Tell Me :
Talk
Maybe it's changed, but a DAILY MAIL story in 2006 said: "The Rolling Stones have paid just 1.6 per cent tax on their earnings of £242million over the past 20 years, it has emerged. Documents published in Holland show that Sir Mick Jagger, Charlie Watts and Keith Richards used offshore trusts and companies to ensure tax breaks."
"Under Dutch law, certain information must be made public - allowing details of their extraordinary tax break to emerge."
More here: [www.dailymail.co.uk]
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-02-03 00:44 by Title5Take1.
Same Dailymail story includes:
Watts is said to be worth £ 80million, and as main songwriters, Richards is worth £185million while Sir Mick's fortune is as much as £205million.
Peanut
PeanutGallery
I know I'm being a small person, but if I were mick I'd be pissed that after all these years of being the 'bidness guy' I only had accumulated 10% more than the junkie.
You know that ol' expression about a chain only being as strong as its weakest link,..? He too proved himself to be a weak link when setting on his own,...OTOH, maybe he negotiated for himself and brought a lot of, as they say, his own luggage with him.
Neither on their own are remarkable. Together, they do make magic.
Peanut
PeanutGallery
You know, for all the pettiness and miserliness I've heard Mick being accused of through the years, I do believe there is a certain amount of largesse he probably does show to close friends and family...so yeah, I'd wager he'd have made sure everyone was taken care of in the band.
Maybe I'm giving him too much credit though.
Keith told Barbara Charone, "Mick's a selfish guy, but he's not ungenerous."
Incidentally, I don't know how accurate it is, but the Stones are among the celebs sized up here >>> [www.celebritynetworth.com]
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-03-20 08:30 by Title5Take1.
as they should...but good for them!
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Mick's on a tax haven "map" (Bloomberg Businessweek magazine)
Posted by:
Title5Take1
()
Date: February 2, 2013 21:13
A minor mention, but amusing Mick made the map:
Re: Mick's on a tax haven "map" (Bloomberg Businessweek magazine)
Posted by:
uhbuhgullayew
()
Date: February 2, 2013 21:15
Outdated - Steffi Graf is and has been Stefanie Agassi.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-02-02 21:15 by uhbuhgullayew.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-02-02 21:15 by uhbuhgullayew.
Re: Mick's on a tax haven "map" (Bloomberg Businessweek magazine)
Posted by:
stonesrule
()
Date: February 2, 2013 23:03
Doesn't mention Keith and Charlie's tax havens.
Re: Mick's on a tax haven "map" (Bloomberg Businessweek magazine)
Posted by:
Title5Take1
()
Date: February 3, 2013 00:42
Quote
stonesrule
Doesn't mention Keith and Charlie's tax havens.
Maybe it's changed, but a DAILY MAIL story in 2006 said: "The Rolling Stones have paid just 1.6 per cent tax on their earnings of £242million over the past 20 years, it has emerged. Documents published in Holland show that Sir Mick Jagger, Charlie Watts and Keith Richards used offshore trusts and companies to ensure tax breaks."
"Under Dutch law, certain information must be made public - allowing details of their extraordinary tax break to emerge."
More here: [www.dailymail.co.uk]
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-02-03 00:44 by Title5Take1.
Re: Mick's on a tax haven "map" (Bloomberg Businessweek magazine)
Posted by:
stonehearted
()
Date: February 3, 2013 00:53
Which just shows that if Mick had gone on to complete his studies at LSE for a career in business he would have become what he is anyway: a corporate executive. Strange that you can be a "Sir" and yet contribute so little to the British economy. What about the Mick Jagger Centre at Dartford Grammar School? Is that tax sheltered as well? Probably not, as it's officially part of the school.
What about rock's other top money makers, Macca and Bowie? I wonder also about the tax rates of one Roger Waters, a self-described Communist/Socialist, who has also been a top earner in recent times.
What about rock's other top money makers, Macca and Bowie? I wonder also about the tax rates of one Roger Waters, a self-described Communist/Socialist, who has also been a top earner in recent times.
Re: Mick's on a tax haven "map" (Bloomberg Businessweek magazine)
Posted by:
PeanutGallery
()
Date: March 20, 2013 04:44
Quote
Title5Take1Quote
stonesrule
Doesn't mention Keith and Charlie's tax havens.
Maybe it's changed, but a DAILY MAIL story in 2006 said: "The Rolling Stones have paid just 1.6 per cent tax on their earnings of £242million over the past 20 years, it has emerged. Documents published in Holland show that Sir Mick Jagger, Charlie Watts and Keith Richards used offshore trusts and companies to ensure tax breaks."
"Under Dutch law, certain information must be made public - allowing details of their extraordinary tax break to emerge."
More here: [www.dailymail.co.uk]
Same Dailymail story includes:
Watts is said to be worth £ 80million, and as main songwriters, Richards is worth £185million while Sir Mick's fortune is as much as £205million.
Peanut
PeanutGallery
Re: Mick's on a tax haven "map" (Bloomberg Businessweek magazine)
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: March 20, 2013 06:42
Quote
PeanutGalleryQuote
Title5Take1Quote
stonesrule
Doesn't mention Keith and Charlie's tax havens.
Maybe it's changed, but a DAILY MAIL story in 2006 said: "The Rolling Stones have paid just 1.6 per cent tax on their earnings of £242million over the past 20 years, it has emerged. Documents published in Holland show that Sir Mick Jagger, Charlie Watts and Keith Richards used offshore trusts and companies to ensure tax breaks."
"Under Dutch law, certain information must be made public - allowing details of their extraordinary tax break to emerge."
More here: [www.dailymail.co.uk]
Same Dailymail story includes:
Watts is said to be worth £ 80million, and as main songwriters, Richards is worth £185million while Sir Mick's fortune is as much as £205million.
Peanut
PeanutGallery
I know I'm being a small person, but if I were mick I'd be pissed that after all these years of being the 'bidness guy' I only had accumulated 10% more than the junkie.
Re: Mick's on a tax haven "map" (Bloomberg Businessweek magazine)
Posted by:
PeanutGallery
()
Date: March 20, 2013 07:07
Quote
treaclefingers
I know I'm being a small person, but if I were mick I'd be pissed that after all these years of being the 'bidness guy' I only had accumulated 10% more than the junkie.
You know that ol' expression about a chain only being as strong as its weakest link,..? He too proved himself to be a weak link when setting on his own,...OTOH, maybe he negotiated for himself and brought a lot of, as they say, his own luggage with him.
Neither on their own are remarkable. Together, they do make magic.
Peanut
PeanutGallery
Re: Mick's on a tax haven "map" (Bloomberg Businessweek magazine)
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: March 20, 2013 07:14
Quote
PeanutGalleryQuote
treaclefingers
I know I'm being a small person, but if I were mick I'd be pissed that after all these years of being the 'bidness guy' I only had accumulated 10% more than the junkie.
You know that ol' expression about a chain only being as strong as its weakest link,..? He too proved himself to be a weak link when setting on his own,...OTOH, maybe he negotiated for himself and brought a lot of, as they say, his own luggage with him.
Neither on their own are remarkable. Together, they do make magic.
Peanut
PeanutGallery
You know, for all the pettiness and miserliness I've heard Mick being accused of through the years, I do believe there is a certain amount of largesse he probably does show to close friends and family...so yeah, I'd wager he'd have made sure everyone was taken care of in the band.
Maybe I'm giving him too much credit though.
Re: Mick's on a tax haven "map" (Bloomberg Businessweek magazine)
Posted by:
Title5Take1
()
Date: March 20, 2013 07:39
Quote
treaclefingersQuote
PeanutGalleryQuote
treaclefingers
I know I'm being a small person, but if I were mick I'd be pissed that after all these years of being the 'bidness guy' I only had accumulated 10% more than the junkie.
You know that ol' expression about a chain only being as strong as its weakest link,..? He too proved himself to be a weak link when setting on his own,...OTOH, maybe he negotiated for himself and brought a lot of, as they say, his own luggage with him.
Neither on their own are remarkable. Together, they do make magic.
Peanut
PeanutGallery
You know, for all the pettiness and miserliness I've heard Mick being accused of through the years, I do believe there is a certain amount of largesse he probably does show to close friends and family...so yeah, I'd wager he'd have made sure everyone was taken care of in the band.
Maybe I'm giving him too much credit though.
Keith told Barbara Charone, "Mick's a selfish guy, but he's not ungenerous."
Incidentally, I don't know how accurate it is, but the Stones are among the celebs sized up here >>> [www.celebritynetworth.com]
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-03-20 08:30 by Title5Take1.
Re: Mick's on a tax haven "map" (Bloomberg Businessweek magazine)
Posted by:
TeddyB1018
()
Date: March 20, 2013 09:02
The Stomes give loads to charity under anonymous conditions.
Re: Mick's on a tax haven "map" (Bloomberg Businessweek magazine)
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: March 20, 2013 16:11
Quote
TeddyB1018
The Stomes give loads to charity under anonymous conditions.
as they should...but good for them!
Re: Mick's on a tax haven "map" (Bloomberg Businessweek magazine)
Posted by:
redsock
()
Date: March 20, 2013 20:12
I'd like to pay only 1.6% tax for 20 years.
Re: Mick's on a tax haven "map" (Bloomberg Businessweek magazine)
Posted by:
Stoneage
()
Date: March 21, 2013 00:48
It's more noble to actually pay your taxes and contribute to the society you're benefiting from (or have benefited from) than to give to charity.
By the way, charity is (one of the) the last step in Maslow's hierarchy of needs. You can't impress with fortune anymore so you will have to start giving some of it away.
The benefit with that is that it confirms your status and gives you a gloria of goodness. Even though it's often a false one. In Sir Michael's case it bought him a philistine title.
To accompany his chateaus and Caribbean islands...
By the way, charity is (one of the) the last step in Maslow's hierarchy of needs. You can't impress with fortune anymore so you will have to start giving some of it away.
The benefit with that is that it confirms your status and gives you a gloria of goodness. Even though it's often a false one. In Sir Michael's case it bought him a philistine title.
To accompany his chateaus and Caribbean islands...
Re: Mick's on a tax haven "map" (Bloomberg Businessweek magazine)
Posted by:
millerman60
()
Date: March 21, 2013 04:41
If I earned hundreds of millions, I would pay as little tax as legally possible. Through charity I could insure that my money went directly to the people in need instead of it being wasted by polititans or having 80% of it disappear into a bureaucratic black hole before the remainder has any benefit to society.
Re: Mick's on a tax haven "map" (Bloomberg Businessweek magazine)
Posted by:
Stoneage
()
Date: March 21, 2013 13:29
In my world we is always superior to I. In a society we are all dependent on each other. Part of the social contract is to pay taxes. Whether you like it or not. @#$%& charity.
Re: Mick's on a tax haven "map" (Bloomberg Businessweek magazine)
Posted by:
millerman60
()
Date: March 22, 2013 00:15
I don't have a problem paying my fair share to provide for the common good,but it isn't the "We" that are busting their ass sixty hours a week to provide a good life for my family. What I have a problem with is the federal government confiscating my hard earned money to pay for unjustified wars and to bail out Wall Street bankers. @#$%& high taxes,commrade.
Re: Mick's on a tax haven "map" (Bloomberg Businessweek magazine)
Posted by:
Title5Take1
()
Date: March 22, 2013 00:48
Even if you're for, say, welfare, the tax money for that is so inefficiently spent. This is dated, because it's an observation William Simon made in 1975 (I just read it in an old book) but, nonetheless (adjusting for inflation), if you took tax money straight from the taxpayer and with no middle man gave it straight to a family of six on welfare, that family would get over $200,000 a year. That's how much inefficient bureaucracies can eat up (because such families obviously don't get that 200 grand).
Re: Mick's on a tax haven "map" (Bloomberg Businessweek magazine)
Posted by:
Stoneage
()
Date: March 22, 2013 01:10
Sure, government inefficiency is a huge problem. Especially when you start wars on false premisses. And corruption is always a factor. But I don't think cutting taxes makes it any better. At least not for the poorer part of the population. I guess it has to do with morality in the end. I have never been fond of the idea of poor people having to depend on handouts from the rich. And ever worse - rich people making a name for themselves by handing out charity to the poor. I'll pass on the comrade comment.
Re: Mick's on a tax haven "map" (Bloomberg Businessweek magazine)
Posted by:
millerman60
()
Date: March 22, 2013 03:17
I apologize for the comrade comment. That was uncalled for. I believe there should be a safety net for the poor and those truly in need. I think the way the system works needs to be changed so it doesn't breed a culture of dependency. I know people,including a couple of relatives, who say why work when I can collect a government check.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
Britney , cyclist , ghs73 , Irix , jason8903 , keefgotsoul , Knellz , philrock90 , Ralleyguy , retired_dog
Guests:
1670
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10