U2 tax shopping

An article over on Slate seems to suggest that U2 is engaging in a grand hypocrisy by moving their operations to Amsterdam to avoid higher taxes in Ireland. Supposedly, this is bad because Bono is simultaneously urging the Irish government to fight poverty while depriving it of extra tax revenues from U2's royalties. According to the article:

Bono, the rock star and campaigner against Third World debt, is asking the Irish government to contribute more to Africa. At the same time, he's reducing tax payments that could help fund that aid....

...relocating your business offshore in order to avoid paying taxes to the Republic of Ireland, where poverty is higher than in almost any other developed nation? Bono's hypocrisy seems even more naked when you consider that Ireland is a tax haven for artists.

I'm not convinced that it's so hypocritical. Keeping more of their money in their own hands allows them to direct it specifically where they want, instead of filtering it through the Irish government bureaucracy which would inevitably destroy some of its value in overhead before passing it on to the same programs that U2 could give to directly. Perhaps this applies more to international aid organizations than it does to domestic Irish anti-poverty groups (the best of which may be run primarily by the government, I'm not sure - anyone know?), but it's possible that the same logic applies. I can certainly see how native Irish might be a wee bit miffed, pride-wise, at being ditched by their national icon for tax reasons, but I don't think we can assume that U2's move will automatically be a net loss for whatever causes the band supports.