Should Mick Wallace resign over his VAT 'problem'?

donalg1

No

Divorce Referendum wrote: »

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

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

Wow so he is going to use his state salary to pay back money he owes to the state, well isnt he a marvel. He will still be on a fantastic salary and expenses so he could in all honesty afford a lot more than half his salary. He should resign and that way the state wont have to pay him anything so he will in fact save the state and irish taxpayer a lot more money.

donalg1

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.

Why would anyone double their salary when their company is failing, and double the salary of their son too while employees are losing their jobs?

Divorce Referendum

Don't care

Monty Burnz wrote: »

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?

No but I havent heard of anything at all yet to be honest. These things take time in Ireland as you well know. If he was to charged with this vat thing it would probably be next year or the year after before he would be brought to court anyway.

Divorce Referendum

Don't care

donalg1 wrote: »

Wow so he is going to use his state salary to pay back money he owes to the state, well isnt he a marvel. He will still be on a fantastic salary and expenses so he could in all honesty afford a lot more than half his salary. He should resign and that way the state wont have to pay him anything so he will in fact save the state and irish taxpayer a lot more money.

Well you said he didnt make a payment agreement and you got your answer. He had already made an agreement to pay it back when the company was still operational and it didnt work out. No it wont save any money actually because that salary will go to another representative if he steps down so still a use of taxpayers money.

donalg1

No

Divorce Referendum wrote: »

Well you said he didnt make a payment agreement and you got your answer. He had already made an agreement to pay it back when the company was still operational and it didnt work out. No it wont save any money actually because that salary will go to another representative if he steps down so still a use of taxpayers money.

It certainly would save money as a Gangster like Mick will be milking the expenses system for all its worth to try and recoup the 50% salary cut he has taken. Still though in all seriousness I cant honestly believe people commend him for using half his state salary to pay back money he stole from the state!!

He made a payment agreement knowing full well he would never live up to it, its no different than me stealing €1.4m from someone today then telling them I will pay it back only to turn around and say actually I cant so I wont, but at least I said I would do it.

Monty Burnz

No

Divorce Referendum wrote: »

Well you said he didnt make a payment agreement and you got your answer. He had already made an agreement to pay it back when the company was still operational and it didnt work out. No it wont save any money actually because that salary will go to another representative if he steps down so still a use of taxpayers money.

But Waterford's next representative might not be a tax fraudster! You don't think his sudden move into politics has anything to do with the collapse of his business empire? He was just cashing in his popularity, and I guess now we know why...

Divorce Referendum

Don't care

Monty Burnz wrote: »

But Waterford's next representative might not be a tax fraudster! You don't think his sudden move into politics has anything to do with the collapse of his business empire? He was just cashing in his popularity, and I guess now we know why...

Its wexford by the way waterford may be close by but they have their own representatives and are a different county. Everyone is entitled to run for election if you think he did it for that reason fair enough thats your opinion unfortunately it probably wont count as you dont seem to be from his constituency.

Monty Burnz

No

Divorce Referendum wrote: »

Its wexford by the way waterford may be close by but they have their own representatives and are a different county. Everyone is entitled to run for election if you think he did it for that reason fair enough thats your opinion unfortunately it probably wont count as you dont seem to be from his constituency.

Yes, Wexford of course, my bad. I only hope that the voters of Wexford don't disgrace themselves the way the goons in Tipperary do, voting for that corrupt, tax-cheating gnome Michael Lowry year in, year out.

Chiparus

Don't care

donalg1 wrote: »

It certainly would save money as a Gangster like Mick will be milking the expenses system for all its worth to try and recoup the 50% salary cut he has taken. Still though in all seriousness I cant honestly believe people commend him for using half his state salary to pay back money he stole from the state!!

He made a payment agreement knowing full well he would never live up to it, its no different than me stealing €1.4m from someone today then telling them I will pay it back only to turn around and say actually I cant so I wont, but at least I said I would do it.

Yea, he really needs to bump up his expenses, he has one of the lowest claims of any TD.

http://www.herald.ie/news/independent-tds-in-700k-expenses-haul-3124700.html

Monty Burnz

No

Chiparus wrote: »

Yea, he really needs to bump up his expenses, he has one of the lowest claims of any TD.

http://www.herald.ie/news/independent-tds-in-700k-expenses-haul-3124700.html

Well he already pocketed over a million of our money, so he can afford to go easy.

donalg1

No

Chiparus wrote: »

donalg1 wrote: »

It certainly would save money as a Gangster like Mick will be milking the expenses system for all its worth to try and recoup the 50% salary cut he has taken. Still though in all seriousness I cant honestly believe people commend him for using half his state salary to pay back money he stole from the state!!

He made a payment agreement knowing full well he would never live up to it, its no different than me stealing €1.4m from someone today then telling them I will pay it back only to turn around and say actually I cant so I wont, but at least I said I would do it.

Yea, he really needs to bump up his expenses, he has one of the lowest claims of any TD.

http://www.herald.ie/news/independent-tds-in-700k-expenses-haul-3124700.html

Point was he will be down half his salary so his expenses will no doubt increase now so unless that article is talking about his expenses from the last week its pretty irrelevant.

But as Monty pointed out he did steal 1.4million so that's probably why he hasn't claimed more expenses to date

Judgement Day

Don't care

donalg1 wrote: »

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.

Do you live in County Wexford? I do, and anybody that I know who voted for Mick last time out say they will again if need be.

Monty Burnz

No

Judgement Day wrote: »

Do you live in County Wexford? I do, and anybody that I know who voted for Mick last time out say they will again if need be.

Ok, same as the clowns who vote for tax cheat Michael Lowry in Tipp so.

Judgement Day

Don't care

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Ok, same as the clowns who vote for tax cheat Michael Lowry in Tipp so.

No comparison as far as I'm concerned - Michael Lowry is a cheap crook who was involved in various scandals including Ben Dunne rebuilding his house for him and then was involved in the Esat mobile phone debacle. Mick Wallace is a business man who got into financial difficulties and robbed Peter to pay Paul - something that goes on daily in business life. Do you run your own business?

Monty Burnz

No

Judgement Day wrote: »

No comparison as far as I'm concerned - Michael Lowry is a cheap crook who was involved in various scandals including Ben Dunne rebuilding his house for him and then was involved in the Esat mobile phone debacle. Mick Wallace is a business man who got into financial difficulties and robbed Peter to pay Paul - something that goes on daily in business life. Do you run your own business?

He robbed the tax payer to prop up his own business and award himself and his son massive pay rises. Cheap crook indeed. Then he goes on marches decrying cuts to special needs teachers (because we are short of tax income) and gets out of the building business and into the politics business before news of his fraud gets out. And he can rely on the dupes in Wexford to keep voting this 'honest builder' into the Dáil for the foreseeable future.

As far as I'm concerned anyone who votes for the likes of Healy-Rae, Lowry and, now, Wallace has given up any right to complain about the shocking standard of government in this country seeing as they are major contributors to it. We really do get the politicians we deserve.

Judgement Day

Don't care

Monty Burnz wrote: »

He robbed the tax payer to prop up his own business and award himself and his son massive pay rises. Cheap crook indeed. Then he goes on marches decrying cuts to special needs teachers (because we are short of tax income) and gets out of the building business and into the politics business before news of his fraud gets out. And he can rely on the dupes in Wexford to keep voting this 'honest builder' into the Dáil for the foreseeable future.

As far as I'm concerned anyone who votes for the likes of Healy-Rae, Lowry and, now, Wallace has given up any right to complain about the shocking standard of government in this country seeing as they are major contributors to it. We really do get the politicians we deserve.

Fine, we will have to agree to disagree. However, given that the three politicians you mention are only a tiny percentage of the Dail it follows that the other elected representatives (and the electorate who put them there) bear an even heavier responsibilty for the state of the country. Incidentally, it was common knowledge in County Wexford that Mick Wallace was in financial trouble well before the last election.

Monty Burnz

No

Judgement Day wrote: »

Fine, we will have to agree to disagree. However, given that the three politicians you mention are only a tiny percentage of the Dail it follows that the other elected representatives (and the electorate who put them there) bear an even heavier responsibilty for the state of the country.

I sincerely hope you never stoop to the hypocrisy of complaining about corrupt politicians then - if you think it's ok for wallace to be a thief, then it should apply to them all even if they are not from your parish.

Judgement Day wrote: »

Incidentally, it was common knowledge in County Wexford that Mick Wallace was in financial trouble well before the last election.

Was it common knowledge that he had stolen €1.4 million euros that his customers had paid in tax?

Judgement Day

Don't care

Oh but I do rant on about corrupt politicians, and inept ones, but I judge each one on a case-by-case basis rather than tarring them all with the same brush. If you can't see the difference between Ray Burke, Liam Lawlor, Charlie Haughey, P Flynn, Lowry, Albert Reynolds, Bertie Ahern and Mick Wallace then that's your problem.

bmaxi

No

Mentioning Haughey, Ahern etc. is just smoke and mirrors, the crook we're talking about here is Wallace.

Monty Burnz

No

Judgement Day wrote: »

Oh but I do rant on about corrupt politicians, and inept ones, but I judge each one on a case-by-case basis rather than tarring them all with the same brush. If you can't see the difference between Ray Burke, Liam Lawlor, Charlie Haughey, P Flynn, Lowry, Albert Reynolds, Bertie Ahern and Mick Wallace then that's your problem.

Clearly some of us see a role for corrupt politicians in the Oireachteas, and some of us don't. Glad you're off the fence at least.

donalg1

No

Judgement Day wrote: »

donalg1 wrote: »

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.

Do you live in County Wexford? I do, and anybody that I know who voted for Mick last time out say they will again if need be.

Anyone I know has said they won't but there aren't many though admitting they voted for him in the first place as this would make them look stupid and saying they would vote for him again is just ridiculous

Judgement Day

Don't care

donalg1 wrote: »

Anyone I know has said they won't but there aren't many though admitting they voted for him in the first place as this would make them look stupid and saying they would vote for him again is just ridiculous

Rather undermines your point if the people you spoke to didn't have the balls to admit that they voted for him in the first place.

Monty Burnz

No

Judgement Day wrote: »

Rather undermines your point if the people you spoke to didn't have the balls to admit that they voted for him in the first place.

You can understand their embarrassment in falling for the marketing about his 'honesty' when he stood for election knowing full well he had stolen €1.4 million from the taxpayer while awarding huge payrises to himself and his son from a business he knew was going bust.

donalg1

No

Judgement Day wrote: »

Rather undermines your point if the people you spoke to didn't have the balls to admit that they voted for him in the first place.

Not really it just shows how much opinion of him has changed, they were foolish the first time when they voted for him so there is no chance of that happening again. Fool me once and all that.

foxcoverteddy

Be honest, you must treat all criminals the same, not pick and choose, Mick is no different to the rest of them, throw them all out of the Dail.

bmaxi

No

foxcoverteddy wrote: »

Be honest, you must treat all criminals the same, not pick and choose, Mick is no different to the rest of them, throw them all out of the Dail.

Wish it were that easy. Over the years people have been hoodwinked and misled by crooks who then promoted their friends and family, e.g. Haughey/Ahern, Flynn/Flynn.
To a large extent the membership of the Dail is one big cartel, cleaning them out would take revolution a la France in 1789. Adding more crooks to the mix is not going to make it any easier.

Monty Burnz

No

bmaxi wrote: »

Wish it were that easy. Over the years people have been hoodwinked and misled by crooks who then promoted their friends and family, e.g. Haughey/Ahern, Flynn/Flynn.
To a large extent the membership of the Dail is one big cartel, cleaning them out would take revolution a la France in 1789. Adding more crooks to the mix is not going to make it any easier.

If people could stop voting for their local crook it would be a lot easier. 'He may be a crook, but he's our crook'. :rolleyes:

Judgement Day

Don't care

Monty Burnz wrote: »

If people could stop voting for their local crook it would be a lot easier. 'He may be a crook, but he's our crook'. :rolleyes:

You didn't address a point that I raised earlier, do you run your own business? If you do, and can honestly claim here that you have never robbed Peter to pay Paul, you are either very lucky or a liar.

Monty Burnz

No

Judgement Day wrote: »

You didn't address a point that I raised earlier, do you run your own business? If you do, and can honestly claim here that you have never robbed Peter to pay Paul, you are either very lucky or a liar.

I don't run my own business. But I have opportunities to steal every single day. Guess how many times I have stolen?

And calling it 'robbing Peter to pay Paul' makes it sound like he was just shuffling around his own money. He wasn't. He was robbing hospitals and schools to pay himself.

Judgement Day

Don't care

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I don't run my own business. But I have opportunities to steal every single day. Guess how many times I have stolen?

And calling it 'robbing Peter to pay Paul' makes it sound like he was just shuffling around his own money. He wasn't. He was robbing hospitals and schools to pay himself.

He was shuffling around whatever money came to hand - been there, done that, got the video and t-shirt - it's called the real world.