New U2 Studios Disgrace

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

mike65

G'wan Dave!

Bloody whining muilti-millionair popstars, no more a sickening sound...

Mike.

The Cigarette Smoking Man

Where'd you get the €60 million from - it says it's €3 million in the article.

If their old studio is stopping a €2 billion development it's not that much.

bruce wayne

Originally posted by daveirl
When he becomes a tax-payer he can bitch about the way things are run but until then he can **** off to be quite honest.

Bono and the boys are not tax exiles......they pay taxes in this country...always have, always will.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Shinji

They don't pay taxes on direct recording earnings - however I think you'll find that they pay a LOT of tax in the form of corporation tax on Island Records, tax on their various investments and holdings etc. Per pound earned they undoubtedly pay less than Joe Soap on the street, but they do still end up paying hundreds of thousands of pounds a year into the governments purse - not to mention the simple fact that they're a key positive on the country's balance of trade in the field of the arts.

That aside, those complaining about Bono might actually want to try READING the damned article before having a whinge. He and the band have come to an amicable arrangement with the city over the studio, which simply involves them swapping their current one for a new one (the city isn't building them one for nowt - this is a business transaction which simply involves them swapping one valuable property for another valuable property). This is a Good Thing. His comment about no amount of money being enough is simply a comment on the sentimental value of the old studio to them (which is understandable given how long they've been recording there); in fact he spends the whole article praising the city planners and the things they're doing with Dublin, and concludes that while they're not entirely happy, as a band, with giving up their studio, they recognise that it's the best thing to do for the city.

All seems eminently down to earth and sensible to me - in fact, it's thankfully unlike the prima donna attitude you'd get from some bands of that stature.

Once again the amazing ability of the Irish to tear down anyone who's achieved anything at the slightes provocation rears its ugly head... :rolleyes:

Victor

Eh, the "old" studio is only 8 years old and looks like an out-sized toilet block (sorry Mr. Architect).

In reality they (The U2 five) have delayed urban regeneration that would have housed and employed thousands of people.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Dustaz

Originally posted by daveirl
And you think that's fair???? Why the **** should I subsidise their new recording studios when they have 700 million euros between the four of them. Answer me that???
[/SIZE]

Its perfectly fair, its what we call the Tax Laws. Take it up with your local TD.

Your not Subsidising thier new studio ffs, they are building it themselves.

the city isn't building them one for nowt - this is a business transaction which simply involves them swapping one valuable property for another valuable property).

Is this so hard to understand?


In reality they (The U2 five) have delayed urban regeneration that would have housed and employed thousands of people.

Oh please.

Cork

U2 frontman Bono yesterday lashed “corruption and cronyism” which had defaced and vandalised Dublin city in the past.

How much tax are U2 paying?
Are they avaling of the artiests exemption relief?
Is the average Irish person paying a higher % of tax on their total income than Bono?

He and the band have come to an amicable arrangement with the city over the studio, which simply involves them swapping their current one for a new one (the city isn't building them one for nowt

If only all Farmers were treated as well when the NRA took parcels of land off them for road construction.

dahamsta

Cork, Bono's statement is about corruption, your questions are about tax. How exactly are these linked? He's an Irish citizen, he's just as much a right to comment on social problems in Ireland as anyone else. And let's be honest, corruption and cronyism are the social problems that cause most of Ireland's other problems, social and otherwise. Including our current problems.

adam

Cork

I really don't care much for Bono, his band or his openions. He is entitled to have openions .

What should his views really metter above other Irish people?


That whole artiests tax relief thing should go. Let us hope that Charlie McCreevy will level this playing pitch in his next budget.

Shinji

And you think that's fair???? Why the **** should I subsidise their new recording studios when they have 700 million euros between the four of them. Answer me that???

You're not subsidising anything. Three words.... READ. COMPREHEND. RESPOND. You're currently missing out the first two steps, I'm afraid.

By your logic you could never negatively comment on anyone "who's achieved anything".

No, I would not negatively comment on anyone who's achieved anything just because they've achieved something - which is what half the posters in this thread are doing.

How much tax are U2 paying? Are they avaling of the artiests exemption relief? s the average Irish person paying a higher % of tax on their total income than Bono?

What the hell has that got to do with corruption and cronyism, out of interest? If they were dodging tax, that would be another matter; but suggesting that Bono has no place to comment on corruption because he's availed of a perfectly legal tax law is a fundamentally stupid comment, frankly.

(I'm also getting a bit sick of people whinging about the artists tax relief thing, frankly. They always seem to quote the example of U2 - forgetting, apparently, the fact that there are hundreds of small artists - painters, sculptors, traditional musicians, writers, poets etc - who add greatly to the cultural richness and international perception of Ireland and whose survival commercially is entirely reliant on the artists tax relief system. Would you take bread from these people's mouths just in order to spite U2?)

jd

Originally posted by Cork
I really don't care much for Bono, his band or his openions. He is entitled to have openions .

What should his views really metter above other Irish people?


That whole artiests tax relief thing should go. Let us hope that Charlie McCreevy will level this playing pitch in his next budget.

Along with the exemptions for the bloodstock (horse) industry..

Dustaz

Originally posted by Cork
Let us hope that Charlie McCreevy will level this playing pitch in his next budget.

Let us hope that Charlie McCreavy is not a philistine and actually supports the arts unlike so many people in this country.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

DadaKopf

The Arts Council's budget has already been reduced, parshly, although its staff numbers have gone up. They'll be able to do more but finance less initiatives.

But in fairness, when countries go to crap, arts funding is the first to go. For good reason. I just hope the funding will return.

Shinji

You could listen to your own words and READ and COMPREHEND. The studio costs money. The government is paying for it. The government gets taxes from the tax payer. I'm a tax payer. So I'm subsidising it.

You're still not paying attention. The band is swapping their existing (highly valuable) premises for a new studio which is being built as part of the new development. They're not getting anything for free - they're doing a direct trade of one valuable property for another valuable property. Do You See?

Well first of all I completely disagree and I don't want to subsidise any artist just to enrich Ireland's culture

Thank god people aren't all as blinkered and dull as you then, eh?

Of course, if you'd apply some brainpower to it, you'd see that it's not just about enriching culture. Do you think Ireland's lucrative tourist industry would exist if we were seen as a nation of accountants and shopkeepers as opposed to a nation of poets, artists and musicians?

RainyDay

Let us hope that Charlie McCreavy is not a philistine and actually supports the arts unlike so many people in this country.

I wouldn't consider the tax breaks for U2 to be 'funding the arts' - These guys don't need any tax breaks - In these difficult economic times when we're shaving money off first-time-buyers & the sick (drug refund scheme), it makes little sense have any part of their income tax exempt.

I wouldn't particularly object to an artists tax exemption for those that are struggling to make ends meet, but not for the superstars.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Shinji

If this were the case shouldn't all the neighbouring buildings have been compensated equally and shouldn't they have got penthouse premises also

They WERE compensated equally. In the form of Big Fat Wads Of Cash. U2 simply opted to swap for a new premises rather than taking one of the aforementioned Big Fat Wads Of Cash.

Jesus, come on. This isn't that complicated really.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Dustaz

Jaysus if U2 were from cork there wouldnt be this fuss. Cork Newspapers, Cork posters....Its Dublin Envy i tell yis

Edit: Also, Can the topic be changed, as its clearly not a 'disgrace'

spongebob

U2 hardly pay 40% on all earnings over €28k but in fainess to them they are the richest Irish persons who are NOT tax exiles. O'Reilly Smurfit Desmond Magnier O'Brien and O'Brien do not pay tax here to name a few.

Bono really must reformulate the compound in his shades. The damage to Dublin was caused by scum landlordism in the period from 1800-1950 and finished by scum developers in the 1950's -1970's . The last great brutalist flourish was in Woodquay around 1980.

The 80's saw nothing happen country-wide but the 1990's must have been the greatest decade in Dubnlin architecture in over 200 years.

Driving along the Quays anytime between 1960 and 1995 it would have been hard to imagine that the Luftwaffe hadn't done a fine job on Dublin when in actual fact it was the locals who wrecked the place through neglect, small mindedness, corruption and hard core gombeenism.

Dublins problems were largely of its own doing.

M

meglome

Lets get this straight

1. U2 has NEVER been tax exiles. The government support all the arts with lower taxes.
2. Their current studio with its docklands setting is worth lots. I see nothing wrong with holding out for an acceptable deal on it.
3. Even in compulsory purchase you are entitled to a fair value for your property. If they have the where with all to get a better deal then good luck.
4. You can't say Dublin's problems were of it's own doing, a tiny percentage of people with power and money caused this destruction.

Stop talking Poo

spongebob

Originally posted by meglome
Lets get this straight

1. U2 has NEVER been tax exiles. The government support all the arts with lower taxes.
2. Their current studio with its docklands setting is worth lots. I see nothing wrong with holding out for an acceptable deal on it.
3. Even in compulsory purchase you are entitled to a fair value for your property. If they have the where with all to get a better deal then good luck.
4. You can't say Dublin's problems were of it's own doing, a tiny percentage of people with power and money caused this destruction.

Stop talking Poo

1. YAH and NO , they do not support interpretative artists but I wont bore you with nuances Meglome.
2. YAH
3. YAH but you said that in 2 and I said YAH!
4. The Dubs did nothing while it all fell in around them, save an honourable few....and I mean a few. Most Dubs would have tied their mothers to the bullldozer if ya paid them a farthing extra a day for it. You are obviously not old enough to remember Fr. FX and the stand he took.

Learn some of your own history please, I fear you are a 'real' Dub from the overall quality of your argument.

M

Cork

1. U2 has NEVER been tax exiles. The government support all the arts with lower taxes.

It is about time that the government abolished this. It is not fair. Bands should pay tax at the same rate as everybody else.


CPO valuations for agricultural propert are derisery. I know a farmer that the NRA took 7 acres off him and he recieved £25000 - which he had to pay tax on.

I'm also getting a bit sick of people whinging about the artists tax relief thing, frankly. They always seem to quote the example of U2 - forgetting, apparently, the fact that there are hundreds of small artists - painters, sculptors, traditional musicians, writers, poets etc - who add greatly to the cultural richness and international perception of Ireland and whose survival commercially is entirely reliant on the artists tax relief system. Would you take bread from these people's mouths just in order to spite U2

Why should they not pay tax like everybody else?


Why cannot yo have a limit where certain artiests could be exempt. But exempting all - is crazy.

Shinji

Why should they not pay tax like everybody else?

It's a basic recognition of the fact that some people make a contribution to society and culture which outweighs the amount of money they can earn from their actual work. Patronage of the arts has died for the most part; and personally I think it's an excellent thing that in Ireland at least, the Government has stepped in to partially replace it.

Maybe there should be a cap on how much you can earn under the arts tax relief scheme before you have to pay tax on it... But then what we'd see is successful artists leaving these shores, and that's not healthy either, because the presence of people like U2 is important for the tourist industry.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Cork

But then what we'd see is successful artists leaving these shores

If they leave to avoid paying taxes then that is their choice. They should be exposed as such.

There is great credit to Michael O Leary for paying Irish Capital Gains tax - He could have avoided most of this - if he became a tax exile.

It is a pity some others do not follow this example.

Jaysus if U2 were from cork there wouldnt be this fuss. Cork Newspapers, Cork posters....Its Dublin Envy i tell yis

Why? Are U2 above criticisim? U2 are a band, In my openion - Coldplay will be a bigger & better band than U2.

Cork has done much for the Irish music industry -

1. MicroDisney
2. 2
3. Cathal Coughlan
4. 3
5. The Frank And Walters
6. 4
7. Jimmy Crowley
8. 5
9. Rory Gallagher

I think that Cork has produced some classy bands.

How much public money is going into the the new recording studio?
I thought the band were pushing their greatest hits cd?
I surpose, next year - The Very Best of U2 1980-2000 will come out?
Why do they need a recording studio for anyway?

Dustaz

Originally posted by Cork

Why? Are U2 above criticisim? U2 are a band, In my openion - Coldplay will be a bigger & better band than U2.

U2 are certainly not above criticism, its just that this does not warrant criticism except from backwater bumkins that think a 2 year old band with 2 albums are somehow "bigger" than a band who have been on the go for over 20 years, touring the world more times than the other band have toured england, won more grammys than they care to remember and re-defined the live show experience.

"better" is a topic for the music board, go discuss it there.




Cork has done much for the Irish music industry -

Unfortunatly, none of the bands you mentioned have done anything to put ireland on the map worldwide apart from the indisputible genius of Gallagher. U2 continue to use Irish talent and expertise in many facets of thier business. Recording, Touring, Videos, Films.... nearly everything they do is driven by a largely Irish base of talent.
This is far more than can be said of Louis Walsh's bands who run off to England the first chance they get to record and make videos. THIS is why U2 must be recognised as making a sizable contribution to this country and worth almost every penny (imo) of thier tax relief.


How much public money is going into the the new recording studio?
none

I thought the band were pushing their greatest hits cd?
I surpose, next year - The Very Best of U2 1980-2000 will come out?

Actually The Best of U2 1990-2000 is out now. The Best...1980-1990 came out 2 years ago.


Why do they need a recording studio for anyway?
If your going to troll, at least troll well

Cork

IThis is not a Cork Vs Dublin thing. The Frank And Walters are one of the best pop/rock bands to come out of Ireland. But -

U2 continue to use Irish talent and expertise in many facets of thier business. Recording, Touring, Videos, Films.... nearly everything they do is driven by a largely Irish base of talent.

But what effective tax do they pay?
Say - Less or more than the effective rate somebody in McDolands is paying?

Their current studio with its docklands setting is worth lots. I see nothing wrong with holding out for an acceptable deal on it.

What is the exact deal they are getting?

I not saying that U2 are doing anything wrong - They are clearly not.

.

My local pub continue to use Irish talent and expertise in many facets of thier business.
But - they don't avail of Artiests exemption.

The playing pitch needs to be levelled. The whole tax treatment of bands needs to change. And we'll see - how many bands will stay in Ireland or flee abroad?

Pigman

Originally posted by Dustaz
Unfortunatly, none of the bands you mentioned have done anything to put ireland on the map worldwide apart from the indisputible genius of Gallagher.

In an attempt to redeem his good name, Gallagher wasn't actually born in Cork and only had the misfortune of growning up there. That the local population didn't stifle his talent and turn him into a gombeen just like the rest of Corks population is testiment to the great man in itself.

But to get back to the topic. I don't like Boner, U2 or the vast majority of their music but at least, unlike most Irish people, I don't begrudge them their success, which to my mind is what this thread really seems to be about.

bonkey

Originally posted by Cork
But what effective tax do they pay?
Say - Less or more than the effective rate somebody in McDolands is paying?

OK, first of all, you missed the whole "givernment partially acting as patron for the arts" argument, havent you. The "somebody in McDonalds" is not considered an artist. This is they there's a difference.

On the other hand, neither are all the people who U2 have given work to....you know...the people making their videos, running their sound studio, etc. In fact, the businesses themselves are still considered businesses and pay taxes.

Finally, if you want to bitch about people not paying taxes, why dont you bitch about all those companies the government gave tax amnesties and tax breaks to in order to lure them into the country as well. By your logic....whats the point????? Surely they, combined, are costing us far more in lost taxation than the relatively few financially successful artists to come out of this country.

As for Frank and Waters....dont make me laugh. We're not talking about ability, or your taste. We are talking about financial success, and in that respect, they are (at best) second-rate. Who cares if someone is the greatest <insert artist-type here> in the world and living in Ireland. We are talking about whether or not their tax is due or not.

Personally , I think artists should be given some benefits from the government, but if an artist is earning over the average wage, then its hard to argue that they are somehow "needy" and entitled to more than the rest of us. Financially successful art is its own reward. The government should be helping those who are not financially successful.

Having said all that, it has nothing to do with anything relevant to the original issue. The govt. want to buy land owned by someone else. They are paying to replace the facilities that they want to remove. They would have to do this for any business.

jc

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

bonkey

Originally posted by daveirl
But this is what I've been saying. I don't believe that it is an equal replacement. I bet the guy next door doesn't get a 3million studio on top of a 60metre tower!

Whatever way you look at it, it's special treatment because of who the people involved are.

Em, sorry for being picky....but its only special treatment because "you dont believe" it was fair....and you havent offered a shred of evidence other than your belief to back that up.

For example - how much was the studio that was given up worth? Its not in the article, and I'm not interested in "I cant imagine it was...."

At the end of the day, if you havent got any proof other than your belief that they got special treatment, then to be honest, you sound like just another bemoaner.

As Bono once said...the American looks at the man at the top of the hill, and says "one day, I will live there". The Irish (whom Bono was lambasting as begrudgers at the time) would say "one day, you'll get whats coming to you, ya bastid".

Either show that U2 got preferential treatment, or admit that this is nothing but baseless speculation.

jc

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Cork

Now so this should mean that the band should be compensated with money. Not a new building. Even if they were to be compensated some other way I still contest they were over compensated.

I agree. I also contend that tax breaks like the Artiests exemption & for the bloodstock industry are unfair. People should pay tax on what they earn. Charlie McCreevy should stamp favourable treatment of certain Sertors out.

It is about time - complete equity is brought into our tax system.

If you earn income - You pay tax.

Dustaz

Hey Cork, do you live in the same universe as the word "Topic"?

spongebob

yeah, Rory Gallagher was A Donegalman

M