Should Mick Wallace resign over his VAT 'problem'?

donalg1

No

Tzar Chasm wrote: »

Yeah, cos an eight year old LHD X5 is worth a small fortune.

The word on the street is that no one who worked for Wallace directly is owed money, obviously some subcontractors who worked on Wallace sites got caught when the bubble ended, much like Wallace himself

Not a very creditable source really.

I could just as easily say word on the street is that everyone that worked for him directly is owed money, but I prefer facts such as Mick Wallace stole 1.4million euro.

Tzar Chasm

Don't care

Depends on which street yer on tho, here on the mean streets of bannow that info is firsthand

Means Of Escape

Tzar Chasm wrote: »

Yeah, cos an eight year old LHD X5 is worth a small fortune.

3k to a Pole or a German

bruschi

Tzar Chasm wrote: »

Depends on which street yer on tho, here on the mean streets of bannow that info is firsthand

to be honest, I know of different, and I know personally of a direct subcontractor employed by him who is still owed money from Ferrycarrig.

This clusterfuk of a thread has gone way off and throwing out spurious things like thief and crook etc doesnt lend itself to any debate.

My main issue with Mick was the poor me act and doing it for the people, but he let a lot of people down, including his own employees and other subcontractors, but still found money to make sure he stayed more than comfortable in his own personal wealth.

It maybe business, it may be survival of the fittest etc, but as a representative of Wexford in Dail Eireann, I dont think it is suitable to have conducted himself in that way.

Divorce Referendum

Don't care

bruschi wrote: »

to be honest, I know of different, and I know personally of a direct subcontractor employed by him who is still owed money from Ferrycarrig.

This clusterfuk of a thread has gone way off and throwing out spurious things like thief and crook etc doesnt lend itself to any debate.

My main issue with Mick was the poor me act and doing it for the people, but he let a lot of people down, including his own employees and other subcontractors, but still found money to make sure he stayed more than comfortable in his own personal wealth.

It maybe business, it may be survival of the fittest etc, but as a representative of Wexford in Dail Eireann, I dont think it is suitable to have conducted himself in that way.

I think he would either be employed directly as an employee or as a subcontractor. I am not sure how he can be both . But you are spot on about one thing, this one big clusterfuk of a thread.

donalg1

No

Tzar Chasm wrote: »

Depends on which street yer on tho, here on the mean streets of bannow that info is firsthand

Oh ok then sure that changes everything its no longer unsubstantiated hearsay!

Let's stick to actual facts will we

bruschi

Divorce Referendum wrote: »

I think he would either be employed directly as an employee or as a subcontractor. I am not sure how he can be both . But you are spot on about one thing, this one big clusterfuk of a thread.

it was in reply to Tzar who implied that it was others involved indirectly to subcontractors of Wallace that got caught. I was saying that I know of a subcontractor who worked directly for Wallace, not subbys of his subbys, if you get what I mean.

bmaxi

No

bruschi wrote: »

This clusterfuk of a thread has gone way off and throwing out spurious things like thief and crook etc doesnt lend itself to any debate.

There are those contributors to this thread who would wish to portray Wallace as a much maligned, persecuted, Robin Hood sort of character who made a couple of simple accounting errors. The facts tell a different story and there is no debating the fact that he is a thief and therefore, by extension, a crook. If you feel you can debate that fact, lets hear it.

secman

Don't care

He would be mad to give up the job he has at the moment, especially taking into account the state of the Construction industry. Can't say I blame him staying put.


Secman

Judgement Day

Don't care

And there are those contributing to this thread who appear to have had an anti-Wallace agenda pre-dating the election and any admission of VAT problems.

Chiparus

Don't care

bmaxi wrote: »

There are those contributors to this thread who would wish to portray Wallace as a much maligned, persecuted, Robin Hood sort of character who made a couple of simple accounting errors. The facts tell a different story and there is no debating the fact that he is a thief and therefore, by extension, a crook. If you feel you can debate that fact, lets hear it.

There are many thousands who have gone bankrupt, many who owe the revenue commissioners. Calling these people crooks maybe a fact in your mind, but I believe there has to be intent.

I do not believe that Wallace had intended to defraud, I believe he used monies in his possession to try to save a collapsing business.
Intent is key.

bmaxi

No

Chiparus wrote: »

There are many thousands who have gone bankrupt, many who owe the revenue commissioners. Calling these people crooks maybe a fact in your mind, but I believe there has to be intent.

I do not believe that Wallace had intended to defraud, I believe he used monies in his possession to try to save a collapsing business.
Intent is key.

Let's get this straight. This is all on public record, Wallace has admitted that he deliberately submitted falsified VAT returns to the Revenue Commissioners and you don't see that as intent to defraud? Please let me know how you do define it so I can add the definition to my thesaurus.
It doesn't matter how many people owe the Revenue Commissioners or for what reason they didn't pay, that is not what Wallace did, Wallace fraudulently submitted accounts to say that he didn't owe the money even though he had collected it. Therein lies the difference.

bmaxi

No

Judgement Day wrote: »

And there are those contributing to this thread who appear to have had an anti-Wallace agenda pre-dating the election and any admission of VAT problems.

Never had an axe to grind with Mick Wallace until now, couldn't care if he lived or died, much as he would feel for me I'm sure.
How could he have VAT problems? VAT doesn't cause problems, it's a matter of simple arithmetic. You collect money from customers of which you are required, by law, to pass X% to the Revenue Commisioners, what could be simpler than that? Any problems are self created.

donalg1

No

Chiparus wrote: »

There are many thousands who have gone bankrupt, many who owe the revenue commissioners. Calling these people crooks maybe a fact in your mind, but I believe there has to be intent.

I do not believe that Wallace had intended to defraud, I believe he used monies in his possession to try to save a collapsing business.
Intent is key.

Seriously, the man himself has admitted he intentionally did it, so I would take from that, that he meant he intended to do it!!

allthedoyles

No

Did'nt know the man either before the election other than for winning a few football matches with Wexford Youths .

He has brought all this on himself , and anything he says from here onwards is not going to be credible .:

INDEPENDENT TD Mick Wallace who owes the banks €40m, has called on workers to pay more taxes – even as he stalls on providing information about his company's €2.1m tax settlement with the Revenue.

One of the few promises the Government has kept is that it has not touched income tax. Perhaps it should consider breaking that promise and increase the tax rate for higher earners," he said.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/thats-a-bit-rich-taxcheat-mick-wallace-wants-workers-to-pay-more-taxes-3159240.html

donalg1

No

allthedoyles wrote: »

Did'nt know the man either before the election other than for winning a few football matches with Wexford Youths .

He has brought all this on himself , and anything he says from here onwards is not going to be credible .:



http://www.independent.ie/national-news/thats-a-bit-rich-taxcheat-mick-wallace-wants-workers-to-pay-more-taxes-3159240.html

Ha brilliant so now the man that doesnt pay his taxes is telling others they should pay more. Wowsers.

Divorce Referendum

Don't care

donalg1 wrote: »

Ha brilliant so now the man that doesnt pay his taxes is telling others they should pay more. Wowsers.

So I am guessing you dont agree then that the rich should pay more income tax? Its irrelevant who said it to be honest the point stands. If anyone else said it in the dail would you not agree?

donalg1

No

Divorce Referendum wrote: »

donalg1 wrote: »

Ha brilliant so now the man that doesnt pay his taxes is telling others they should pay more. Wowsers.

So I am guessing you dont agree then that the rich should pay more income tax? Its irrelevant who said it to be honest the point stands. If anyone else said it in the dail would you not agree?

Who said it is very relevant especially when its himself. That man can't ever tell anyone to pay more tax end of. His credibility is long gone on that score.

christmas2012

No

hes a thief the only difference is that he holds up a job in the dail .. fvcking sack him already

Divorce Referendum

Don't care

donalg1 wrote: »

Who said it is very relevant especially when its himself. That man can't ever tell anyone to pay more tax end of. His credibility is long gone on that score.

I did and in fact its something thats been mentioned in this country for a number of years, but the government wouldnt want that for obvious reasons. As I said the issue was raised and its a valid one. Just because Mick Wallace said it doesnt mean feck all as it has been raised by many before him its just you who choose to ignore the point because of the man that said it. As i put to you earlier if someone else said it what would your opinion be?

Divorce Referendum

Don't care

christmas2012 wrote: »

hes a thief the only difference is that he holds up a job in the dail .. fvcking sack him already

Ya you have said that already about fifty times...

donalg1

No

Divorce Referendum wrote: »

donalg1 wrote: »

Who said it is very relevant especially when its himself. That man can't ever tell anyone to pay more tax end of. His credibility is long gone on that score.

I did and in fact its something thats been mentioned in this country for a number of years, but the government wouldnt want that for obvious reasons. As I said the issue was raised and its a valid one. Just because Mick Wallace said it doesnt mean feck all as it has been raised by many before him its just you who choose to ignore the point because of the man that said it. As i put to you earlier if someone else said it what would your opinion be?

You missed my point I said the person that said it is very relevant. It wasn't a question. I would agree with raising income tax but not when he says it because he is in no position to tell anyone how much tax they should be paying

celticcrash

No

Hes a thief the only difference is that he holds up a job in the dail .. fvcking sack him already. It might take more than 50 times to say this, so well done christmas 2012.

ANXIOUS

He should go, when I heard he gave the brother the vine yard that was him done in my eyes.

Divorce Referendum

Don't care

donalg1 wrote: »

You missed my point I said the person that said it is very relevant. It wasn't a question. I would agree with raising income tax but not when he says it because he is in no position to tell anyone how much tax they should be paying

Well thats all I was asking. No point in disagreeing with the man because you dont like what he did. How can you agree and diagree on the same point. It really doesnt matter who says it.

donalg1

No

Divorce Referendum wrote: »

donalg1 wrote: »

You missed my point I said the person that said it is very relevant. It wasn't a question. I would agree with raising income tax but not when he says it because he is in no position to tell anyone how much tax they should be paying

Well thats all I was asking. No point in disagreeing with the man because you dont like what he did. How can you agree and diagree on the same point. It really doesnt matter who says it.

Course it bloody matters he is no position to lecture anyone about taxes

Divorce Referendum

Don't care

celticcrash wrote: »

Hes a thief the only difference is that he holds up a job in the dail .. fvcking sack him already. It might take more than 50 times to say this, so well done christmas 2012.

No it doesnt need to be said that amount of times it hardly lends to any actual debate as he has his opinion and thats fair enough but I think everyone in the thread knows it at this stage. It actually happens to be irrelevant anyway, how exactly are you going to 'sack' him?

Divorce Referendum

Don't care

donalg1 wrote: »

Course it bloody matters he is no position to lecture anyone about taxes

Who was he lecturing?

donalg1

No

Divorce Referendum wrote: »

donalg1 wrote: »

Course it bloody matters he is no position to lecture anyone about taxes

Who was he lecturing?

Everyone

Divorce Referendum

Don't care

allthedoyles wrote: »

INDEPENDENT TD Mick Wallace who owes the banks €40m, has called on workers to pay more taxes – even as he stalls on providing information about his company's €2.1m tax settlement with the Revenue.

One of the few promises the Government has kept is that it has not touched income tax. Perhaps it should consider breaking that promise and increase the tax rate for higher earners," he said.

donalg1 wrote: »

Everyone

Well he says 'government' and he says 'consider'. That means he is addressing them not everyone. The government can consider his comment or not its up to them. Hardly lecturing us considering its just put to them and Mick Wallace doesnt actually make any decision or action on it himself.