Should Mick Wallace resign over his VAT 'problem'?

Monty Burnz

No

Judgement Day wrote: »

I remember it well but your analogy is not quite correct in that the alleged wrong doings took place before Mick Wallace took his place at the "farmers" table. The analogy was one that I used myself about the Green Party in government but I wouldn't apply it to Mick.

Well he is a corrupt developer who is now in the Oireachtas, so yeah - I guess for the Animal Farm thing to work he'd have to be a human who turns into a pig who becomes like a human again...

Tzar Chasm

Don't care

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Judgement Day wrote: »

I remember it well but your analogy is not quite correct in that the alleged wrong doings took place before Mick Wallace took his place at the "farmers" table. The analogy was one that I used myself about the Green Party in government but I wouldn't apply it to Mick.

Well he is a corrupt developer who is now in the Oireachtas, so yeah - I guess for the Animal Farm thing to work he'd have to be a human who turns into a pig who becomes like a human again...

What do you mean by corrupt?
The Vat issue has been explained, what other corruption is there?

Monty Burnz

No

Tzar Chasm wrote: »

What do you mean by corrupt?
The Vat issue has been explained, what other corruption is there?

Well that VAT issue has been explained - he stole government money and apparently used it to subsidise his company while awarding himself and his son 6-figure pay rises. That's corruption.

As to what other stuff hasn't come out yet - who knows? He didn't volunteer any of the stuff that has come out to date until he was caught.

Tzar Chasm

Don't care

I see nothing unusual about the payrises, thats kinda considerd 'best practice' round these parts.

corruption in my book would be trying to use his dail position to cover up these things, he's not, Mick is being open and candid about everything so far, much more than he needs to be.

Monty Burnz

No

Tzar Chasm wrote: »

I see nothing unusual about the payrises, thats kinda considerd 'best practice' round these parts.

You see nothing about people awarding themselves huge payrises even as they know the company they are running is going bust? So I guess you never complained about the bank bosses awarding themselves huge payrises, because that would be very hypocritical?

Tzar Chasm wrote: »

corruption in my book would be trying to use his dail position to cover up these things, he's not, Mick is being open and candid about everything so far, much more than he needs to be.

Corruption in my book is a developer stealing over a million euros from the taxpayer while marching to protest against cuts caused ultimately by developers who left the taxpayer in the lurch to the tune of millions.

Fortunately Wallace isn't in a position to stop this investigation of his corruption - based on his track record, I've no reason to think he wouldn't if he could. 'The only honest builder'? - f*ck off Mick, you massive hypocrite.

vicwatson

No

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2012/0618/breaking25.html

Can anyone tell me why he insists on drawing attention to himself?

Could he not just have parked in the car park where all the rest of us park and slipped out to Poland without any HOO HAA?

Now he has gone and made more people irate with his seemingly lack of respect and care for the norm.

Monty Burnz

No

vicwatson wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2012/0618/breaking25.html

Can anyone tell me why he insists on drawing attention to himself?

Could he not just have parked in the car park where all the rest of us park and slipped out to Poland without any HOO HAA?

Now he has gone and made more people irate with his seemingly lack of respect and care for the norm.

Sure what does he care - the taxpayer will probably pick up the tab for him again.

Monty Burnz

No

Tzar Chasm wrote: »

Oh them constant crimes eh, not a minute goes by where Mick Wallace ain't schemin some form of nefarious activity :rolleyes:

Now they're trying to insinuate that there was something dodgy on the deal with joseph for the italian villa.

As for parking at the airport I wouldn't be surprised to find that a very good friend of his got him into that carpark on a favour, but some oportunistic asshole saw the jeep and decided it would make for a lovely photo op

To be honest, there's probably someone writing exactly the same sort of exculpatory nonsense about Seanie Fitz (bankrupt) staying in the most expensive hotel in Poznan on his jolly to support his beloved Ireland. For some reason, Mick 'Massive Hypocrite/Tax Cheat/Bankrupt Developer' Wallace gets a total free pass from some people because his marketing people convinced some of our more gullible countrymen that he was the 'honest builder'. And now that his honesty is clearly on a level with CJ Haughey and Bertie Ahern, they still cling to this pristine image much as the Fianna Failure faithful did with Ahern and Haughey, seeing only a conspiracy to drag the 'good' men down, rather than the grubby truth of the lies they were sold.

Tzar Chasm

Don't care

as I've said before I'm a bit biased in this case as I know the man & I know his family, he's from the parish and I have no problem with him representing us in the Dail.

he wouldnt be the only one who had friends workin in the Airport and used the Aer Lingus carpark, I have friends who work for a Car rental firm so whenever I go to the airport I use the Short term carpark and they give me a ticket to get out for free, he's just unfortunate to have a recognisable vehicle.

Wallaces actual construction record is quite good , he didnt slapdash apartments during the boom he continued with good quality constructions.

Monty Burnz

No

Tzar Chasm wrote: »

as I've said before I'm a bit biased in this case as I know the man & I know his family, he's from the parish and I have no problem with him representing us in the Dail.

Fair play that you admit your bias. But the fact that you know/know of the family etc. is no consolation to the rest of us. I'm sure there are loads of people who spoke highly of Haughey/Ahern/etc. They were still crooks.

Divorce Referendum

Don't care

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Fair play that you admit your bias. But the fact that you know/know of the family etc. is no consolation to the rest of us. I'm sure there are loads of people who spoke highly of Haughey/Ahern/etc. They were still crooks.

You are the second person in this thread to compare mick wallace to these two. Mick Wallace isnt in the same league as these guys remember the Mahon tribunal cost 250 million investigating these scoundrels. Are you happy with that use of taxpayers money? What has bertie ahern done to address the corruption that he has caused? Oh ya he is off in another country denying all wrongdoing and claiming a big fat pension in addition to the ridiculous money he earned as taoiseach.

Monty Burnz wrote: »

And now that his honesty is clearly on a level with CJ Haughey and Bertie Ahern, they still cling to this pristine image

He has been honest, when have bertie or haughey admitted wrongdoing and offered to try and address the situation.???:rolleyes: People may have spoke highly of bertie and cj but it was probably because they fixed the road or took a backhander and helped them out which is not the same as Mick Wallace.

Monty Burnz

No

Divorce Referendum wrote: »

You are the second person in this thread to compare mick wallace to these two. Mick Wallace isnt in the same league as these guys remember the Mahon tribunal cost 250 million investigating these scoundrels. Are you happy with that use of taxpayers money? What has bertie ahern done to address the corruption that he has caused? Oh ya he is off in another country denying all wrongdoing and claiming a big fat pension in addition to the ridiculous money he earned as taoiseach.

That's not really relevant. Ahern didn't choose that 250 million euro was spent investigating corruption (some of which involved him). I'm sure Ahern would prefer nothing was spent at, same as Wallace, and his corruption was never investigated at all. And to be honest, saying that he's a crook but a smaller one isn't much of a defence for a guy sitting in our national parliament sucking money from the taxpayer's teat. He should be prosecuted for tax evasion - the fact that he isn't just shows there's a different standard for (formerly) rich developers.

Divorce Referendum wrote: »

He has been honest, when have bertie or haughey admitted wrongdoing and offered to try and address the situation.???:rolleyes: People may have spoke highly of bertie and cj but it was probably because they fixed the road or took a backhander and helped them out which is not the same as Mick Wallace.

He hasn't been honest. He was 'honest' only when he was caught - and I don't trust the excuses he has come out with even then. He stole a fortune from the taxpayer - he's a disgrace. How many nurses and special needs assistants would his theft have paid for? What other secrets does he have, that he will be 'honest' about when he's caught? :rolleyes:

donalg1

No

Divorce Referendum wrote: »

Non story to be honest. Park illegally and pay the fine happens in every town in the country and I would hardly class people as arrogant that do it. The media are really hopping on the bandwagon with this. Probably did it to avoid the media in the first place.

And to quote the great fine gael td pj sheehan (endas best pal)



http://www.independent.ie/national-news/youll-get-nothing-when-were-in-power-fine-gael-td-tells-garda-2343743.html

I certainly would class people that park illegally as arrogant, I never do it, I see a space in a car park and park there like 99% of the population but there is always the other 1% that think they are above all that and think they can park where ever they like and get away with it, sure what would it be like if we all decided to do that.

It just shows the sheer arrogance of the man that and all the rest of the dodgy things he has done lately, a pure gangster imo. The VAT, the Pensions, the Vineyard, the Villa, but yeah of course Mick Wallace isnt that bad really. :rolleyes:

donalg1

No

Judgement Day wrote: »

Speak for yourself, but I would rather not see money wasted on a pointless by-election that would see Mick Wallace re-elected.

Dont think that would happen, surely the people of Wexford would not be so stupid again, they were idiotic the first time so I am sure they wouldnt make the same mistake. There are a few obviously who are silly enough to think he is ok and think he is a good honest man who deserves his seat, but these people are definitely in the minority now and have their heads in the sand, and those that actually try to defend him are just insane imo.

donalg1

No

Tzar Chasm wrote: »

I see nothing unusual about the payrises, thats kinda considerd 'best practice' round these parts.

corruption in my book would be trying to use his dail position to cover up these things, he's not, Mick is being open and candid about everything so far, much more than he needs to be.

Ha are you kidding me? The ony reason he is being "open and candid" is because the Revenue were publishing the list of defaulters anyway, Mick knew he was going to be on the list so he came clean then. He knew a long long time ago that he stole the 1.4m but he never mentioned that before, instead he waited until he was forced to come clean.

Do you actually think if the Revenue werent publishing the list of defaulters that he would have said anything?

Divorce Referendum

Don't care

Monty Burnz wrote: »

That's not really relevant. Ahern didn't choose that 250 million euro was spent investigating corruption (some of which involved him). I'm sure Ahern would prefer nothing was spent at, same as Wallace, and his corruption was never investigated at all. And to be honest, saying that he's a crook but a smaller one isn't much of a defence for a guy sitting in our national parliament sucking money from the taxpayer's teat. He should be prosecuted for tax evasion - the fact that he isn't just shows there's a different standard for (formerly) rich developers.

Are you actually having a laugh, he didnt choose it?:rolleyes: How about dont be a corrupt bastard and it wont need to be investigated. You are right it isnt relevant yet i see you comparing wallace to the a ****er who ruined this country. Different standard? Why isnt ahern in jail instead of in a different country living off his fat pension. Maybe you should think about that for a second and answer it. Wallace may well be removed but ahern has that for life. You really are like the media with this one arent ya.

Monty Burnz wrote: »

He hasn't been honest. He was 'honest' only when he was caught - and I don't trust the excuses he has come out with even then. He stole a fortune from the taxpayer - he's a disgrace. How many nurses and special needs assistants would his theft have paid for? What other secrets does he have, that he will be 'honest' about when he's caught? :rolleyes:

What you mean when he admitted it, he wasnt 'caught' as you put it. Arrangements had been made to pay back the tax with revenue until his company went bust. Did you miss that part? Why if he is disgrace would he make any arrangement to pay it then. The man did wrong and no one here is saying he didnt but to compare him to people that were continually corrupt for there entire tenure in office such as the " i didnt ask for the mahon tribunal" bertie ahern is just wrong. That man never admitted doing anything wrong and yet you compare his honesty to mick wallace.

Divorce Referendum

Don't care

donalg1 wrote: »

I certainly would class people that park illegally as arrogant, I never do it, I see a space in a car park and park there like 99% of the population but there is always the other 1% that think they are above all that and think they can park where ever they like and get away with it, sure what would it be like if we all decided to do that.

It just shows the sheer arrogance of the man that and all the rest of the dodgy things he has done lately, a pure gangster imo. The VAT, the Pensions, the Vineyard, the Villa, but yeah of course Mick Wallace isnt that bad really. :rolleyes:

Thats why we have fines and clamps in case you didnt notice. You pay the fine you get your car back. If you dont you go to court. Thats the deterrent for someone doing it. You seem to be having trouble establishing that it doesnt matter if you 'think' someone is arrogant that they still get fined and thats why people dont do it not for your reasons. I dont park illegally either but I dont go around thinking im great like you for not doing it either.

Monty Burnz

No

Divorce Referendum wrote: »

Are you actually having a laugh, he didnt choose it? How about dont be a corrupt bastard and it wont need to be investigated.

Just like the tax-thieving Wallace.

Divorce Referendum wrote: »

You are right it isnt relevant yet i see you comparing wallace to the a ****er who ruined this country. Different standard? Why isnt ahern in jail instead of in a different country living off his fat pension. Maybe you should think about that for a second and answer it. Wallace may well be removed but ahern has that for life. You really are like the media with this one arent ya.

I think both should be in jail. You think one should be in jail and not the other. Which one of us has the illogical position? Which one of us thinks corruption is ok if we like the guy's hairdo or his choice of shirt or his PR campaign about 'honesty'?

Divorce Referendum wrote: »

What you mean when he admitted it, he wasnt 'caught' as you put it.

He was caught. You realise that he took the million+ euro from the taxpayer a couple of years ago, and stood for election without even mentioning it? In what sense is this 'admitting it'? :rolleyes:

Divorce Referendum wrote: »

Arrangements had been made to pay back the tax with revenue until his company went bust.

Nonsense. He knew the company was going bust - that's why he awarded himself and his son those huge pay rises, remember?

Divorce Referendum wrote: »

That man never admitted doing anything wrong and yet you compare his honesty to mick wallace.

To be fair to the crooked, incompetent bastard Ahern, he didn't sell himself to gullible voters as 'honest Bertie Ahern', unlike the crook Wallace.

donalg1

No

Divorce Referendum wrote: »

Thats why we have fines and clamps in case you didnt notice. You pay the fine you get your car back. If you dont you go to court. Thats the deterrent for someone doing it. You seem to be having trouble establishing that it doesnt matter if you 'think' someone is arrogant that they still get fined and thats why people dont do it not for your reasons. I dont park illegally either but I dont go around thinking im great like you for not doing it either.

Where did I say I think I am great for parking properly, all I said were people that choose to ignore laws and rules appear arrogant to me.

donalg1

No

Divorce Referendum wrote: »

Are you actually having a laugh, he didnt choose it?:rolleyes: How about dont be a corrupt bastard and it wont need to be investigated. You are right it isnt relevant yet i see you comparing wallace to the a ****er who ruined this country. Different standard? Why isnt ahern in jail instead of in a different country living off his fat pension. Maybe you should think about that for a second and answer it. Wallace may well be removed but ahern has that for life. You really are like the media with this one arent ya.



What you mean when he admitted it, he wasnt 'caught' as you put it. Arrangements had been made to pay back the tax with revenue until his company went bust. Did you miss that part? Why if he is disgrace would he make any arrangement to pay it then. The man did wrong and no one here is saying he didnt but to compare him to people that were continually corrupt for there entire tenure in office such as the " i didnt ask for the mahon tribunal" bertie ahern is just wrong. That man never admitted doing anything wrong and yet you compare his honesty to mick wallace.

He didnt make any arrangement to pay it. He said he cant and therefore wont be paying it back.

Divorce Referendum

Don't care

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Just like the tax-thieving Wallace.

I think both should be in jail. You think one should be in jail and not the other. Which one of us has the illogical position? Which one of us thinks corruption is ok if we like the guy's hairdo or his choice of shirt or his PR campaign about 'honesty'?

Where did i say that? I said Wallace may very well get removed for what he has done and i never said he wont go to jail. However the difference is the great bertie will NEVER get jail will he. How does that sit with you mister corruption super hero?

Monty Burnz wrote: »

He was caught. You realise that he took the million+ euro from the taxpayer a couple of years ago, and stood for election without even mentioning it? In what sense is this 'admitting it'?

Yes he did and you realise he tried to pay that back and if he did it would never have hurt your oh so sensitive corruption ears. The company went bust and so did any chance of paying it back thanks to acc bank who reside outside this state. If he is such a corrupt fella as you think why operate a business for 20 years without tax dodging then. I mean why not defraud the taxpayer for numerous years if he is so corrupt as you put it.

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Nonsense. He knew the company was going bust - that's why he awarded himself and his son those huge pay rises, remember?

ya sure maybe you could supply a bit of proof there then if that actually happened from this company then if you are so sure.

Monty Burnz wrote: »

To be fair to the crooked, incompetent bastard Ahern, he didn't sell himself to gullible voters as 'honest Bertie Ahern', unlike the crook Wallace.

No worse again he was taoiseach of the country for 11 years and ran the country into the ground and when it came time to face the music he ****ed off to another country to live off his fat pension just like mick wall...... oh wait:rolleyes:

donalg1

No

Divorce Referendum wrote: »

Where did i say that? I said Wallace may very well get removed for what he has done and i never said he wont go to jail. However the difference is the great bertie will NEVER get jail will he. How does that sit with you mister corruption super hero?




Yes he did and you realise he tried to pay that back and if he did it would never have hurt your oh so sensitive corruption ears. The company went bust and so did any chance of paying it back thanks to acc bank who reside outside this state. If he is such a corrupt fella as you think why operate a business for 20 years without tax dodging then. I mean why not defraud the taxpayer for numerous years if he is so corrupt as you put it.




ya sure maybe you could supply a bit of proof there then if that actually happened from this company then if you are so sure.



No worse again he was taoiseach of the country for 11 years and ran the country into the ground and when it came time to face the music he ****ed off to another country to live off his fat pension just like mick wall...... oh wait:rolleyes:

He only decided to do it when the company was losing money he didnt need to do it before then, he wanted to retain his lavish lifestyle so used VAT to fund it pretty simple really.

Divorce Referendum

Don't care

donalg1 wrote: »

He only decided to do it when the company was losing money he didnt need to do it before then, he wanted to retain his lavish lifestyle so used VAT to fund it pretty simple really.

Yet you have no proof ie the salary. pretty simple really. Supply actual proof that his salary was doubled coming out of this company. You like many others dont realise the slant that the media put on things.

Divorce Referendum

Don't care

donalg1 wrote: »

He didnt make any arrangement to pay it. He said he cant and therefore wont be paying it back.

Two arrangements have been made actually one has been stopped for obvious reasons.

In 2010 Mr Wallace said an agreement to pay back the VAT owed was reached, but following a court case at the end of last year in which he was ordered to repay €19m to ACC Bank, it became clear the company could not make its repayments

And he also said he would be giving half his salary to start paying back the tax bill in his recent speech in the dail

Monty Burnz

No

Divorce Referendum wrote: »

Where did i say that? I said Wallace may very well get removed for what he has done and i never said he wont go to jail. However the difference is the great bertie will NEVER get jail will he. How does that sit with you mister corruption super hero?

Not well, because I think ALL corruption needs to be punished, not just corruption by people I don't like.

Divorce Referendum wrote: »

Yes he did and you realise he tried to pay that back and if he did it would never have hurt your oh so sensitive corruption ears. The company went bust and so did any chance of paying it back thanks to acc bank who reside outside this state. If he is such a corrupt fella as you think why operate a business for 20 years without tax dodging then. I mean why not defraud the taxpayer for numerous years if he is so corrupt as you put it.

Because he didn't need to steal tax before, he was making money hand over fist. And presumably he saw how other corrupt people got away with it and thought, 'why not me?'

Divorce Referendum wrote: »

ya sure maybe you could supply a bit of proof there then if that actually happened from this company then if you are so sure.

It's in the public domain. Although I'm not surprised you missed it with your head stuck in the sand.

Divorce Referendum wrote: »

No worse again he was taoiseach of the country for 11 years and ran the country into the ground and when it came time to face the music he ****ed off to another country to live off his fat pension just like mick wall...... oh wait:rolleyes:

You realise that this has nothing to do with Wallace's corruption? It's like saying that Ronnie Biggs got away with robbery so nobody else should be punished for it either. Bizarre lack of logic.

I presume if I search I won't ever see you bitching about Sean Fitzpatrick, David Drumm and all those other folks who contributed to the nation's bankruptcy? Or do you have a special thing for Wallace?

Monty Burnz

No

Divorce Referendum wrote: »

Yet you have no proof ie the salary. pretty simple really. Supply actual proof that his salary was doubled coming out of this company. You like many others dont realise the slant that the media put on things.

It's in the public domain. If the below isn't true, Wallace can win back a few grand from the taxpayer by suing the Mail - but he won't, will he?

But, in the meantime, Mr Wallace is being urged to answer questions he did not directly address during his 10-minute Dáil speech on Thursday.
Those questions include why he and his son, Sasha, doubled their company salaries to almost €300,000 in 2008, around the time the VAT fraud was being committed and when the firm was losing money.

So he did double his and his son's salary at the same time as he was stealing money from the tax payer because he was so 'desperate' to keep his company going (tiny violin).

Divorce Referendum

Don't care

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Not well, because I think ALL corruption needs to be punished, not just corruption by people I don't like.

Because he didn't need to steal tax before, he was making money hand over fist. And presumably he saw how other corrupt people got away with it and though, 'why not me?'

It's in the public domain. Although I'm not surprised you missed it with your head stuck in the sand.

You realise that this has nothing to do with Wallace's corruption? It's like saying that Ronnie Biggs got away with robbery so nobody else should be punished for it either. Bizarre lack of logic.

I said actual proof it was from this company old chap. Not a newapaper clipping saying he doubled his salary. He has other companies in case you forgot or cared.

No actually he wasnt making money hand over fist but you would know that right cause you looked at his profit and loss in the noughties.


I do realise bertie has nothing to do with mick wallace yet i seem to remember you bringing the **** up and proclaiming they are one and the same:rolleyes:

Divorce Referendum

Don't care

Monty Burnz wrote: »

It's in the public domain. If the below isn't true, Wallace can win back a few grand from the taxpayer by suing the Mail - but he won't, will he?


So he did double his and his son's salary at the same time as he was stealing money from the tax payer because he was so 'desperate' to keep his company going (tiny violin).

I dont know you tell me. Whats the success rate for the daily mail being right? And by the way its reported as happening in 2008 so it was before the underdeclaration of vat.

Monty Burnz

No

Divorce Referendum wrote: »

I said actual proof it was from this company old chap. Not a newapaper clipping saying he doubled his salary. He has other companies in case you forgot or cared.

It's the same company (the article specifies 'the firm'). Not that that matters, of course - stealing money from the taxpayer while pocketing 600k between himself and his son... :rolleyes:

Divorce Referendum wrote: »

I do realise bertie has nothing to do with mick wallace yet i seem to remember you bringing the **** up and proclaiming they are one and the same:rolleyes:

They are both corrupt. I'd say Bertie is worse, but I'm sure there are some fans of Bertie (like you are a fan of Wallace) who would point out that Bertie has never been convicted of anything.

So should we punish corrupt people or not in this country? Should we punish corrupt politicians like Wallace? Or corrupt big businessmen like Wallace?

Monty Burnz

No

Divorce Referendum wrote: »

I dont know you tell me. Whats the success rate for the daily mail being right?

Like I said, if they were wrong, Wallace could make a killing from a libel suit. I haven't heard about a libel suit, have you?