Should Mick Wallace resign over his VAT 'problem'?

donalg1

No

Divorce Referendum wrote: »

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./QUOTE]

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.

Purely semantics which shows a lack of substance in your argument. He said it in the public domain so said it to everyone

Divorce Referendum

Don't care

donalg1 wrote: »

Purely semantics which shows a lack of substance in your argument. He said it in the public domain so said it to everyone

Yet it doesnt really matter as the decision has to made by the government. If they seen it as an idea to implement it wouldnt really matter if you or I said it and what background im from its either its right or wrong. But of course the auld irish mentality if martin from down the road says it then I am going to just disagree just for the sake of it because I dont like him and what he did, even though in truth I actually agree with him. Thats a great mentality to have i must say. ffs.

donalg1

No

Divorce Referendum wrote: »

donalg1 wrote: »

Purely semantics which shows a lack of substance in your argument. He said it in the public domain so said it to everyone

Yet it doesnt really matter as the decision has to made by the government. If they seen it as an idea to implement it wouldnt really matter if you or I said it and what background im from its either its right or wrong. But of course the auld irish mentality if martin from down the road says it then I am going to just disagree just for the sake of it because I dont like him and what he did, even though in truth I actually agree with him. Thats a great mentality to have i must say. ffs.

But its not Martin down the road its Mick Wallace the tax cheat saying it. My point is he should shut up talking about other peoples taxes until he gets his own in order its really quite a straight forward point.

Divorce Referendum

Don't care

donalg1 wrote: »

But its not Martin down the road its Mick Wallace the tax cheat saying it. My point is he should shut up talking about other peoples taxes until he gets his own in order its really quite a straight forward point.

Sure maybe you should go and shut his mouth for him. Might match you better than posting that here.
He raised a point that you admitted you agree with. Get over it. He is still in the dail. He is still entitled to his opinion. He may not be martin from down the road but its an analogy and is still relevant to this situation and how you can mysteriously change your opinion on a point raised depending on who says it.

donalg1

No

Divorce Referendum wrote: »

donalg1 wrote: »

But its not Martin down the road its Mick Wallace the tax cheat saying it. My point is he should shut up talking about other peoples taxes until he gets his own in order its really quite a straight forward point.

Sure maybe you should go and shut his mouth for him. Might match you better than posting that here.
He raised a point that you admitted you agree with. Get over it. He is still in the dail. He is still entitled to his opinion. He may not be martin from down the road but its an analogy and is still relevant to this situation and how you can mysteriously change your opinion on a point raised depending on who says it.

Why would I listen to a tax cheat about taxes. Unless of course he is telling me how to cheat on my taxes.

Divorce Referendum

Don't care

donalg1 wrote: »

Why would I listen to a tax cheat about taxes. Unless of course he is telling me how to cheat on my taxes.

Ha ha i dont know. Ask yourself how you can agree with a point and then disagree with it depending on the speaker. You are compulsed to listen to Mick Wallace as you wouldnt be posting here about this topic if you didnt want to listen to him. Seriously just call up to Mick yourself personally and make him shut up about raising income tax. Im sure he'd obilige.

donalg1

No

Divorce Referendum wrote: »

donalg1 wrote: »

Why would I listen to a tax cheat about taxes. Unless of course he is telling me how to cheat on my taxes.

Ha ha i dont know. Ask yourself how you can agree with a point and then disagree with it depending on the speaker. You are compulsed to listen to Mick Wallace as you wouldnt be posting here about this topic if you didnt want to listen to him. Seriously just call up to Mick yourself personally and make him shut up about raising income tax. Im sure he'd obilige.

Nah I couldn't be bothered wasting my time on that crook. It's hypocritical of him to talk about taxes. Chances are he wants to raise income tax so others can pay back what he stole which I don't agree with and that's how I can disagree when he says it.

bmaxi

No

You both have a point. A tax on income is surely the fairest form of taxation and while it's really irrelevant who says it it is open to ridicule coming from someone who has fraudulently deprived the State of income. A bit like FF criticising Ministerial expenses.

Divorce Referendum

Don't care

donalg1 wrote: »

Nah I couldn't be bothered wasting my time on that crook. It's hypocritical of him to talk about taxes. Chances are he wants to raise income tax so others can pay back what he stole which I don't agree with and that's how I can disagree when he says it.

Aahhh you are onto something oh no wait..... its just you trying to justify your bogman mentality. Unfortunately for Mick Wallace the money that is owed by his company to revenue stays irrespective even if the government raises taxes to even 100% on rich people. How would raising income tax on rich people settle his companies debt with the revenue exactly in your mind?.

donalg1

No

Divorce Referendum wrote: »

donalg1 wrote: »

Nah I couldn't be bothered wasting my time on that crook. It's hypocritical of him to talk about taxes. Chances are he wants to raise income tax so others can pay back what he stole which I don't agree with and that's how I can disagree when he says it.

Aahhh you are onto something oh no wait..... its just you trying to justify your bogman mentality. Unfortunately for Mick Wallace the money that is owed by his company to revenue stays irrespective even if the government raises taxes to even 100% on rich people. How would raising income tax on rich people settle his companies debt with the revenue exactly in your mind?.

Wow missing the point again. It wouldn't clear his debts it would fill the gap left by his thieving

Divorce Referendum

Don't care

donalg1 wrote: »

Wow missing the point again. It wouldn't clear his debts it would fill the gap left by his thieving

No you said " so others could pay back what he stole". That I took it to imply that others would be paying back his debt. Irrespective of what you actually meant it doesnt settle the debt his company has with the revenue so its still money owed. What revenue takes in from now on is theirs and is due from people whatever the tax rate is at present and into the future, it doesnt cover any debts from previous years now does it they still remain. Mick Wallaces company still owes money no matter what fanciful notions you have about others paying for it.

Divorce Referendum

Don't care

bmaxi wrote: »

You both have a point. A tax on income is surely the fairest form of taxation and while it's really irrelevant who says it it is open to ridicule coming from someone who has fraudulently deprived the State of income. A bit like FF criticising Ministerial expenses.

Fair point. As you said it may be open to ridicule to some of the public because the very mention of mick wallace sets tongues wagging at the moment but the government makes the decision on this so the suggestion is put to them no matter who said it.

There are many people in the public eye that we love to hate but to disagree with them even if they come up with a suggestion that you agree with is very strange for me. If you didnt agree with the suggestion in the first place then fair enough.

donalg1

No

Divorce Referendum wrote: »

donalg1 wrote: »

Wow missing the point again. It wouldn't clear his debts it would fill the gap left by his thieving

No you said " so others could pay back what he stole". That I took it to imply that others would be paying back his debt. Irrespective of what you actually meant it doesnt settle the debt his company has with the revenue so its still money owed. What revenue takes in from now on is theirs and is due from people whatever the tax rate is at present and into the future, it doesnt cover any debts from previous years now does it they still remain. Mick Wallaces company still owes money no matter what fanciful notions you have about others paying for it.

Yeah interpret it how you want you know what I meant. Or maybe you don't I mean you are trying to defend a tax cheat thieving so and so which is a crazy thing to do.

I can't take him seriously when he discusses taxing people because of what he has done. Nothing you say will change that.

jpb1974

I can't take him seriously when he discusses taxing people because of what he has done. Nothing you say will change that.

I doubt if anything anyone says will change anything... and thus the question begs to be asked - what is the purpose of this thread at this point (25 pages in)? You have the for and against and neither is budging.

The whole discussion is starting to become kinda pointless... in my humble opinion of course.

Divorce Referendum

Don't care

donalg1 wrote: »

Yeah interpret it how you want you know what I meant. Or maybe you don't I mean you are trying to defend a tax cheat thieving so and so which is a crazy thing to do.

I can't take him seriously when he discusses taxing people because of what he has done. Nothing you say will change that.

Ah ya but im not bitter like you so I have a clear mind on this issue. I see whats happening in the wider picture and how this 'story' is deflecting from the very real issues at hand and who created them and who is still creating them. He owes 1.4m to the revenue, oh ya thats bad an all but what about the billions we owe germany is that going to dissappear if mick wallace leaves politics: Will it ****!

If he leaves will the revenue bill be paid back- no!

The amount of civil servants that was quoted that could have been paid for from the 1.4 million. Would they have been hired if he had have paid his tax bill - No it would have went to the HSE who would have pissed it up against the wall within hours.

Will all my problems be solved if this man is removed from his seat?- no!.

Will it create a change from the corrupt politics that happened before if a man that commited a crime outside the dail leaves?- no fecking way!.

So forgive me if i see bigger problems on the horizon. I just dont see Mick Wallace as one of them and you do so thats your perogitive and opinion i respect it and you should mine. In all seriousness though posting here aint going to solve your problem at all.

Divorce Referendum

Don't care

jpb1974 wrote: »

I doubt if anything anyone says will change anything... and thus the question begs to be asked - what is the purpose of this thread at this point (25 pages in)? You have the for and against and neither is budging.

The whole discussion is starting to become kinda pointless... in my humble opinion of course.

I think you are probably right to be honest everyone is entitled to their own opinion and sticks to it so fair enough. I am bowing out I am probably annoying enough people.

allthedoyles

No

The thread was asking if MW should resign . and I think its obvious now that this will not happen .

Heres another poster that is finished reading / contributing to this thread .

Sully

No

I think this thread has ran its course, so ill lock 'er up. Any future developments on this, let me know if I don't reply with them and ill post em up.