Ausra shopping centre, Lithuania (top) part owned by Bono (above) in an elaborate tax avoidance scheme
Bono has expressed horror that a Lithuanian shopping centre business he invested in may have fallen foul of the country’s tax rules.
In a statement, the U2 frontman said he would be “extremely distressed if even as a passive minority investor … anything less than exemplary was done with my name anywhere near it”.
He reacted after Lithuania’s tax authorities said they were preparing to examine the details of the business over concerns that it avoided profit tax.
Bono ‘distressed’ by fears firm he invested in may have avoided profit tax (The Guardian)
Yesterday: Mall That You Can’t leave Behind
New album out now #U2SongsofExperience #Bono
Includes song The Little Things That Give You Away
— Liz Kershaw (@LizKershawDJ) November 7, 2017
Extremely distressed he has been found out.
Who takes this clown seriously anymore, you sing songs mate, that’s it.
Anyone who listens to celebrities on anything other than whatever it is they do – sing, act etc is doing themselves a disservice.
“Who takes this clown seriously anymore, you sing songs mate, that’s it.”
The unforgettable ire
how could bono be a bad guy he says al lthe right things on social media?
Even the Devil can quote scripture. Of course Bonos not the Devil, you’d need charisma for that gig.
Tonight….in hell, a guy is getting a hottttt poh-ker jammed in his jacksie – and its alllll yoooouuur fault for being loike, so middle class….
Where the spreadsheets have no name.. ♪ ♩ ♪ ♩..
With or Without Tax?
Where the cheats have no shame…
That is all.
I can’t believe the news today, I can’t close my eyes and make it go away.
…at least Bono has proved that ‘only little people pay taxes’ is untrue…
* applause *
This is a non story. First off its completely legal. Secondly its not his company, he is just an investor. But thirdly again its legal
Hugely immoral though.
Bono is not a corporation. He does not earn zero income. He earns millions, upon millions, a year and gives next to nothing back on that.
It is not a non story. Stick your head in the sand and carry on if you want.
Plenty of illegal things which are not immoral, plenty of legal things which are definitely questionable
No head in the sand here. Its simply not a news worthy story. See I actually check facts, not my feelings, and facts are its not illegal. That’s it simple. Its like the old saying the legal profession have “We don’t deal in justice, we deal in law”. Morals and legality are different things
Which is weird because the fact is the story isn’t that this is illegal, it’s that it’s legal. I think your feelings must be too clouded to see that.
I was referring to how people seem to be spinning this. One of the English paper actually said the Queen should apologise, wtf ha. And the irish news seems fixated on bono. Their feelings are this wrong, but feelings don’t count.
Yes. People are angry, though probably not surprised, that loopholes like these are legal.
I’m not saying the Queen should apologise to her subjects, but certainly it’s a bit much to ask the taxpayer for a few quid to spruce up a palace or two and then be happy to hide money from the taxman.
That’s not a good look for Brenda…
Part of my brain still associates The Queen with Claire Foy and as a result I can forgive her almost any indiscretion.
But Bono wants transparency of it all. He doesn’t mind not paying a tuppence in tax..in fact he wants us all to know what goes on in the likes of Guernsey. Tis all legal shur. He’s “campaigning” for you to know what’s going on even. What a fupping knob.
You wouldn’t even mind so much except for the lectures he gives the rest of us.
I think there’s a massive disconnect here. Many have sought to defend this kind of tax dodge on the basis that it’s legal (stupid plebs don’t understand).
It’s not that we plebs don’t understand. We know it’s legal. The problem is that it’s incredibly immoral to benefit from civil society and use incredibly complex ways to avoid paying for it. Bono, to use one example, uses public services in this country. He uses the roads. He uses the water, the sewerage, education system. The fact that the rule of law applies and he has the right to go about his lawful business. This is not Somalia and taxpayers are the ones who make that happen. Refusing to pay your due despite the fact that it would not even be noticable to you when fellow citizens are living in hotels is disgraceful and should be shameful.
This is what people don’t like. We are all able to understand that it’s legal. It is in no sense moral.
None of those points matter. Its not illegal, its that simple. I genuinely don’t agree with it and despite what they say these legal loopholes are easily closed, but if I had the money id do it because simply its not illegal.
Riddled with greed eh
No just smarts.
Is it that smart to refuse to do your part to finance your country when you’re a multimillionaire?
Nobody is suggesting its illegal but do keep banging the irrelevance drum for all to hear.
Its not sexy nor is it flammable, will you post about these either?
As to it not being news worthy, well, it seems it is.
But regale us with how it cannot be used to stick an airfix model together (also known as misdirection and BS).
You’re a funny guy. Unintentionally.
Gibberish is for the ears of fools.
Doing something just because it’s not illegal is quite an odd approach to life. I mean, it’s a way to approach moral decisions, but not necessarily a productive way. Adultery, for example, is also not illegal but I suspect your spouse wouldn’t find that a convincing argument as to why it’s perfectly fine to do and they should continue in a relationship with you.
See, the issue is that no person is an island. We are all affected by the dishonourable way in which these people avoid their social responsibilities. If we were to all take the same approach, the very rich might insulate themselves from some of the effects for a while but couldn’t permanently.
We can’t run a society on the basis that if it’s not illegal you should totes do it and let the losers suck it up.
Well said Jane, very well said.
So basically you’re saying that he doesn’t contribute his fair share?
As a matter of interest, do you have the figures? Do you have a suggestion of what his fair share should be? Even without the figures, by your reasoning, he shouldn’t take advantage of the artist tax break. Is he being unfair to society by claiming that artist tax break? Is EVERYONE who gets that tax break stiffing society by taking it?
Yes, I think once you’re finding ways to not pay taxes which would otherwise fall due whether legally or illegally, you are not paying your due. Regardless of the figures. I don’t think it’s within the scope of individual responsibility to decide, “right, that’s enough tax paid by me, laters, my money is off to Bermuda!”.
I don’t actually have a problem with the artist’s exemption given that, as a society, we have (sometimes) placed a social value on works of significant artistic merit and if we do value that, it’s something we have to contribute to. I do want us to create the conditions where the next Seamus Heany can earn a living from meritorious but non lucrative work.
I’m not sure that accumulating wealth for no purpose other than to own it quite falls into the same bracket.
” I don’t think it’s within the scope of individual responsibility to decide,”
Isn’t that exactly what tax laws are about though? The problem here is with the tax laws, not the individual following them.
As a secondary point, if it’s not up to an individual to decide how much tax they should pay, then surely it’s not up to you to decide they dont pay enough?
I understand that you think you’re being all paxman here, but with your relentless”who are YOU to say” line of questioning, but I have answered that point already so I’ll refer you back to the first paragraph of my previous response.
I think the problem is with the law and the individual. The law may have loopholes but I think it behoves the individual to not exploit them in this manner which is clearly designed to be oblique and hamper investigation by the authorities and clearly indicating, by the level of effort and number of transactions required that the individuals involved are aware this is not consistent with meeting your obligations.
This gets to the heart of the issue
as does this
Even Better Than The Real (Estate) Thing?
The Joshua tax-free?
“anything less than exemplary was done with my name anywhere near it”
What about the last twenty years of your career?
Beautiful Day was a tune, even if it did borrow heavily from a-ha.
November 7, 2017 at 1:23 pm
Gibberish is for the ears of fools.
We are discussing tax affairs but we could address some of the Bono’s warblings if you like?
Seems his gibberish finds a warm home in the ears of many a fool.