Mick and Keith have earned lots and lots of money over the last 45 years. Based on their contributions to charities and such, do you think it is fair to call them Philanthropists?

I don't hear much about their charitable giving, except for a benefit performance now and then. Have they given their fair share? What say you?


(I am undecided on this. Would like to hear the arguments on both sides.)



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-03-29 02:29 by mitchflorida.

Yes because of I am aware of their contributions to many charities and individuals, which they tend not to publicize.

Its always nice to donate money to charities and help out people.But thats purely up to them if they dont want to or not. I dont hold that against them or anyone else with lots of money.Its their money they can do whatever they want with it.And anyway they probadly have its just that they keep it to themselves like most people do and dont go around mouthing off about it.Well I dont anyway. The Stones im sure have helped out people in other ways..likes of employment and things like that.

Keith probably more so than Mick. Afterall he has CHILDREN to pay for. And I would suspect he is very "tight" with his money.

There is no obligation to give large amounts to charity. But some people choose to do so. I have not heard of any large charitable causes that Mick and Keith support, besides an occasional benefit concert. In fact I have heard that they have moved to low-tax havens, as has the "philanthropist" Bono. He moved from Ireland because he said the taxes were too high

Bill Gates, on the other hand . .



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-03-29 03:04 by mitchflorida.

For all of their wealth, I'd call them whatever they wanted me to.

Of course, they have given the world the greatest music ever.

We have no way of knowing for sure. For all most of us know, they could be writing checks worth gabbazillions for charities without seeking any publicity for doing so. Also, one needn't participate in every cause de jour charity event to be a philanthropist.

Even if we assume that they're money-grubbing b@stards, they might donate heavily for the tax considerations.

I have heard that they pay only 3% tax, from a company based in the Netherlands. So if they are philanthropic, they can well afford it.

Quote
stonesrule
Yes because of I am aware of their contributions to many charities and individuals, which they tend not to publicize.

stonesrule, how do you know? And can you say more about what you know?

I think this is their personal business and I feel it is not up to me to say any more than I have said.

Bands and Musicians have dont more charities for as long as I can remember.Than most of theres so called religions that only look after there own people or themselves.

SORRY mistake I will word it again...Bands and musicians have done more for charities for as long as I can remember.Than most of these so called religions that only look after there own people or themselves.

No religion on this board please, this end most of the time in a fight.........

I suggest to tell them that in front of the church on Sunday morning

__________________________

Quote
mitchflorida
Mick and Keith have earned lots and lots of money over the last 45 years. Based on their contributions to charities and such, do you think it is fair to call them Philanthropists?

I don't hear much about their charitable giving, except for a benefit performance now and then. Have they given their fair share? What say you?


(I am undecided on this. Would like to hear the arguments on both sides.)

Which charities do they support?

(I used to work in fundraising for a well-known British university years ago so I know what the fabulously wealthy are capable of giving!)

Quote
mitchflorida
There is no obligation to give large amounts to charity. But some people choose to do so. I have not heard of any large charitable causes that Mick and Keith support, besides an occasional benefit concert. In fact I have heard that they have moved to low-tax havens, as has the "philanthropist" Bono. He moved from Ireland because he said the taxes were too high

You heard wrong. Bono has always lived in Ireland. However, like the Stones, U2 pay less tax than most people of a similar wealth due to offshore tax loopholes. And the Stones have not 'moved to low tax havens'.

Quote
Bliss
I have heard that they pay only 3% tax, from a company based in the Netherlands. So if they are philanthropic, they can well afford it.

Yes,this is a thing I've always heard ,Bliss.
The Stones use Netherlands "Tax shelter" to Reduce tax rate to 1.5% .
According to details disclosed in documents maintained by the Handelsregister -the trade registry of the Netherlands- Promogroup has helped Charlie, Mick & Keith set up a pair of private Dutch foundations that will allow them to transfer assets tax-free to heirs when they die.

It was said that over the last 20 years, according to Dutch documents, Mick,Charlie & Keith have paid just $7.2 million in taxes on earnings of $450 million — a tax rate of about 1.5%, well below the British rate of 40%.



I am a Frenchie ,as Mick affectionately called them in the Old Grey Whistle Test in 1977 .

You might as well of asked : Would you call Mick and Keith opera singers?
Daft question.Shows your ignorance.

Quote
Bliss
I have heard that they pay only 3% tax, from a company based in the Netherlands. So if they are philanthropic, they can well afford it.

don´t believe that and you are only talking about one kind of tax.

i think keith has payed more tax for cigarettes than anyone.


"if you drive a car, - I´ll tax the street;
if you try to sit, - I´ll tax your seat;
if you get too cold, - I´ll tax the heat;
if you take a walk, - I'll tax your feet. "

"Should five per cent appear too small,
Be thankful I don't take it all. "

"Now my advice for those who die,
Declare the pennies on your eyes."

Quote
stoneswashed77

Quote
Bliss
I have heard that they pay only 3% tax, from a company based in the Netherlands. So if they are philanthropic, they can well afford it.

don´t believe that and you are only talking about one kind of tax.

Yeah, Bliss is wrong. Its only 1.6%.


[www.dailymail.co.uk]

Justifies those rip off ticket prices, doesnt it?

Quote
Bliss
I have heard that they pay only 3% tax, from a company based in the Netherlands. So if they are philanthropic, they can well afford it.

I know that this has been an issue in Dutch politics, especially after a recent accusation of Obama as for The Netherlands being a tax haven, but he had to withdraw that accusation. I don't know how things are exactly, but I think they're more complicated than only 1,5 or 1,6% tax paying. Nevertheless, The Stones were already tax exiles in the beginning of the seventies. Money always has been an important factor to 'them', even now they own so much and won't live for ages to come. So I don't understand that money matters so much to them, especially not to Keith. Jagger seems a greedy personality to me in every respect.

I think they do a lot behind the scenes. I know in 1989, Hurricane Hugo on the east coast occured and the Stones gave 41 million dollars as they were touring. Then, same tour, west coast, earthquakes in San Fran area and they gave another $1 million to help. Pretty damn generous if you ask me. And you know Mick has done things with Bono's work and they all did Live Aid, sure they gave $$$ too and then NYC 9/11 show and gave more $$$ so its apprent they are.
Jjflash73

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
Bliss
I have heard that they pay only 3% tax, from a company based in the Netherlands. So if they are philanthropic, they can well afford it.

I know that this has been an issue in Dutch politics, especially after a recent accusation of Obama as for The Netherlands being a tax haven, but he had to withdraw that accusation..

I don't know if you read what I posted above

Quote
SwayStones


Yes,this is a thing I've always heard ,Bliss.
The Stones use Netherlands "Tax shelter" to Reduce tax rate to 1.5% .
According to details disclosed in documents maintained by the Handelsregister -the trade registry of the Netherlands- Promogroup has helped Charlie, Mick & Keith set up a pair of private Dutch foundations that will allow them to transfer assets tax-free to heirs when they die.

It was said that over the last 20 years, according to Dutch documents, Mick,Charlie & Keith have paid just $7.2 million in taxes on earnings of $450 million — a tax rate of about 1.5%, well below the British rate

but the Netherlands Tax Shelter & being a tax heaven doesn't sound as new thing to me ,and anyhow,it was previously well-known ,long before Obama's accusation.

Quote
SwayStones

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
Bliss
I have heard that they pay only 3% tax, from a company based in the Netherlands. So if they are philanthropic, they can well afford it.

I know that this has been an issue in Dutch politics, especially after a recent accusation of Obama as for The Netherlands being a tax haven, but he had to withdraw that accusation..

I don't know if you read what I posted above

Quote
SwayStones


Yes,this is a thing I've always heard ,Bliss.
The Stones use Netherlands "Tax shelter" to Reduce tax rate to 1.5% .
According to details disclosed in documents maintained by the Handelsregister -the trade registry of the Netherlands- Promogroup has helped Charlie, Mick & Keith set up a pair of private Dutch foundations that will allow them to transfer assets tax-free to heirs when they die.

It was said that over the last 20 years, according to Dutch documents, Mick,Charlie & Keith have paid just $7.2 million in taxes on earnings of $450 million — a tax rate of about 1.5%, well below the British rate

but the Netherlands Tax Shelter & being a tax heaven doesn't sound as new thing to me ,and anyhow,it was previously well-known ,long before Obama's accusation.

Yes I read your post. Of course! But I doubt if your assumption is correct. The fact that Obama (who seemingly assumed the same as you do) had to withdraw his accusation is not meaningless. I'll try to find it out later.

Quote
jjflash73
I think they do a lot behind the scenes. I know in 1989, Hurricane Hugo on the east coast occured and the Stones gave 41 million dollars as they were touring. Then, same tour, west coast, earthquakes in San Fran area and they gave another $1 million to help. Pretty damn generous if you ask me. And you know Mick has done things with Bono's work and they all did Live Aid, sure they gave $$$ too and then NYC 9/11 show and gave more $$$ so its apprent they are.
Jjflash73

41 million??? I seriously doubt that. The entire tour wouldnt have generated anywhere near that amount by that stage.

Quote
Gazza

Quote
jjflash73
I think they do a lot behind the scenes. I know in 1989, Hurricane Hugo on the east coast occured and the Stones gave 41 million dollars as they were touring. Then, same tour, west coast, earthquakes in San Fran area and they gave another $1 million to help. Pretty damn generous if you ask me. And you know Mick has done things with Bono's work and they all did Live Aid, sure they gave $$$ too and then NYC 9/11 show and gave more $$$ so its apprent they are.
Jjflash73

41 million??? I seriously doubt that. The entire tour wouldnt have generated anywhere near that amount by that stage.

Gazza ,was it when the Stones played a concert at Death Valley Stadium in Clenson, South Carolina to help raise money for the victims of Hurricane Hugo ?



I am a Frenchie ,as Mick affectionately called them in the Old Grey Whistle Test in 1977 .

not in my book

Quote
Gazza

Quote
jjflash73
I think they do a lot behind the scenes. I know in 1989, Hurricane Hugo on the east coast occured and the Stones gave 41 million dollars as they were touring. Then, same tour, west coast, earthquakes in San Fran area and they gave another $1 million to help. Pretty damn generous if you ask me. And you know Mick has done things with Bono's work and they all did Live Aid, sure they gave $$$ too and then NYC 9/11 show and gave more $$$ so its apprent they are.
Jjflash73

41 million??? I seriously doubt that. The entire tour wouldnt have generated anywhere near that amount by that stage.

Hurricane Hugo hit Charlotte NC pretty bad. I remember it well. No large financial donations from any rock band came in for Hugo (it hit Charleston SC the hardest) that I'm aware of.
The Stones did donate 1 million to the Red Cross for Hurricane Katrina, however.

Click on "Charities" on the Stones' website, and you'll see a shitload of foundations they're giving money to.

JumpingKentFlash

Yep, and you can call Ron a philatelist, so I've read.

[www.dailymail.co.uk]