Managing Mick's money

A couple of weeks ago, I blogged about the enviable ability of celebrities to move to countries that provide better tax treatment of their vast holdings. Not only does relocation save them cash, most of these tax havens are wonderful places where most of us would love to live, at least part time.

The Rolling Stones garnered a brief mention in that blog entry. In today's New York Times Business Section lead story, we get lots of details on how three of the four aging rockers (Mick Jagger, Keith Richards and Charlie Watts) have turned management of their musical millions over to a Dutch financier, who keeps them rolling in less-taxed money.

Bono and U2 get a closer look, too. The story notes that people are quick to castigate the Irish band and its outspoken leader for not paying "their share" because they moved some of their business interests abroad for tax reasons. Why do we so hate the rich for doing what we all want to do? Make a lot of money. Keep as much of it as we can under our control.

If Bono and boys can make a little extra moolah by legally taking advantage of worldwide tax laws, good for them. That's a bit more of their money they can spend on causes that are important to them.

And they also have the right to try to convince others, individuals and governments alike, to also support those causes, morally and financially. We all should be so lucky.

Comments

[MrRealistic]

Bono "has the right to convince...governments to support causes financially."

The only way a government can financially support anything --without raising fees or issuing more debt-- is by taxing the income of its citizens.

Now, let me get this straight: To fund his favorite causes, Bono is strongly in favor of government confiscating my income but not his? In the name of... love? Good grief.