Monday, June 13, 2011

At last a tax protest that might actually make some sense

I'm referring to the highly publicised protests that are likely to be a feature of this year's Galstonbury festival. ArtUncut are planning to publicly criticise Bono and his band U2 for their alleged tax avoidance activities.

In some respects the protests will be similar to those waged by UKuncut against various high street stores earlier this year. There is one BIG difference however. The UKuncut protests did not directly target the people whose tax avoidance actions were being criticised.

ArtUncut will be protesting right in the face of the alleged tax avoiders U2 and their campaigning leader, Bono. As the Guardian reports:
"The band was heavily criticised after moving parts of its business affairs from Ireland to the Netherlands in 2006, apparently in response to a cap on already generous tax breaks for artists in the republic. Though the band insists this simply reflects the global nature of their income as the world's highest-earning musicians, their decision not to pay all their tax in their home country looks even worse in the light of Ireland's financial meltdown. Bono is happy to tell the government how it should spend taxpayers' money – campaigning for an increase to the aid budget – yet he has taken his tax euros not just from Ireland's development fund, but also its hospitals and schools."
They also note that:
"The case in Bono's favour – and it is a strong one – is that he's almost certainly done more for the world's poorest people than anyone who has come to protest against him in the Glastonbury crowd. Which makes his choices over tax even more curious."
There does seem to be a case to answer here. There are no apparent mitigating circumstances, external shareholders or commercial reasons that might justify the band's (legal) tax avoidance activities. About the only justification I could imagine that would legitimise these would be if the monies otherwise payable as taxes are being donated directly to charitable aid projects. This would be akin to Bono saying to the Irish Government - "I'm cutting out the middleman. Instead of keeping my companies in Ireland and paying taxes here, I've set things up so that I can pay similar amounts (or more) directly to help the needy. I don't trust the Government to do enough for them." It's a nice thought.

I have no idea whether Bono and U2 are making huge (cash) donations to help the needy instead of paying taxes in Ireland. I'm a fan of 'celebrities' like Bono securing positive publicity for altruistic campaigns such as 'make poverty history'. Bono is rightly renowned for his humanitarian work and I hope he retains his passion to 'do good' for many years to come. But he has set himself and his band up as legitimate targets for criticism given their overt tax avoidance activities. How will they respond to ArtUncut I wonder?

2 comments:

  1. I'm all for the wealthy securing positive publicity for altruistic campaigns, I'm all for them using their wealth to support those campaigns. But I worry that statements of the "I'm cutting out the middleman. Instead of keeping my companies in Ireland and paying taxes here, I've set things up so that I can pay similar amounts (or more) directly to help the needy. I don't trust the Government to do enough for them." variety give the wealthy powers that are fundamentally undemocratic. Crap as they are, I don't believe that our politicians are corrupt.

    ReplyDelete
  2. While my heart finds extreme, contrived (legal) tax avoidance distasteful (and probably dangerous and stressful too) my head says that politicians make the rules and write them down and why should I be criticised for following the written rules if they are made incompetently. Politicians should a) be competent (just as clever as lawyers, as a lot of them are anyway!) and b)co-operate across borders if they want their democratically justifiable intentions to be effected effectively.

    ReplyDelete