Quote
Stargroves
Nope.

Nope, what?

Quote
Green Lady
Keith's tax return - now there is something nobody can understand! I bet there's a lot of fast footwork going on there.

[www.nytimes.com]

Damn right there is. Paying 1.5% tax instead of the 40% one would normally expect when earning that amount of money is pretty nice work if you can get it....

I know what you're wondering about - but imagine you're Robinson Crusoe and you have no crude oil, no bananas and nothing you can make drugs of. Think about the little ones in this world.

Quite an interesting article, thanks. Bono is the consummate hypocrite, of course.

And Mick and Keith always were mainly into money , as opposed to creating new and fresh music over the last 25 years.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-12-16 22:20 by mitchflorida.

Quote
mitchflorida
Quite an interesting article, thanks. Bono is the consummate hypocrite, of course.

And Mick and Keith always were mainly into money , as opposed to creating new and fresh music over the last 25 years.

Only if he's keeping all the money he diverts for himself. You and I simply dont know what he does with his money, nor should he be obliged to tell us.

I've no problem with anyone doing what they legally can to minimise the amount of tax they pay if the opportunity is there for them to do so. What they USE that loophole for is for their own conscience. I think all of us would like to be in control of the eventual destiny of what we're paying tax on.

But then don't complain about government not paying money to non-developed countries if you yourself doesn't want to contribute to the countries tax income. For governent to pay money to non-developed countries everybody need to contribute.
It's like Prince Charles coming to the Chlima Conferece in a private jetplane to tell us what to do to save on energy comsumption.
Somehow doublemoral.

Bono doesn't pay his rightful taxes to the UK and then demands that the UK government make huge contributions to the Third World.

I am surprised Bono didn't get the Nobel Peace Prize this year . . who deserved it more Obama or Bono?

Quote
mitchflorida
Bono doesn't pay his rightful taxes to the UK and then demands that the UK government make huge contributions to the Third World.

Bono doesnt pay UK taxes for the simple reason that he lives, and always has lived, in the Republic of Ireland.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-12-16 22:53 by Gazza.

Quote
mtaylor
But then don't complain about government not paying money to non-developed countries if you yourself doesn't want to contribute to the countries tax income. For governent to pay money to non-developed countries everybody need to contribute.
It's like Prince Charles coming to the Chlima Conferece in a private jetplane to tell us what to do to save on energy comsumption.
Somehow doublemoral.

Not necessarily. Say you have $20 million of taxable income which the state takes and then spends as THEY see fit. A fraction of that $20 million is going to go to causes that you necesarily approve of, and a sizeable amount may end up going to financing things you disagree with. If you use the system to only pay, say, $5 million of that amount, then you have $15 million to divert to something you totally approve of.

Theoretically, if African relief happens to be your 'pet cause', then instead of maybe only a few thousand dollars of your own tax going to address that issue, you can control it so that in excess of $15 million of it is going there. Simple.

Like I said, whether he or anyone else does something like that with the money they're saving is for their own conscience.

This is true Gazza, but it doesn't preclude others pointing out behavior that is ostensibly the work of a hypocrite. Bono isn't obliged to to tell us how he spends his money, but his oversized ego would have him bragging about what he has given in terms of money if it reflected a policy of avoiding taxes so he can deliver real help for urgent needs.It would go a long way giving in giving him some credibility for his sermons and photo op appetite.

NO ONE is obliged to tell anyone what they do with their own money. Please dont take this the wrong way, but maybe where you come from its seen as a good thing to openly brag about what amount you donate to good causes but over here it most certainly is NOT. Its seen as much more respectable to do it quietly and not make a fuss about it. Trust me, in Ireland and in the UK, making public self-congratulatory statements about how much you give to charity doesn't tend to be seen as anything more than shameless and tacky self-promotion.

I DO agree that by not making some kind of 'declaration' he's leaving himself open for criticism - and I'd imagine he's well aware of that when he shoots his mouth off - but in all seriousness a private citizen's income doesnt have to be a matter of public record and its a bit ridiculous to expect someone to list all his income and expenditure and donations just to satisfy some people who think he's trousering all the money he's avoiding paying in income tax.

Like I said, its for his own conscience. Personally, I've more of an issue with the fact that an act can amass so much money by (legally) avoiding paying almost all of the taxes they'd normally be expected to incur, yet STILL persist in charging their fans through the nose for the privilege of watching them perform. U2 arent exactly a cheap night out (although they do have a sizeable percentage of low priced tickets which is fair enough) and the Stones are even worse in this regard.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-12-17 00:13 by Gazza.

Quote
Gazza

Theoretically, if African relief happens to be your 'pet cause', then instead of maybe only a few thousand dollars of your own tax going to address that issue, you can control it so that in excess of $15 million of it is going there. Simple.

yeah, but the long-term solution should be to petition one's government and to use one's voting power to change policies on issues like this. African relief--just to take your example--shouldn't depend on the good deeds of a few superrich celebrities, IMO. Might be good intentioned, but a disaster from the social perspective.

Quote
Gazza
NO ONE is obliged to tell anyone what they do with their own money. Please dont take this the wrong way, but maybe where you come from its seen as a good thing to openly brag about what amount you donate to good causes but over here it most certainly is NOT. Its seen as much more respectable to do it quietly and not make a fuss about it. Trust me, in Ireland and in the UK, making public self-congratulatory statements about how much you give to charity doesn't tend to be seen as anything more than shameless and tacky self-promotion.

I DO agree that by not making some kind of 'declaration' he's leaving himself open for criticism - and I'd imagine he's well aware of that when he shoots his mouth off - but in all seriousness a private citizen's income doesnt have to be a matter of public record and its a bit ridiculous to expect someone to list all his income and expenditure and donations just to satisfy some people who think he's trousering all the money he's avoiding paying in income tax.

Like I said, its for his own conscience. Personally, I've more of an issue with the fact that an act can amass so much money by (legally) avoiding paying almost all of the taxes they'd normally be expected to incur, yet STILL persist in charging their fans through the nose for the privilege of watching them perform. U2 arent exactly a cheap night out (although they do have a sizeable percentage of low priced tickets which is fair enough) and the Stones are even worse in this regard.

I agree Gaza, and I being of Irish(northern) descent you are right about the protocol regarding bragging, but I see Bono foremost as a egomaniac of Napoleon scale, and also as a hypocrite so I think of him as atypical, and way down the list he is also trying to be a rocker imo. It will never work for me, despite his right to keep his finances private and preach so publicly, he is indeed open to this criticism.

Quote
kater-v
I thought, Keith just lives in US, as resident alien, and still is UK subject - but read somewhere he is US cityzen. Is it true?

The term subject (in the British context) means he is a subject of the Queen. I doubt very much the Keith sees himself as a subject of the Queen (despite the fact that he sang at her Coronation). Keith is genuine. Unlike that snivelling toad John Lydon.

Quote
Sir Craven of Cottage

Quote
kater-v
I thought, Keith just lives in US, as resident alien, and still is UK subject - but read somewhere he is US cityzen. Is it true?

The term subject (in the British context) means he is a subject of the Queen. I doubt very much the Keith sees himself as a subject of the Queen (despite the fact that he sang at her Coronation). Keith is genuine. Unlike that snivelling toad John Lydon.

Keith has often said he sang at the Queen's coronation, but is there any truth to this?

Personally, I reckon its another of his tall tales.

I'd imagine the choirs for such an event would have been very carefully selected - and if school choirs were used, they'd be from some of the best in the country.

Keith was only 9 years old at the time of the coronation. I just find it hard to believe that some little twerp of that age attending an ordinary primary school in Dartford would have been in the choir at Westminster Abbey.

I smell bullshit.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-12-17 21:51 by Gazza.

>> Keith has often said he sang at the Queen's coronation, but is there any truth to this? <<

other people often claim that Keith sang at the Coronation, but the one time i've heard Keith seem to confirm that
was at a press conference, where he was answering "yes" before the journalist finished the question. he just wasn't listening.

he did sing for the Queen, and at Westminster Abbey, but the Coronation wasn't the occasion.
as you note Keith was only 9 at the time, and his choir days began when he was 11.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-12-17 23:02 by with sssoul.

Quote
Gazza

Quote
mitchflorida
Quite an interesting article, thanks. Bono is the consummate hypocrite, of course.

And Mick and Keith always were mainly into money , as opposed to creating new and fresh music over the last 25 years.

Only if he's keeping all the money he diverts for himself. You and I simply dont know what he does with his money, nor should he be obliged to tell us.

I've no problem with anyone doing what they legally can to minimise the amount of tax they pay if the opportunity is there for them to do so. What they USE that loophole for is for their own conscience. I think all of us would like to be in control of the eventual destiny of what we're paying tax on.

Bono is certainly entitled to practice tax avoidance -as do all the Stones and most high earners. The point is that Bono harangues government representatives, and in particular, British Prime Ministers, about how they spent tax revenues, when he doesn't contribute to them. I'd call that hypocritical. Mick and Keith wisely keep their mouths shut.

Quote
with sssoul
>> Keith has often said he sang at the Queen's coronation, but is there any truth to this? <<

other people often claim that Keith sang at the Coronation, but the one time i've heard Keith seem to confirm that
was at a press conference, where he was answering "yes" before the journalist finished the question. he just wasn't listening.

he did sing for the Queen, and at Westminster Abbey, but the Coronation wasn't the occasion.
as you note Keith was only 9 at the time, and his choir days began when he was 11.

That makes more sense. Cheers.