What was the band's/Freddie's least favourite country to visit?

brENsKi wrote:

TRS-Romania wrote: Slane Castle / Ireland / 1986 .... I think Freddie swore never to come back to Ireland after a fight in the audience occurred and Brian being hit by a beer can.

Freddie said lots of things...let's face it - queen never went back anywhere after 1986...so no-one anywhere knows how serious this comment was

Ireland. I agree.

They went back to Switzerland after 1986. Many times. Italy and Spain as well. Yes they stopped touring after 86 but they didnt stop visiting their favourite countries for work and leisure.

Switzerland was visited for tax reasons, since the UK taxed artists at an exuberant rate at the time. Freddie and other artists often lived abroad and could visit the UK for only a number of days in a year before being considered residents for tax purposes.

Chief Mouse wrote:

Why would anyone throw shoes on stage? Like, that would be the last thing I would think of while being in a Queen gig & enjoying the music.

There are many events like that in Mexico's history, none of them happened in the northern part of the country (Monterrey for example) most of the times, this issues happens in central or southside of Mexico and I remember a lot of them:

That time Johnny Winter ended his set when a glass bottle did a huge cut in his face.

The time when Jon Anderson was doing a solo show which included some natives and people were booing them.

It happened when Deep Purple did their Concerto suite too, both of them in Mexico city.

The time when someone used a military smoke grenade on a Slayer show (this happened a few years ago)

Something happened in the Page/Plant tour in 1995 too, but I cant remember.

Chief Mouse wrote:

Why would anyone throw shoes on stage? Like, that would be the last thing I would think of while being in a Queen gig & enjoying the music.

I think it's "normal" to throw shoes in lots of places. NOFX has an album called "So long and thanks for all the shoes." Yes, it's a parody of "So long and thanks for all the fish," but I think they got a lot of shoes thrown at them. Batteries is something else, though...

@luthorn, that is not true. Queen (nor its members) took Swiss residence or stayed there after 1986 for tax purposes. Before 1986 (especially at the end of the 1970's - beginning of the 80s) they were tax exiles. After 1986, they were not.

luthorn wrote:
Since the UK taxed artists at an exuberant rate at the time.

That's an incredibly biased remark. I suppose you prefer the American system, where basically the more money you make, the smaller the percentage you pay in taxes?

thomasquinn 32989 wrote:

luthorn wrote:
Since the UK taxed artists at an exuberant rate at the time.

That's an incredibly biased remark. I suppose you prefer the American system, where basically the more money you make, the smaller the percentage you pay in taxes?

You mean paying a tax rate at over 90% is considered normal? from wikipedia, not a great source but a good start ".In 1974 the cut was partly reversed and the top rate on earned income was raised to 83%. With the investment income surcharge this raised the top rate on investment income to 98%, the highest permanent rate since the war. This applied to incomes over £20,000 (£176,477 as of 2014)"

That's what the rate was for the richest until Thatcher showed up. In addition, Switzerland had a very low tax rate for the rich, quite negotiable in fact, so paying let's say 2% vs. 90% makes a difference. Off course, there are other reasons why one would live with the Swiss, like the privacy laws and lack of annoying press, but low taxes are low taxes. sorry to break your socialist bubble.

a small and very incomplete list of tax exiles, among others the famous Brits such as Bowie and the Rolling Stones: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_exile

thomasquinn 32989 wrote:

luthorn wrote:
Since the UK taxed artists at an exuberant rate at the time.

That's an incredibly biased remark. I suppose you prefer the American system, where basically the more money you make, the smaller the percentage you pay in taxes?

Uh, I thought it was the other way around!


[Tax Rate Schedule X, Internal Revenue Code section 1(c)]

10% on taxable income from $0 to $9,075, plus
15% on taxable income over $9,075 to $36,900, plus
25% on taxable income over $36,900 to $89,350, plus
28% on taxable income over $89,350 to $186,350, plus
33% on taxable income over $186,350 to $405,100, plus
35% on taxable income over $405,100 to $406,750, plus
39.6% on taxable income over $406,750.



from taxes.about.com.............

35% on taxable income over $405,100 to $406,750, plus
39.6% on taxable income over $406,750.



from taxes.about.com.............



[/QUOTE]

That's also not quite right.

http://web.stanford.edu/class/polisci120a/immigration/Federal%20Tax%20Brackets.pdf

Top tax rate in the USA in 1980 was 70% for earners of over $215,400. Regan lowered the rate later on in the 80s.

Please look at the situation from a historic perspective.

thomasquinn 32989 wrote:

luthorn wrote:
Since the UK taxed artists at an exuberant rate at the time.

That's an incredibly biased remark. I suppose you prefer the American system, where basically the more money you make, the smaller the percentage you pay in taxes?

News Flash - TQ is incredibly biased.

I recall that TQ has a job in the public sector and feeds at the trough of government largesse.

Yay! A discussion about tax rates! lol

Anyway, I would guess once the novelty of touring North America has worn off, the late 1970s-early '80s tours might be tough, especially as the itineraries were packed and there was a lot of travelling involved.

For instance, 1977 coast to coast NotW tour, including one gig in Toronto = 25 gigs in 42 days.

1979 coast to coast Jazz tour, including Canadian gigs = 35 gigs in 54 days.

1980 The Game tour = 41 gigs in 93 days (i.e. more gigs but taking more breaks between concerts).

Brian also said they had to work really hard to sell tickets for the Hot Space tour and that was so much effort they never went back to the US. That was 33 gigs in 87 days (taking even more breaks between concerts).

Panchgani wrote:

I recall that TQ has a job in the public sector and feeds at the trough of government largesse.

You recall wrongly, but I guess that wouldn't be the first time, would it now?

The King Of Rhye wrote:

thomasquinn 32989 wrote:

luthorn wrote:
Since the UK taxed artists at an exuberant rate at the time.

That's an incredibly biased remark. I suppose you prefer the American system, where basically the more money you make, the smaller the percentage you pay in taxes?

Uh, I thought it was the other way around!


[Tax Rate Schedule X, Internal Revenue Code section 1(c)]

10% on taxable income from $0 to $9,075, plus
15% on taxable income over $9,075 to $36,900, plus
25% on taxable income over $36,900 to $89,350, plus
28% on taxable income over $89,350 to $186,350, plus
33% on taxable income over $186,350 to $405,100, plus
35% on taxable income over $405,100 to $406,750, plus
39.6% on taxable income over $406,750.

from taxes.about.com.............

Not that simple, because that only refers to wage income. When you file your return as capital gains, which you can if you have a business of any kind, whether scam or real, the rate drops dramatically. Even Forbes doesn't pretend it's not like that: http://www.forbes.com/sites/janetnovack/2013/03/06/as-stock-market-recovered-rich-took-bigger-share-of-nations-income-and-paid-lower-tax-rate/

luthorn wrote:



That's also not quite right.

http://web.stanford.edu/class/polisci120a/immigration/Federal%20Tax%20Brackets.pdf

Top tax rate in the USA in 1980 was 70% for earners of over $215,400. Regan lowered the rate later on in the 80s.

Please look at the situation from a historic perspective.

The bloody f*cking irony of you telling a historian specializing in 20th century American history to "look at the situation from a historic[al] perspective"! And that despite the fact that you don't even understand that there's such a thing as capital gains tax as well as income tax, which is the tool used by the American rich.

luthorn wrote:

thomasquinn 32989 wrote:

luthorn wrote:
Since the UK taxed artists at an exuberant rate at the time.

That's an incredibly biased remark. I suppose you prefer the American system, where basically the more money you make, the smaller the percentage you pay in taxes?

You mean paying a tax rate at over 90% is considered normal? from wikipedia, not a great source but a good start ".In 1974 the cut was partly reversed and the top rate on earned income was raised to 83%. With the investment income surcharge this raised the top rate on investment income to 98%, the highest permanent rate since the war. This applied to incomes over £20,000 (£176,477 as of 2014)"

That's what the rate was for the richest until Thatcher showed up. In addition, Switzerland had a very low tax rate for the rich, quite negotiable in fact, so paying let's say 2% vs. 90% makes a difference. Off course, there are other reasons why one would live with the Swiss, like the privacy laws and lack of annoying press, but low taxes are low taxes. sorry to break your socialist bubble.

a small and very incomplete list of tax exiles, among others the famous Brits such as Bowie and the Rolling Stones: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_exile

No, it doesn't work like that at all. You are thinking solely of income tax, not tax on capital and capital gains.

Even if this weren't so, that's not how taxes work. They don't pay 90% tax over their income, they pay 90% over every pound above the top limit of the lower tax scales. So if the rate is, say, 25% up to 50 000, 50% from 50 001 to 100 000 and 75% from 100 001 up, someone who made 200 000 would pay 112 500, or 56.25%.

But hey, feel free to buy into the rightist BS. It fits in with the rest of your behavior on this site.