The Week has a fascinating report, from which I borrow the following (edited) highlights:
BOB GELDOF lashed out at a reporter this week after he was asked about his tax arrangements, bizarrely demanding to know how many irrigation ditches her salary had built.
Geldof, who was in the Ethiopian capital Addis Ababa for the World Economic Forum, was interviewed by Times journalist Lucy Bannerman. Their encounter appeared to go very well at first, with Geldof talking about the huge changes that have taken place in Africa since Live Aid in 1985.
Then Bannerman asked him about his tax status. After confirming that he is a non-dom and can legally avoid income and capital gains tax on international earnings, Geldof laughed off the Sunday Times Rich List estimate of his worth (£32 million).
When pressed on how much tax he actually paid — the justification for the question being because his big idea, aid, can come from taxes - Geldof exploded.
"I pay all my taxes," he shouted. "My time? Is that not a tax? I employ 500 people. I have created business for the UK government. I have given my ideas. I have given half my life to this."
In a bizarre, heated exchange Geldof jabbed his finger repeatedly at Bannerman and demanded to know how many irrigation ditches she had built with her salary.
The tirade ended with Geldof yelling: "How dare you lecture me about morals", before being led away by his entourage.
Actually Bob, lots of us would like to lecture you on your tax morals if you don't pay in full what somebody else living in the UK might owe. I stress we don't know whether you do or not, but you had the option of saying you do and got angry instead, which makes me think you've got something to get angry about.
And candidly, in that case Lucy Bannerman was absolutely right to question you as she did. Paying tax in the right place at the right time is a principle inextricably linked to solving the problems of poverty in Africa - and elsewhere. You can build as many ditches as you like. But candidly if you set an example by tax avoiding then you undo all your good works.
It's your choice though Bob. You've no need to get angry. You can just either drop the non-dom claim or pay up instead. It's not hard.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
On a side note , a cautious welcome to Jon Cruddas’s acknowledgement of “The Courageous State” . One can only hope Richard, he’ll take a leaf and become a courageous politician !
Bob probably feels he’s paid his dues. I’d be inclined to agree with him. Not so much Bono though.
What a weird way to try and justify avoiding paying tax, on the grounds that you give up your own time. I wonder whether HMRC will accept me awarding myself a tax reduction on my next return for all the hours I put in as a school governor.
Bob Geldof is Irish
So what? So, for the record, am I.
Noticed how long he has lived in the UK?
I would never dream of trying a domicile claim
I suspect I could construct one
So he should pay UK tax on UK income but Irish tax on the rest
Why?
Because, firstly, all (or virtually all) his income arises from his past activities in Ireland, secondly as an Irish citizen – you yourself have argued that tax should be on the basis of citizenship on the US model.
He’s been here since the 70s
And we don’t have a citizenship basis right now
So shall we stop the fantasies?
I know Americans who have been here since the 70s and they still pay US tax based on citizenship. Timescale doesn’t matter.
The UK cannot have it both ways. If non-doms benefit because they have maintained a link with their country of origin, then the UK equally benefits from IHT on people of UK origin who have left many years ago, but who have retained a link here and not broken their UK domicile. If the UK draws more non-doms into the UK tax net, then the same piece of legislation will result in more current UK-doms escaping the net.
For which there is no evidential support at all
See migration report on TJN website
it was interesting that the panorama programme seemed to suggest that AEG was moving to the UK for tax reasons – which is obviously contrary to your often stated belief that tax does not motivate a change of tax residence
I write in a stage of semi-drunkenness, so this may be tosh. If so, ignore.
But I think there is some logic here, and it is the logic of punk, of extreme relativism. The whole essence of punk, which gave birth to the Boomtown Rats and Geldof (and Bono), was essentially that organised society was reactionary and they wanted nothing to do with it. Once you say that, for example, you don’t agree with monarchy (which, by the way, I don’t) it isn’t a quantum leap to say you don’t believe in government, or tax. And I don’t think the punks of 77 were particularly pro-government of any hue, hence Anarchy in the UK.
It is not that you are necessarily anti-tax, just that you think that you can decide how to profitably/charitably spend your money better than government can.
If you have a society (or worse, a cultural idealogy without political effect) that is in general revolutionary (by which I mean in favour of devolving individual freedom as much as possible – e.g. freedom of religion, sexuality etc) that inherently leads to the position that you can decide how to use your power according to your whims, and that leads to the conclusion that you can spend your money in a better way than the state.
The key point is subservience: unless you accept a greater authority – whether God or the State – there is no reason to pay tax. And I am afraid almost all of modern society (though the left in general is a bigger culprit than the right) has embraced moral relativism. Once everything becomes relative, there is no absolute. And that is surely the problem with Geldof: that he thinks he can decide how to spend his money better than the state. And when you have articles in the Guardian today saying that NATO should be tried for war crimes for its actions in Libya, you could even argue (if you follow the Guardian’s argument, which I do not) that paying taxes is abetting war crimes.
But I guess I am trying to say that if you have a media and society than endlessly focusses on attacking the failings of government, is it that surprising that people will think they can spend their money better than the state? Especially if they are bigged up to be holier than thou?
To imply that the punk movement would be in favour of tax havens or tax avoidance is nonsense.
The essence of punk was a total rejection of a society based on a slavery to materialism, slavery to government and slavery to work.
Geldof was always a chancer and a con man. He’s a capitalist to the core.
As is Hewson
My understanding is that Geldolf and bono’s activities are about privatisation of the impoverished countries’ economies and natural resources. Poverty relief and debt forgiveness are accorded on the condition that western companies are given control of public services like electricity supply for example and governments take expensive loans from western banks in order to finace improvements in infrastructure. The improvements are carried out by non-native companies who pay locals a pittance and like the banks reap the profits. A scam in other words. The pair of them are totally suspect. One wonders if they are drawing down tax relief for their ‘charitable’ activities. Is that where St.Bob’s sensitivity comes from. Bono btw way moved his company to Holland to avoid paying taxes in Ireland which really could be doing with the money.
I know of no evidence to support your claim Bob Geldof is linked to energy companies
And I’m not suggesting they’re corrupt
I just say you can’t demand a reduction in inequality without evidencing your commitment to pay tax without which that reduction will never happen
Electricity companies was used figuratively and apocraphally. The point is that the project is based on private profit rather than benevolence,
Bono also has his own private equity firm (elevation partners) which I always thought was slightly at odds with his whole stance on debt waiver for developing countries etc
Richard, I would be surprised if it would be worth you claiming non-domiciled status.
John
It wouldn’t
But I wouldn’t try either