Jump to content
  • Sign Up!

    Join our friendly community of music lovers and be part of the fun 😎

Legends Slot 2025


FestiHead

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, SwallowOrSleepOnTheWetSpot said:

Bryan Adams, sure why not. We can all sing along with Summer of 69.

 

Some other top quality bangers too TBF.  Can't Stop This Thing We Started, Run to You and Cuts Like a Knife all belters.  I'd be up for that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, CaledonianGonzo said:

Wealthy people dodging tax is one of the reasons we need charities in the first place.

 

In their case I think (but may be wrong) that they've got all sorts of different businesses and some of them were put through different parts of Europe where the rates were lower. 

 

Presumably as a massive band this is where owning companies or managing your affairs in companies to make them "efficient" clearly causes folks to question your ethics - indeed not that I listen but  apparently it came up in his desert island discs 🏝️

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, CaledonianGonzo said:

It's because of the perceived hypocrisy. Noone went after the Stones because they're not turning up to every rent-a-cause to lecture everyone and hanging out with Bill Clinton and so on. You can accuse Keith Richards of many things, but he's not White Messiah coded the way Bono is.

I think part of the problem with the U2 thing is (and I'm no huge defender of Bono) is that Bono is very charitable. Some other members of the band are not so charitable or even especially interested in it. Bono is actually very egalitarian and as a result he only has one vote in how they do things. They have had a completely democratic approach and share all money equally and make all business decisions equally. Now nobody knows but even if Bono voted against it and disagreed with it they could still end up doing it because that is the way the band was set up.

 

Paul McGuinness once said on this point that Bono would give you the shirt off his back but Larry Mullen Jnr still has his communion money to illustrate the difference between them.

 

But yes it is why there is a big difference in how the actions were perceived even if Rolling Stones actions and behaviour are in fact much worse than U2's.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Superscally said:

Seeing as he doesn't really live in Ireland...

 

He does. Their argument was that 95% of their business is outside Ireland. He does what everyone else does but then again most people arent on the TV telling you youre a c**t for not donating to charity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, The Nal said:

 

He does. Their argument was that 95% of their business is outside Ireland. He does what everyone else does but then again most people arent on the TV telling you youre a c**t for not donating to charity.

That Where The Streets Have No Name is a banger though. 

To be fair, I'm down with all musicians and artists not paying any tax anyway. f**k it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, The Nal said:

 

He does. Their argument was that 95% of their business is outside Ireland. He does what everyone else does but then again most people arent on the TV telling you youre a c**t for not donating to charity.

 

I'd definitely turn over if that was on

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/16/2024 at 2:31 PM, The Nal said:

 

He does. Their argument was that 95% of their business is outside Ireland. He does what everyone else does but then again most people arent on the TV telling you youre a c**t for not donating to charity.

 

I may be way off here, but I thought one of the issues that caused furore was that Irish income tax for artistic endeavours was already substantially lower than for any other income (5% IIRC), but U2 still chose to domicile their "companies" in various tax havens to avoid even that, but still ostensibly lived in Dublin.  Point taken that this would have to be a majority decision by the directors of said companies and Bono could have objected, but it still makes him look like a hypocrite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, 4AssedMonkey said:

 

I may be way off here, but I thought one of the issues that caused furore was that Irish income tax for artistic endeavours was already substantially lower than for any other income (5% IIRC), but U2 still chose to domicile their "companies" in various tax havens to avoid even that, but still ostensibly lived in Dublin.  Point taken that this would have to be a majority decision by the directors of said companies and Bono could have objected, but it still makes him look like a hypocrite.

I know a couple of writers in Dublin. The tax for artistic types was zero. U2 moved when a tax was introduced 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 4AssedMonkey said:

 

I may be way off here, but I thought one of the issues that caused furore was that Irish income tax for artistic endeavours was already substantially lower than for any other income (5% IIRC), but U2 still chose to domicile their "companies" in various tax havens to avoid even that, but still ostensibly lived in Dublin.  Point taken that this would have to be a majority decision by the directors of said companies and Bono could have objected, but it still makes him look like a hypocrite.

 

Irish government capped the artists exemption at 250k, then 120k and now 40k. So U2 wouldve been hit with huge bills, relatively. 

 

Theyre kind of in a category of 1 so it was really a U2 tax. But it wouldnt have amounted to much relative to their overall fortune. 

 

They have 10 companies in Ireland alone and Bono has fingers in the pies of Forbes, Facebook, Yelp etc. Hes nearly a billionaire at this stage.

 

I dont have a huge problem with it. Well beyond my control so no point worrying about it. Stones played the next Glasto and no one said boo about it. And they've actually named albums after tax dodging avoiding.

Edited by The Nal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 4AssedMonkey said:

but U2 still chose to domicile their "companies" in various tax havens to avoid even that, but still ostensibly lived in Dublin.

 

Not quite - it was one of their companies (specifically the one that owned and handled copyright), rather than several, and it was in the Netherlands rather than an actual tax haven.

 

The rest of the companies and the band as individuals were still paying, by all accounts, fairly substantial taxes in Ireland throughout, and the company in the Netherlands was also paying 6 figures a year in local taxes (albeit yes, substantially less than it would have paid if it was registered in Ireland).

 

If they were going all out on tax avoidance, they could have gone a lot lot further down that road, as other acts do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...