It's a lot easier to talk than write the checks.

n/t

[WriteDown]

4. Great comment...

That should be quoted often.

[pattmarty]

13. That all depends on exactly how much money you have..........

.........Most countries have some kind of "progressive" taxation. So, maybe you should have said: It may be easier to write the checks than talk, if you have the money.

[rpannier]

14. Good quote nt

[DJ13]

2. Nothing corrupts faster than becoming wealthy

Same reason all the MSM talking heads are anti tax pro Republican.

Its kinda sad how easily some people can lose sight of their moral compass.

[No Elephants]

45. My son calls that "tax bracket Republicans."

[acmavm]

3. Figures. Courage of their convictions up to but NOT including their bank

accounts. That's for the little people who buy their music.

[WriteDown]

5. Do as I say, not as I do....

sigh.

[acmavm]

6. It IS disheartening, isn't it?

[WriteDown]

7. Far too common.

I especially liked how Bono said he was trying to help the economy of the Netherlands.

[KakistocracyHater]

26. yes they sound just like the Banksters

even saying its the people pointing out u2's hypocracy that are the real hypocrits. They do the whole "I'm not going to comment", turn everything upside down & try to pass themselves off as victims-pathetic. But Bono is always telling his (hopefully dwindling) working-class fans to give their money to charity, which would be a larger percentage of the fan's wages than his...

I am not a fan & will not become one either. Their music has always given me a weird headache, Coldplay too, don't know why but that's how it is.

[The Stranger]

8. Bono's just showing his true colors. Of course, he's a hypocrite.

And his band sucks.

[here_is_to_hope]

9. Whoa...

I might think that this puts more money in the bands' pocket, so if the band has more money, do they give more money to various causes?
Maybe.
I would go with that rather than dis what has been a very positive band for three decades.

[cobalt1999]

10. "puts more money in the band's pocket"

You got that right.

In some dream land they give it all away, here on Earth they buy a new yacht.

[here_is_to_hope]

11. Well, would you suggest they

hang on to it? Keep it handy? Or spend it?
I go through surfboards like water but I still give time and money to the local services for the poorer.

[salib]

15. I would suggest that they pay their fair share of the commons

Instead of "tax evasion", "legal" of course, as long as "legal" includes which legal system happens to be desperate enough to give you the biggest break.

And yes, power corrupts. Wealth too. We need to recognize that fact, not excuse it, not apologize for it, not idolize and thus "look past" it. We are talking about the social contract here and we are citizens (of this country and the world). We cannot just "give em a pass."

[Threedifferentones]

57. Yes of course wealth corrupts as well

Wealth, especially in this day and age, IS power, as it provides an easy way to convince others to do what you want.

I have always found it odd that so many celebrities work hard to maintain a "charitable" image, even though they own far more than 99.9% of their countrymen, let alone their fellow humans, whether they give away 10% or 90% of their income.

Its so obviously a self-centered scam! Bono, whatever causes you support, I have always felt that you are basically the same as everyone else who feels he deserves to be worshiped for his charisma and "talent." That is to say, this basically confirms Bono is arrogant and rather selfish, WHAT A SHOCKER.

This is why I never want to be famous, I prefer that as few people as possible know just how selfish and "human" I really am! :)

I do hope, however, that if I ever become rich/famous I would be modest enough to admit that I am not keeping myself in the spotlight for everyone else's benefit. Talk about conceited, are you kidding Bono?! "We stayed in Ireland during their low taxes so we could help their economy, but now that the taxes are higher and we would be helping even more, we want to make someone else's economy grow...you know, where taxes are lower." LOL

[louis-t]

12. When I knew them , they were just shy, young kids.

They were drawing 150 people in clubs in New England. They opened for us, we opened for them. They brawled on stage one night......Bono counted off a song and Larry wasn't ready. Has it really been 28 years?

[fascisthunter]

16. Did they Ever Play at the "Ratskeller" in Kenmore, Boston?

[louis-t]

56. Paradise Club 12-14-80

I've got a stage pass and itinerary from those dates.

By the way, The Paradise Club claims they were first US venue for U2. They were not, by about a week.
Oh, and I think the Ratskellar dates were some kind of U2 fan party when the band was in town a few years later. I remember reading about it online.

[TheWatcher]

17. And now Bono has sold his soul to the very Establishment he raged against

Open Letter to Bono,

Your relevance has long since ceased.

What you are doing now is an embarrassment and an insult to people's intelligence.

Let me sum it up for you in one word.

RETIRE.

Love,

A Former Fan who gave you more than the benefit of the doubt for 25 Years.

[TheWatcher]

18. He's really become the Darth Vader Of Music

There was a time when he was younger, about 20 years ago, when he really stood for something, and he was a very powerful presence, and really was genuinely Righteous (Much like Anakin, from the Star Wars Mythos)

When you look at him now, he is a pathetic Polar Opposite of what he once was. The Righteousness has been replaced by Self-Righteousness, Self-Importance, Arrogance, and Hypocrisy. ("He's More Machine Than Man, now. Twisted and Evil.")

He is something completely opposite of the man he was 25 years ago.

Even members of his own band are getting tired of his shit. Larry Mullen Jr even said in a recent interview that it was disturbing to him that Certain members of the band were propping up and validating War Criminals.

And he's right.

But hey, you have to give him credit, he managed to find a virtually endless revenue stream in the blind faith, devotion, and belief of the Public.

As he so often arrogantly says on stage after a show ends "Thanks For Giving Us A Good Life."

Bono, you need to GET A LIFE. You're a hollow parody of what once was.

At least people like Bush, Blair, and your "good friend" Jesse Helms made no bones about what they are. They wear their evil and corruption proudly on their shoulders, overt for all the world to see.

You're the worst kind of hypocrite.

Nothing more than a Snake Masquerading As A Saint.

[PM Martin]

35. Perhaps he is narcissistic.

He may just love the attention and the worshiping he receives for being a "good Samaritan".

[TheWatcher]

39. He's NOT a Good Samairatan

The "One" Foundation is very aptly named.

That's about all I will say about that.

[PM Martin]

55. Good Samairatan is in quotations for a reason.

I agree with you.

[MrSlayer]

19. I don't blame them at all.

The Beatles, Stones, Zeppelin, Freddie Mercury, Ozzy, Phil Collins, Sean Connery, Douglas Adams and countless others have done it. If they're going to take 90-95% of your money you'd be wise to move out of country as well.

[Hannah Bell]

22. where is this mythical land where taxes take 90-95% of one's money?

[NashVegas]

49. Didn't The UK Tax Entertainers At 50% Across The Board? I Know They Used To

And that's why so many English musicians moved to the US and elsewhere when they made it big.

U2 can base themselves, financially, wherever they want for all I care. They've made a LOT of money for a LOT of people in the recording, live music, radio, tv, print and merchandising industries.

[muriel_volestrangler]

51. Rates used to be higher than that - see sub-thread from #28 down (nt)

[riverdeep]

20. He's in good company.

All you need is love, and a Rolls:



You just kinda wish they would own up to it. Although it begs a question, how much should the rich pay? Early on, the Beatles were famously paying 91.5% of their earnings in taxes. To me, that's too high. In this country presently, someone like Warren Buffet can pay a lower rate than his secretary. And corporations that make millions can pay little to no taxes. It used to be, what, about 60% around Eisenhower? That may too high, but around 35-40% is reasonable to me.

[Hannah Bell]

23. there's is no country in the world where anyone pays 91.5% of their earnings in taxes,

& never has been.

[riverdeep]

25. Wiki actually says 95%

for the top tax rate. I can't remember where I saw 91.5%.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxman

It does say 'citation needed' so you could be right.

[Hannah Bell]

27. methinks you fail to grasp the concept of "marginal rate."

not to mention the concept of "tax shelter."

not to mention numerous others that make your post pure winger boogeyman fantasy.

not to mention i don't see any numbers in your link.

[riverdeep]

33. They claim 95%.

It doesn't go into specifics.

Wikipedia> Taxman> 3.The release and after> 2nd paragraph> 2nd sentence:

"The taxman tells the listener to appreciate that he is not left empty-handed: "Should five percent appear too small / Be thankful I don't take it all" and "one for you, nineteen for me" (referring to the 95% top tax rate at the time in the UK).

[riverdeep]

42. Er...

For clarity, there should be a quotation mark at the end of the bolded section as the parenthetical is part of the quote, not my interpretation.

[muriel_volestrangler]

28. Top rate in Britain reached 98% at one stage

But during the 1973 reform, the very top rate of income tax on earning was left at 75 per cent. In 1974, the top rate on earnings was actually increased, to 83 per cent. Throughout these years, the highest feasible rate on investment income was higher still. ... This was because of the investment income surcharge, an additional income tax charge on unearned income. As this had a maximum rate of 15 per cent, in the second half of the 1970s it combined with the 83 per cent top main income tax rate to give a top feasible marginal rate of 98 per cent on unearned income. Very few individuals were actually charged at this rate.

http://www.ifs.org.uk/bns/bn25.pdf

That would seem to indicate the top rate when 'Taxman' was written was 90%, not 95%, but exactly what the levels were at during the sixties isn't clear for sure. But it's definitely true that from 74-79, it was a possible 98% for the very rich.

[Hannah Bell]

29. here's the quote:

"the Beatles were famously paying 91.5% of their earnings in taxes."


"Marginal rate"

The tax rate paid on the last dollar of one's income (known as the marginal tax rate). In a graduated tax system (which most countries use), this rate will be equal to or higher than the tax rate paid on the person's entire income, since the tax rate is lower for the first dollars of income than for subsequent dollars of income.


not to mention the *feasible* top *marginal* rate you link was on investment income:

"But during the 1973 reform, the very top rate of income tax on earnings was left at 75 per cent. In 1974, the top rate on earnings was actually increased, to 83 per cent. Throughout these years, the highest feasible rate on investment income was higher still.4"

p. 7

[muriel_volestrangler]

30. And a top marginal rate of 98% would mean that 91.5% in taxes is theoretically possible

though I don't expect the lyrics of that song were written to be scrupulously correct about the Beatles' overall tax bill, as opposed to their marginal one.

[Hannah Bell]

31. theory ain't practice, & the "theoretical" 98% top marginal rate was on investment

income only.

show me effective rates.

For example, if the first 50% of income is taxed at 30% & the last 50% at 98%, that = effective 64% rate.

[muriel_volestrangler]

40. List of rates and band levels

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/stats/tax_structure/incometaxrates_1974to1990.pdf

The investment income surcharge of 15% was for income above £2,000 - see http://www.ifs.org.uk/ff/income.xls - from 1973-74 to 1977-78; then above £2,250; and that also tells us a single person's allowance was £625 in 74-75, going up to £985 in 78-79 (note on dates: the UK tax year runs from April 6th to April 5th, for reasons to do with the Julian and Gregorian calendars :D )

I think that, for the tax year 74-75, means that for someone with, say, £50,000 earned, £200,000 investment income:

single allowance: £625
total tax on taxable income below 20,000: £11225 (you can check my maths - it looks about right)
above: @83%

investment income surcharge @15% over £2,000

total income on which no tax, or the lower rates: 625+11225=11850
amount subject to highest rate: 250000-11850=238150
tax paid in highest band: 0.83*238150=197664
amount subject to surcharge: 200000-2000=198000
surcharge: 198000*0.15=29700
total tax: 11225+197664+29700=238589
proportion of income paid in tax: 238589/250000=95.4%


There would no doubt be various deductions allowed; but I'm not about to find out what they were, and fill out a complete tax form just for this.

Yes, that is someone very rich - the Retail Price Index shows prices have gone up about 7 times since then, and if you say earnings outstrip inflation by 2% on average, then in 35 years, that's another doubling. So this is the equivalent of someone with an income of 14*£250,000=£3.5 million - about $5 million, in today's money. But there are people with that amount of income.

[Waiting For Everyman]

24. But their losses to "bad investments" is somehow forgotten.

And Creedence Clearwater Revival lost everything in a swindle by BCCI. (Lots of groups had similar losses.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ec0XKhAHR5I

That's very ironic, isn't it, considering CCR's most famous song above? But nobody knew back then, including them, about black ops covertly owning the banks. And now, strangely enough, it's been forgotten again.

Oh but tax rates, that's remembered.

[Waiting For Everyman]

21. Very cheesy. Their next song should be "I'll sell my soul to the lowest bidder".

Evidently it's easier to sing about being Irish than to write the checks, too.

Overpriced music is so over anyway. The prices charged for it is shameful in itself - largely due to overpaying them to create their exorbitant wealth for them. None of the big names today (or very few at least) would show up without notice and jam for hours for free as it used to be (back when music meant something).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lT_1h8HMPRk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7yYOwlICXLM

As said in the second video, "you gotta have a reason for being there, or you don't have a reason"... which is why I'd rather replay my tunes by the classic rockers, than buy the "stars" new ones. It has no soul today, and this is a random glimpse of why that is.

Sunday, Bloody Sunday, huh. :eyes: Yeah, right.

[Frumious B]

41. There is just as much "meaningful" music now as there ever has been.

You might have to dig a little deeper for the gems because of corporate media monopolies, but they are certainly being made. Nostalgia is a trick of memory. You can remember a whole bunch of good things from the past all at once while you have to experience the present in real time. The older you are, the more stuff you have to remember so "now" will inevitably suffer in comparison to "then".

I also disagree that music is "overpriced", especially compared to other forms of entertainment. Music has a unique ability to sort of grow along with you to inspire you and to transport you. A book that you like enough to keep around might be read again once every few years. You might watch your favorite movie once every couple of years. Meanwhile, if a really good album or song gets its hooks in you then you play it over and over again and then it still hits you with the same or even more impact decades later. That is certainly worth the retail price of a CD to me and legal, legit downloads from places like Amazon and iTunes are even cheaper if you don't require the physical product. I mostly listen through my iPod these days, but I prefer to rip my own mp3s and I like having a lossless backup which is why I still buy CDs.

[notadmblnd]

32. Wasn't Bono up Bush's butt quite a bit

when he was the Pretzledent? Try saying that real fast 10 times...

Bono up Bush's butt quite a bit
Bono up Bush's butt quite a bit
Bono up Bush's butt quite a bit
Bono up Bush's butt quite a bit....

[PM Martin]

34. The "liberalism" of celebrities is restricted to pure social/popular causes.

When it comes to economics, they are mostly right wingers.
Hollywood is infamous for going anywhere they can to film in return for tax breaks.
They come into town and shut everything down and inconveinence us because they have to make some film.
:mad: The money the local economy gets in minimal.
There is nothing special about Bono and there are better bands than U2.
This hypocracy is wide spread within the "liberal" realm of artists/celebrities.

[PM Martin]

36. Another thing: Where does Bono think the money for Africa comes from

when he asks first world nations for help? It comes from the TAX DOLLARS they collect!

[Frumious B]

37. Fortunately, I don't look to rock stars for moral guidance.

I've been enjoying the leaked mp3s of No Line On The Horizon for a couple of weeks and I'll be picking up my hard copy on Tuesday regardless of how Bono manages his finances. The album didn't blow me away on first listen, but it's a grower. It's definitely more sonically ambitious than their last couple of releases.

[Bread and Circus]

38. As a band U2 is over-rated as far as I'm concerned.

[riverdeep]

43. They were great at one time,

but all bands have a vital period. Zooropa was their last great album, although I haven't heard this recent one yet.

[Frumious B]

44. The production of Pop sounds a little stilted and dated these days...

but IMHO there are some FANTASTIC songs in there. The problem is that the negative reaction to Pop kind of shocked U2 into playing it a bit too safe on the next couple of records. I think they've been making a conscious effort to conform to the general audience expectations of how a U2 record is supposed to sound...earnest, soaring anthems with chiming, echo laden guitars. I still find things to enjoy about those albums myself, but I'm appreciative that they didn't go for three in a row with the same vibe. The new one brings a bit of that abandoned experimentation back into the fold.

[riverdeep]

46. I'll have to take a listen then.

From listening to Bono's interviews at the time (around '91), U2 is a band that listens to their critics for better or worse. After the Joshua Tree and Rattle and Hum, critics were saying the band were taking themselves too seriously. So they made Achtung Baby as a result. A lot of their fans were shocked because it wasn't the nice soft echoes and inspirational singing. The music was abrasive and Bono stopped singing in favor of mumbling, and it works brilliantly.

That was the first time I cared about U2, I loved the abrasive sound, and it was only later I got into their older music and realized that even though it had been played to death, it was also great.

[NashVegas]

50. U2 Are Always Going to Draw Critics

From the over 50 crowd, U2 has been/will continue to be criticized because they are not part of the AOR "Golden Age" and have *mass* appeal to an audience whose culture they aren't part of.

From the under 35 crowd, U2 has been/will continue to be criticized because they were part of a golden age where (rockish) bands could get huge and still have loads of artistic integrity, and there is resentment in not having one's own culture validated. Today's bands have to choose one or the other, for the most part.

Right now, it looks like Dave Matthews Band will be the Last Great Rock Band. Coldplay *could* join them, but aren't quite there yet. That's two bands in 15 years to have widespread mass cultural appeal. Two.

[amandabeech]

52. I'd make that the over 60 crowd. More of them think that nothing decent

has been done since '68. I know one 60 year old guy who thinks that no good music has been done since the Beach Boys.

I'll be 54 later this year. I got into U2 in the '80s, as did most of my friends. We still like U-2. AND Led Zep.

Really, more people than you think continue to be interested in contemporary music into their '30s and even '40s. Some are ALWAYS interested.

[ryanmuegge]

59. Dave Matthews is not rock.

The music isn't rock, and he doesn't have any rock star swagger or lifestyle as a person. Their cultural appeal is limited to lame-ass neo-hippie wannabes, half of whom don't even go to the shows to to hear the songs, the rest go to hear songs from 1996. Not exactly the stuff of myth. He makes a lot of money, but that only proves that there is a fool born every second.

At least Coldplay writes decent songs. U2 used to, but they've been doing total crap since after Achtung Baby.

[NashVegas]

60. I Disagree

And there are plenty of people in this very thread who would disagree about whether or not U2 has been doing total crap since 1991.

[No Elephants]

47. My experience: The very wealthy will quickly spend on

expensive gifts for others and expensive things for themselves and they'll also donate generously. But, they don't want to pay for services rendered, no matter how reasonable the charge or how useful the services.

It's as though they'll give you things, but don't act as though you're actually ENTITLED to any of their dough. Maybe that goes for governments, as well as for people who do work for them.

On the other hand, my experience has been only with a couple of dozen people with inherited wealth, none of whom needed to work and all but one of whom did not work.

[davidwparker]

48. But, on the other hand U2, it's not like you NEED the money and the taxes

do help your fellow countrymen. So, IMHO, it really does sound bad.

If you pay millions and millions in taxes, then whew, what must you be making?

[mitchum]

53. He dissembles even more wretchedly than he caterwauls

[mdmc]

54. kinda sad

[SOS]

58. U2 net worth = $908 million, U2 tax rate = 1.5%

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/04/business/yourmoney/04amster.html

[mix]

61. never liked'em, nor did the punks

eom

[OwnedByFerrets]

62. My question: Are they following the law. If they are whats the beef....

if the laws are corrupt (which many many are) get them changed. Otherwise, they are doing what most people would do in similar circumstances. I will not throw the first stone here.

[mainer]

63. I know several writers who moved to Ireland because of their tax laws

They didn't tax writers, poets, and musicians. (Although let's face it, most people in those particular arts make peanuts.)