Madam, – Bono puts forward a very weak argument to justify his band's tax avoidance strategies ( The Irish Times, February 27th). He says U2 are "just part of a system that has benefited the nation greatly" and that "some very clever people in the Government and in the Revenue. . . created a financial system that prospered the entire nation".
This is the same unregulated financial system that prompted the New York Timesto describe Dublin as "the Wild West of European finance" and which has given us the Anglo Irish Bank scandal and led us into the mess we are now in.
I expect it is true that U2 “pay millions and millions of dollars in tax”. However it is a shame that they don’t pay these millions in euros – and not just in the Netherlands. – Yours, etc,
Madam, — Given that The Netherlands is ranked first in the Commitment to Development Index (2008) compiled by the Centre for Global Development, and out-performs Ireland across the board, it is reasonable that Bono should choose to pay his taxes in that country. If, like Bono, my primary concern was the improvement of conditions in the developing world, I have no doubt that I, too, would choose to pay my taxes in the Netherlands, given the chance.
It seems to me that there are no double standards in Bono’s actions, as many have recently suggested. Rather, he is practising what he preaches by choosing to pay his taxes in the country with the best track record in overseas development. — Yours, etc,
Madam, — Among the heated discussions over U2’s “good business sense” decision to move its company offshore, there is a danger that the real issue gets lost. Tax-dodging costs poor countries billions each year. This is money that could alleviate hunger, pay for the education of children, or care for those with HIV and AIDS.
We should be outraged, not at Sir Bono, but by the loopholes and incentives that allow rich individuals and businesses to legally and illegally dodge tax where it is rightfully due. In this case “good business sense” has a price. It is the poor who are paying. – Yours, etc,
Madam, – Development campaigners are right to campaign against poorly regulated and untransparent tax havens, but they are utterly wrong and misguided in singling out U2 and Bono to raise the profile of this issue.
The Netherlands is fully compliant with the transparency and regulatory requirements of the OECD. Furthermore, The Netherlands gives more of its national income to development aid than does Ireland.
Given Bono’s and U2’s hugely effective championing of debt cancellation and development over the years, it is therefore both deeply unfair and deeply inaccurate to focus on U2 and Bono in this way.
There are other things activists should be angry about and focused upon changing. Alongside non-transparent tax haven reform, we should be aggressively ensuring the poorest countries have enough resources to fight back against the recession and climate change, both of which will hit them hardest.
In addition, we should be campaigning to reform international financial institutions so they are more transparent and accountable to the majority of our world. It would be better if campaigners focused on such crucial matters rather than self-defeating PR stunts. – Yours, etc,