You can’t, sorry to say. On blogs, the site owners make the posts and others are welcome to comment. If you wish to start open discussions, click the FORUM link — but please read the Forum rules before you post. Spamming the forum with repetitive messages the way you just spammed this blog with repetitive comments will get you banned in a hurry.

It occurs to me that if Ireland had not been a tax haven for musicians already, U2 may well have had a similar setup from the beginning.

It is still surprising to me that so many people do not see the hypocrisy of Bono’s actions. Bono is asking the richer nations of the world to provide some of their wealth to poorer nations in Africa; in the same vein, the tax system in a country like Ireland is set up to help redistribute resources from the wealthy to the poor. Now that Ireland is attempting to get rid of what was an unusually lenient tax break for artists, it appears that the wealthy members of U2 are trying to avoid paying their fair share of federal taxes.

Is it unethical for U2 to move their operations out of Ireland so that they can avoid paying Irish taxes on publishing royalites? Maybe, maybe not; but it seems ridiculous to dismiss the suggestion so quickly. No U2 fan doubts that the band members give a lot of time and money to good causes; however, this fact doesn’t make them immune from criticism in their other business ventures. As you mentioned earlier, be54:

“If I were in Bono’s shoes I’d rather have more control over where my money goes. The problem with governments is that they do not always spend funds in the areas they promised. Governments are terribly inefficient.”

All of us feel that way to some degree (especially those of us Americans who’ve been opposed to the U.S. occupation of Iraq). Does that mean that we should all move our investment accounts offshore? I think it’s an topic worth discussing rather than dismissing.

Any-who, on Wisconsin!

You had said something about an outcry if a profitable American company moved it’s headquarters to a tax haven to avoid paying taxes and fortunately or unfortunately I think that happens quite often here. Is it wrong? Maybe. Is it the best thing to do for that company and the people involved? Maybe. Is this a way to protect what you have worked for and protect your family’s future? Maybe. By making these kinds of decisions does this make them bad people? Does it make them any less caring about the world around them? On the contrary, I think sometimes it makes them more aware it if they are responsible and caring people my nature. And honestly, do we really know how much money they give to charity?

I don’t really know the answers to those questions as I do not have the money or investments that wealthy people around me do have. I probably never will. But as I have stated before, we are all citizens of the world and we must be the voices to the less fortunate. Bono and U2 have succeeded to raising awareness and Bono has literally (along with others) brought about change in that area. Why can’t it be about that? That is all I am saying.

The thing is, I guess, none of us should ever stop asking questions. It is what makes the world go around and it certainly leads to lively discussion! And sometimes it is how ideas are born. I hope we can agree, MVC, on how great U2’s music is. And thanks for the great dialogue. And Matt, thanks for the topic and the forum.

Peace to you all.

Maybe there are a lot of people who share this “myopic” view because there is some truth to it. It is also a bit much to call the criticism of Bono “obscene.” As I am sure you know, the Irish press has been much harsher on Bono and U2 regarding this issue because it is the government of their Republic that is being deprived of tax revenue. I have no problem with Bono’s activism, but I believe that the press (especially the Irish press) has a right to call Bono on his rhetorical inconsistencies.

You are right, Matt, we will have to agree to disagree on this.

Plus, If I were in Bono’s shoes I’d rather have more control over where my money goes. The problem with governments is that they do not always spend funds in the areas they promised. Governments are terribly inefficient.

Judging from the amount of people that share the myopic view of these writers, I would disagree. It’s obscene to cast a negative light on a decade of good works simply because the person doing them is wealthy, and performs in a wealthy band.

“Maybe there is a reason Bono declined to be interviewed for the article. Maybe he doesn’t have a good defense.”

What likely happened is that the others close to Bono did their interviews, saw the obvious slant the writers were taking, and suggested Bono not waste his time.

I respect your opinions, MVC, but we’ll have to agree to disagree.

And “emotionally manipulate uniformed readers”? I think you give too much credit to the writer of this article and not enough credit to the readers.

Income from royalties IS income nonetheless. In a country with a progressive tax rate, it is not unreasonable for the wealthiest to pay a 42% tax rate. And, as mentioned in an earlier Bloomberg article from last year, U2 could have kept their operations in Ireland and paid a much lower tax rate through incorporation: “The band could have channeled profits through a company to pay the 12.5 percent corporation tax.”
(http://bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&refer=home&sid=aef6sR60oDgM)

So the criticism that the Irish citizens in U2 are avoiding their tax burden has some validity. Would there not be an outcry if a profitable American company moved their headquarters to a tax haven to avoid paying U.S. taxes? According to the Edge’s terminology, such a move could be placed under the category of being “tax efficient.”

Maybe there is a reason Bono declined to be interviewed for the article. Maybe he doesn’t have a good defense.