Bono: Rock Star, Philanthropist, Tax Dodger?

[Onkel Neal]

So, feed the poor, but who's gonna pay for it??

"Bono, the rock star and campaigner against Third World debt, is asking the Irish government to contribute more to Africa. At the same time, he's reducing tax payments that could help fund that aid.

A familiar paradox about leftist celebrities in the entertainment industry is that their embrace of progressivism almost never includes a wholehearted embrace of progressive taxation, i.e., the principle that the richer you get, the larger the percentage of your income you ought to pay in taxes. The latest example is U2's Bono, a committed and unusually sophisticated anti-poverty crusader who is taking surprisingly little heat for the decision by his band, U2, to relocate its music-publishing business from Ireland to the Netherlands in order to shelter its songwriting royalties from taxation.

And relocating your business offshore in order to avoid paying taxes to the Republic of Ireland, where poverty is higher than in almost any other developed nation? Bono's hypocrisy seems even more naked when you consider that Ireland is a tax haven for artists. In June 2005, Bono (who was born in Dublin) told the Belfast Telegraph:
Our publishing, which is about one third of our income, we have tax breaks on, and that's great and that's encouraged us to stay in Ireland and if that changes, it's not going to affect anything for U2. ...
Six months later, Ireland's finance minister announced a ceiling of $319,000 on tax-free incomes, and six months after that, U2 opened its Amsterdam office. The relocation of U2's music publishing will halve taxes on the band's songwriting royalties, which already reportedly total $286 million. Although Bono has declined to comment on the move, the band's lead guitarist, David "the Edge" Evans, said, "Of course we're trying to be tax-efficient. Who doesn't want to be tax-efficient?'" Writing in the Observer, Nick Cohen noted that Evans "sounded as edgy as a plump accountant in the 19th hole."


http://www.slate.com/id/2152580/?nav=ais

[Bort]

Tax dodgers always irritate me, and people who act holier than thou and then don't contribute to society in the ways they are required by laws and morals irrigate me even more. If you're that rich, you should gladly pay taxes, however expensive they may be. Consider it a privilege, its a heck of a lot better than being poor or of average wealth.

[The Avon Lady]

Just for the record, I'm no fan of U2's music and some of the things he does I personally admire while others I don't. Also, just so you don't think otherwise, we file both Israeli and US tax returns every year and pay a fortune. Our biggest "loophole" are deductable charity receipts and both country's tax authorities deem our total of donations as exceeding the maximum deductable allowed.

If no laws were broken, I don't see anything morally wrong with this. Each country makes its laws. Some are more advantageous than others. It's a fact of life.

Ireland intentionally competed for people's business in the first place. Now Holland is competeing harder. It's a free market.

Paying taxes in principal on a volunteer basis when the law doesn't require you to? Does anyone here do that? I don't think so.

[Yahoshua]

I know that U.S. income taxes are NOT legal beyond any doubt. You do not have to pay it. I don't pay it.

Quite simply, there is no law nor statute requiring you to pay income taxes in the United States.


As for Israeli tax law, I have no idea since no constitution was officially adopted by the government. So just about anything can fly under Israeli law (to the best of my knowledge).

[Gizzmoe]

Originally Posted by Yahoshua

I know that U.S. income taxes are NOT legal beyond any doubt. You do not have to pay it. I don't pay it.

It seems that in most states you have to pay those taxes.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax#United_States

The United States imposes an income tax on individuals and corporations. This tax is levied from the happening of an event, such as the payment of a wage or the purchase of property - the appreciation on the value of property, for example, is not taxed until that property is sold. The U.S. income tax was first imposed during the Civil War. Income taxes were enacted at various times until 1894, but were not imposed from 1895 until the 16th Amendment was ratified in 1913. However, ratification is disputed by some tax protestors along with other arguments about the validity of the U.S. income tax

Income tax may also be levied by individual U.S. states. In addition, some states allow individual cities to impose an additional income tax. However, not all states levy income tax. States that do not levy income tax include:

Alaska – no tax on individuals but there is a state corporate income tax
Florida – no tax on individuals but there is a state corporate income tax
Nevada
New Hampshire – does have tax on interest and dividends, wages earned in other states, and wages earned by non-residents
South Dakota
Tennessee – does have tax on interest and dividends
Texas – recently passed a gross receipts tax on businesses; the Texas Constitution places severe restrictions on passage of a personal income tax
Washington - Has a corporate tax called the "Business and Operations Tax"
Wyoming

[Bort]

I know that U.S. income taxes are NOT legal beyond any doubt. You do not have to pay it. I don't pay it.

Quite simply, there is no law nor statute requiring you to pay income taxes in the United States.

The Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution:
"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."
In other words, you do have to pay your taxes, it isn't an option, and not paying your taxes is in direct conflict with the constitution. Everyone whines and moans about taxes but the bottom line is that they are, for the most part, necessary, and every citizen should be willing to pitch in for the good of his or her nation or state.
We can and probably should spend plenty of time discussing how much we should be taxed and who should be taxed for what, but the idea of having no taxes at all is silly. Everything has to be paid for somehow.

[The Avon Lady]

I'd just like to clarify that my post above is referring to legal loopholes and not illegal tax dodgers.

Yahoshua, it's time to change your face with plastic surgery, burn your fingerprints off and find an isolated cabin in the Ozarks to flee to.

[Yahoshua]

Wrong.

Define Income for me please, from a legal standpoint.

Show me where in the constitution that Congress can tax individuals as opposed to a corporate tax?

Show the direct statute saying that individuals are required to pay an income tax.

And show me where the proof of ratification of the 16th Amendment is please.

Nearly ALL my instructors in my school do not pay income taxes, yet the IRS has never tagged the for it, why? 20 years is a long time to not pay taxes.

I suggest you watch this small documentary on the Federal Reserve Bank and the 16th Amendment, among other things

Here


And nope, no need to go to a plastic surgeon, and burning off my fingerprints would make me the most identifiable man on planet Earth (courtesy of Al Capone).

[The Avon Lady]

Not Aaron Russo!

This is what happens when you rely on sites with names like poodlecrap.com.

[Yahoshua]

Granted the guy is slightly strange, but look at what he's presenting. At least watch them and see what he has to say.

I can't seem to refute the fact that there is no specific statute levying individual income taxes in the United States, and with a good number of my instructors telling me that they don't pay income taxes and haven't been penalized for it I'm left at odds with myself.
(And I didn't name the site, so don't look at me).

[mog]

Originally Posted by The Avon Lady

If no laws were broken, I don't see anything morally wrong with this. Each country makes its laws. Some are more advantageous than others. It's a fact of life.

Law and morality are rarely the same. The man argues that governments should write off third-world debt - i.e. increase the burden on taxpayers - whilst simultaneously reducing his own tax liability. It's legal, but it's flagrant hypocrisy.

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by mog

Law and morality are rarely the same. The man argues that governments should write off third-world debt - i.e. increase the burden on taxpayers - whilst simultaneously reducing his own tax liability. It's legal, but it's flagrant hypocrisy.

What if he contributes the money that would have otherwise gone to this or that tax authority to charities instead?

I don't know if he does or doesn't but what if he did?

Even if he doesn't, I will not call it immoral to stick to the letter of the law. If the law is broken, fix it.

Yahoshua, I saw that video ages ago. Get a reliable lawyer or head for the hills!

[mog]

Originally Posted by The Avon Lady

What if he contributes the money that would have otherwise gone to this or that tax authority to charities instead?

I don't know if he does or doesn't but what if he did?

I think that would be great; far better than aiding the poor indirectly through the government.

[jumpy]

Bono/Boner, Boner/Bono... it's all the same to me. Never thought much of U2's music either- overrated...pretentious...rubbish.
But hey, at least U2 is rich enough to move to somewhere else so they pay less tax that's economics for you, no wait, sorry; I always thought 'economics' was using what you had in the most efficient economical manner possible, not using money to make more money which is what everyonelse seems to think it means.