Debt Relief Like Charity, Begins at home..

[Big Train]

U2 decides to join the Stones in off shore tax setups. Debt relief is good if your the common man, but not if your Bono. I mean, he is the savior after all of 3 world countries. He should be excused of his own taxes then right?


Stones reap rewards

Sid Billington
http://www.megastar.co.uk/musicnews/news/2006/08/02/sMEG01MTE1NDUwODAyODI.html



Ageing rockers have last laugh

MegaStar says: ‘Now my advice for those who die, declare the pennies on your eyes. 'Cause I’m the taxman.’

It seems that all that effort to er, avoid the taxman, has finally paid off for the Rolling Stones.

The wrinklies of rock have paid $7.2m on their earnings of $450m (£240m), according to records released in the Netherlands.

“Rolling Stones find satisfaction in offshore tax shelter,” cry the Daily Telegraph, on their front page, no less, while the Independent dedicate page 14 to the band’s earnings.

This eye-watering information came to light after the Stones decided to open two foundations in Holland to “manage the rights to their music, performances, merchandise and films and to settle the question of ownership should one of them die,” the Indy writes.

Those sly old dogs have apparently been putting all their royalties into the Netherlands since 1972, and in case you still haven’t cottoned on, the tax rate is extremely low there because there’s no direct tax on royalties, unlike in other countries.

“And the tax breaks are so good for the rockers that U2 have also now copied the Stones by moving to the same exclusive Amsterdam address on 1 June. The bands now share the same Dutch director, Jan Favie.”

As the Stones are now preparing to make their wills, the Dutch law requires certain information can be made public.

But spare a thought for Ronnie Wood, because he doesn’t qualify to have his assets managed by Dutch holding company Promogroup, as he’s only got £70m in the bank.

Our hearts bleed.

[Big Train]

So Ford it doesn't bother you that Bono is as much as Sweet NeoCon as Mick and the boys?

I'm suprised that haven't set up accounts IN africa, being that they are so chummy with those nations.

[FORD]

Like I told AssVibe when he posted about the Stones' tax dodging in another thread, it's not surprising that the rich, rock stars included, use every loophole they can find to avoid paying taxes.

I do know that the British tax rate in the late-60's/early 70's was extremely high, (like 95% or something?) and once the Stones got themselves free of Allen Klein, they set up these offshore entities. Not sure what the Irish tax tables are like.

I'm sure U2's tax loopholes don't prevent their charitable giving. It's probably just the opposite, allowing them to give more money than they otherwise would. If they were Americans, I would certainly rather see the money going to African relief rather than the slaughter of Iraqis or Lebanese people.

[Nickdfresh]

I not apologising for any tax dodging, but it has been reported that U2 has less money relative to other rock star bands. Mainly because their breakout 92-94' ZooTV tour was very expensive to put on, and cut into their bottom line severely. They also made some bad investments into the German amusement park industry (apparently, "wargames" like laser tag are illegal there), and they have indeed given a great deal to charity.

And if you look at what U2 has done for Ireland (keeping their organization based in Dublin, which cost them professionally at one time) as far as publicity and tourism, I don't think the Irish Gov't would complain too much.

[FORD]

The Popmart tour probably cost them more than ZooTV did, because the returns were less.

Unfortunately, it's hard to sell a concert out 9 months in advance, even if you're one of the biggest bands on the planet. Doesn't help when you just released your weakest album either, unfortunately.

Their reasons were noble ones - they wanted to avoid corporate financing of the tour and advance sales were the only way to finance the huge stage production, that they thought they needed.

I'd see U2 at any venue at any time and I wouldn't care if there were walls of TV monitors, or giant golden arches, or if they all stepped out of a giant lemon or whatever. Shit, I'd love for them to do the club tour that they threatened to do after Popmart's less than record breaking financial performance.

Maybe they should start working some "secret" club dates into the early leg of their tours like the Stones do?

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by FORD
The Popmart tour probably cost them more than ZooTV did, because the returns were less.

Unfortunately, it's hard to sell a concert out 9 months in advance, even if you're one of the biggest bands on the planet. Doesn't help when you just released your weakest album either, unfortunately.

Their reasons were noble ones - they wanted to avoid corporate financing of the tour and advance sales were the only way to finance the huge stage production, that they thought they needed.

You're probably correct. I think I read about them "scratching their heads" at the (lack of) ZooTV bottom line on the eve of the PopMart Tour, which had a lot of tech. problems as well, I think they had to redo a lot of the stage props (the giant lemon didn't open on cue or something)...


I'd see U2 at any venue at any time and I wouldn't care if there were walls of TV monitors, or giant golden arches, or if they all stepped out of a giant lemon or whatever. Shit, I'd love for them to do the club tour that they threatened to do after Popmart's less than record breaking financial performance.

Maybe they should start working some "secret" club dates into the early leg of their tours like the Stones do?

No doubt! I saw U2 at RFK in 92,' and in Buffalo in 01.' They were the best concerts I've ever seen, with the visuals and set list of 92' being the slightly better of the two. The only band that I've seen anywhere as near as good live was of course --Van Halen in 84.'

[Nickdfresh]

Ha! I still have it:

the Intro to U2's RFK show, Washington, DC. 1992...

http://files.filefront.com/We_Will_Rock_You_George_HW_Bus/;5358399;;/fileinfo.html

[FORD]

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/kfNAAAdLyH4"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/kfNAAAdLyH4" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

Chimp sings "Sunday Bloody Sunday" ??

[Seshmeister]

Originally posted by FORD

I do know that the British tax rate in the late-60's/early 70's was extremely high, (like 95% or something?) and once the Stones got themselves free of Allen Klein, they set up these offshore entities.

It was a graduated system where you had to pay 90% if you earned a lot of money.

It was dumb because all it meant was the really rich just moved abroad and you get no tax money at all. The top rate now is 40%.

Irish taxes are a bit higher and you don't get the free healthcare either.

The really rich never pay much tax either way because there are always loopholes. At my last accountants there was an old guy used to turn up once a year for his returns in a chaffeur driven Rolls Royce and he paid under $1000 a year.

Does anyone know how much Jagger has given to charity over the years? He's a tight fisted bastard, I bet he has given fuck all to anyone.

Cheers!

:gulp:

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Seshmeister
...

Does anyone know how much Jagger has given to charity over the years? He's a tight fisted bastard, I bet he has given fuck all to anyone.

Cheers!

:gulp:

Apparently, he generously donated his sperm to an 18-year old Brazilian model a few years back.

I wonder if she called him "grande-pape?"

[Big Train]

My bigger point, which I guess I wasn't clear on, is that is does not bother you that U2 is preaching to the world, especially us in the US, to forgive 3rd World debt and finance new projects etc via taxes, while simultaneously avoiding paying taxes as much as possible themselves. There is NO irony here for you?

The fact that they are generally bad businessmen should have no bearing on this, I would think, why you guys used it as justification puzzles me.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Big Train
My bigger point, which I guess I wasn't clear on, is that is does not bother you that U2 is preaching to the world, especially us in the US, to forgive 3rd World debt and finance new projects etc via taxes, while simultaneously avoiding paying taxes as much as possible themselves. There is NO irony here for you?

The fact that they are generally bad businessmen should have no bearing on this, I would think, why you guys used it as justification puzzles me.

You mean as opposed to the corrupt assholes in gov't you shill for, that start wars that kill our troops and indigenous women and children for profit?

My BT, you really have interesting priorities.

http://www.bushflash.com/jpg/cheney.jpg

[Big Train]

Interesting priorities? You have interesting morals then my friend, if the guy who is corrupt is cool or appears to have a social cause, yet in reality is a complete "shill" to use your terms, he is ok.

BTW< I did not realize I was a shill for Halliburton or Cheney, but if you say so, must be true.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Big Train
Interesting priorities? You have interesting morals then my friend, if the guy who is corrupt is cool or appears to have a social cause, yet in reality is a complete "shill" to use your terms, he is ok.

BTW< I did not realize I was a shill for Halliburton or Cheney, but if you say so, must be true.

Yeah well, the difference is that I don't have to buy a U2 or Stones' album if I decide they're phony dicks. I still have to pay taxes to support an immoral, self-destructive war. And you've defended Cheney, and his ties to Halliburton on many occasions.

I guess if it hasn't been recently, then you didn't do it at all, right?

[Switch84]

Originally posted by Big Train
My bigger point, which I guess I wasn't clear on, is that is does not bother you that U2 is preaching to the world, especially us in the US, to forgive 3rd World debt and finance new projects etc via taxes, while simultaneously avoiding paying taxes as much as possible themselves. There is NO irony here for you?

The fact that they are generally bad businessmen should have no bearing on this, I would think, why you guys used it as justification puzzles me.


:eek: :( Damn, I didn't know they were skirting paying their taxes! That definitely flies in the face of their debt relief preaching.


Hypocrites

[Big Train]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Yeah well, the difference is that I don't have to buy a U2 or Stones' album if I decide they're phony dicks. I still have to pay taxes to support an immoral, self-destructive war. And you've defended Cheney, and his ties to Halliburton on many occasions.

I guess if it hasn't been recently, then you didn't do it at all, right?

Oh, yea, I guess your right, but it still doesn't make me a spokesperson. More importantly, I was defending them both against things that were proved factually untrue, unlike you in this scenario.

You don't HAVE to pay taxes. You could just be a tax cheat like your heroes...

[FORD]

As long as their accountants keep accurate records, and it's all legal, then what's the problem?

If it's not legal then I would imagine the Irish IRS would go after them like the IRS here went after Willie Nelson

(Except that the Willie Nelson harrassment was more than likely "encouraged" by the Reagan/BCE administration after Willie launched "Farm AID". The timing was very suspicious)

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Big Train
Oh, yea, I guess your right, but it still doesn't make me a spokesperson. More importantly, I was defending them both against things that were proved factually untrue, unlike you in this scenario.

Actually, it wasn't factually untrue. Just a remarkable coincidence and conflict of interest, but whatever.


You don't HAVE to pay taxes. You could just be a tax cheat like your heroes...

They're not "tax cheats," and I sure you're far more adept at finding loopholes than I am. Does not paying all the taxes to the US gov't make a US corp. a bunch of traitors? That seems to be the analogy you put forth. It's sort of like you are saying if you don't pay all the taxes you can, then you're a traitor?

And again, U2 has done more for Ireland than any other single entity as far as tourism, marketing, and revenue.

[Big Train]

Originally posted by FORD
As long as their accountants keep accurate records, and it's all legal, then what's the problem?

If it's not legal then I would imagine the Irish IRS would go after them like the IRS here went after Willie Nelson

(Except that the Willie Nelson harrassment was more than likely "encouraged" by the Reagan/BCE administration after Willie launched "Farm AID". The timing was very suspicious)

It's interesting to see how this principle applies. If it is someone you like, you sound like a Republican. If it isn't, you sound like it's a conspiracy.

[Big Train]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Actually, it wasn't factually untrue. Just a remarkable coincidence and conflict of interest, but whatever.


They're not "tax cheats," and I sure you're far more adept at finding loopholes than I am. Does not paying all the taxes to the US gov't make a US corp. a bunch of traitors? That seems to be the analogy you put forth. It's sort of like you are saying if you don't pay all the taxes you can, then you're a traitor?

And again, U2 has done more for Ireland than any other single entity as far as tourism, marketing, and revenue.

Excuse me, it was and I proved it to you. Cheney had no conflict of interest regarding Halliburton. For proof, do a search on my posts. Let's not be revisionists. But yea, whatever.

Using offshore accounts is not technically illegal and that's not what I have a problem with. It's the preaching to the common man and the government that we need to forgive others debts and obligations, while simultaneously minimizing your own.

Walk the walk if you are gonna talk the talk.

[FORD]

Originally posted by Big Train
It's interesting to see how this principle applies. If it is someone you like, you sound like a Republican. If it isn't, you sound like it's a conspiracy.

Not at all.

I don't live in the UK or Ireland, so I don't claim to be an expert on their tax laws, but it's evident that they have enough loopholes for the rich to get out of paying taxes, just as this country does.

I would prefer that these loopholes were closed, and that everyone, especially the rich, pay their fair share of the tax. But as long as the loopholes do exist, you can't blame someone for using them, The 90% tax rate that the Stones were facing in 1970 (when they left England and set up these overseas arrangements) would be ridiculous by any standards.

[Big Train]

Originally posted by FORD
Not at all.

I don't live in the UK or Ireland, so I don't claim to be an expert on their tax laws, but it's evident that they have enough loopholes for the rich to get out of paying taxes, just as this country does.

I would prefer that these loopholes were closed, and that everyone, especially the rich, pay their fair share of the tax. But as long as the loopholes do exist, you can't blame someone for using them, The 90% tax rate that the Stones were facing in 1970 (when they left England and set up these overseas arrangements) would be ridiculous by any standards.

OK fair enough, I will hold you to this conviction in future dicussions of inviduals and corporations tax situations. Especially the companies and individuals you despise.

[FORD]

Originally posted by Big Train
OK fair enough, I will hold you to this conviction in future dicussions of inviduals and corporations tax situations. Especially the companies and individuals you despise.

There's a difference. Mick Jagger and Bono Aren't asking anybody to pay $40 for their new albums because their money's all tied up in the Cayman Islands. As opposed to Exxon Mobil, Chevron Texaco, and other fraudulent corporations.

Nor did Mick & Keith outsource Charlie Watts' job to India. And Bono's not forcing starving African children to press his CD's.

And as far as taxes go, my main objection (aside from the loopholes) has been aimed at the BCE's ridiculous tax cuts, mainly because such loopholes are used, AND because Chimpy tells us we're "at war" and is already bankrupting the country to pay for it.

All of which are totally different issues from a couple of wealthy musicians setting up a Swiss bank account.

[Seshmeister]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
And again, U2 has done more for Ireland than any other single entity as far as tourism, marketing, and revenue.


Whoahhh. Steady there, that's a hell of a stretch...:)

[FORD]

Yeah, Guinness must help out Ireland's bottom line a little bit. God knows I've done my part to help out :gulp:

[Seshmeister]

Originally posted by FORD

Chimp sings "Sunday Bloody Sunday" ??




http://powerlineblog.com/archives/010854.php

"Well, I think [President Bush has] done an incredible job, his administration, on AIDS. And 250,000 Africans are on antiviral drugs. They literally owe their lives to America. In one year that's being done. … Yes, there's a lot of pressure on President Bush. If he, though, in his second term, is as bold in his commitments to Africa as he was in the first term, he indeed deserves a place in history in turning the fate of that continent around" Bono


http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10366671
Bush called Bono "an amazing guy," and praised him for being "a doer".
"He's used his position to get things done," the president said

[Seshmeister]

Personally I don't think either of them are amazing...

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by FORD
than the slaughter of Iraqis or Lebanese people.

There is where people like you are fucked up.

:)

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by FORD
As long as their accountants keep accurate records, and it's all legal, then what's the problem?



As long as the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over election disputes and the Electoral College is legal, then what's the problem?

:cool:

[FORD]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
As long as the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over election disputes and the Electoral College is legal, then what's the problem?

:cool:

Are you admitting that tax loopholes should be illegal?

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by Big Train
doesn't bother you that Bono is as much as Sweet NeoCon as Mick and the boys?

I'm suprised that haven't set up accounts IN africa, being that they are so chummy with those nations.

Let's not forget that in 1972 the Stones were in EXILE in france. Yes, great music was made, but they would have had to pay a RIDICULOUS tax on their royalties had they stayed in the U.K. I can't find the rates right now, but it was well above 50% back then.

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by Big Train
Oh, yea, I guess your right, but it still doesn't make me a spokesperson. More importantly, I was defending them both against things that were proved factually untrue, unlike you in this scenario.

You don't HAVE to pay taxes. You could just be a tax cheat like your heroes...

You've repeatedly defended him to me about all kinds of shit that HASN'T been proven untrue yet. Rather, it's becoming more true every day.

Don't you see all these bribed legislators? Where do you think that money came from? What do you think it was for?

Cheney's just the smartest, meanest SOB of them all.

[Big Train]

Yes OD, like Nick, I SAID that I have. Haven't been proven untrue, is that not just a fancier way of saying they haven't been proven true?

More importantly, on the points that I have defended him on, I have shown actual documention (namely his connection to Halliburton). The reason you can't prove it to be untrue YET, is because it isn't untrue.

I don't believe anyone in this country should be unjustly accused, even if they aren't popular. Especially when documention exists that cannot be refuted.