Some people are all up in arms, accusing U2 of cheating on their taxes becuase they moved their publishing company's headquarters out of Ireland and to the Netherlands to take advantage of lower tax rates.
These people are out of their friggin' minds.
Folks, this is not cheating on taxes. Not even close. It's a fundamentally sound, albeit tax-motivated, business decision. Or, as the Edge called it, "tax-efficient."
Companies do this every single day. Heck, it's why I continue to live in Virginia instead of Maryland or D.C.
11 comments:
If clear evidence comes forward that U2 were intentionally cheating on their taxes, Dara's head would explode.
I think there's a big difference between cheating and tax planning. If they were hiding income, not declaring stuff, making frivolous protest arguments, etc., that would bother me.
And, for the record, this type of planning is how most folks in my line of work make their money.
I hate to say it Dara, but I do sorta think U2 is talking out of both sides of their mouth w/this...
(Please don't ban me from your blog--hahaha!). ;-)
I agree with you that U2 did nothing illegal. I'm just saying, as a hypothetical, if they ever did....
Ryane: I'll respecfully disagree. I don't see any hypocrisy.
Justin: It would depend on what the illegal thing is. :P
It's legal but it's still a way of getting around paying taxes, and I'm sure people figure that U2 can afford to pay.
Speaking of U2....
http://www.aintitcool.com/node/30565
Think about it on a micro scale:
I'm a liberal. I think more tax dollars need to go for schools, roads, the prevention of poverty, healthcare, etc. I would probably support higher taxes in the right circumstances, if it paid for things I would prioritize.
I give money to charity. I do it because it helps, and because I get a tax deduction. Nothing wrong about that, right?
I live in Virginia, even though I work in DC. My rent is lower, my expenses are lower, and my taxes are lower, which ultimately gives me more disposable income. Some of this disposable income goes to the charity mentioned above.
Is this wrong? Should I live in DC so that more of my income is taxed -- and theoretically, used to pay for DC expenses? Or is it better for me to use part of my extra disposable to give to the charities of my choice.
It doesn't mean as much when you're an individual. U2 is pretty much a corporation, and a wealthy one at that. It's basically outsourcing.
I think the main issue people have is that U2 asks Ireland (and other countries) to give money for poverty, and then U2 does not want to give their taxes to said government.
To me the issue is what are they using their tax savings for. If by doing this they are funneling additional money to help poverty (or other charitaible cause) as is their crusade, then I am more comfortable with it. If not, then I can see how it could come across a little hypocritical. You all know I see less taxes as good, but only if people use money gained as a result of low taxes to help solve societal ills.
I may be optimistic, but sometimes, in some countries, taxes are actually put to good purpose.
Post a Comment