Strokestown **Mod Note in Post #4461**

Franz Von Peppercorn

noodler wrote: »

Who wants to tell the Belgian taxpayer they aren't getting their money back because Irish people who voluntarily borrowed money from KBC reckon its fair game not to pay it back because of perceived issues with their lending practices?

Was KBC bailed out.

Odd though that the free market applies to borrowers (don’t pay or we’ll take it away) and not to lenders (oh. You lent 2 million euro to bozo the clown. That’s not your fault. Here’s a tax payer bailout).

Even odder that tax payers get angry with the little guy and not the big guy.

Geuze

klaaaz wrote: »

but they rather pick on a vulnerable farmer instead.

People who commit VAT fraud of 177,000 are not vulnerable, they are cold, calculating criminals.

368100

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Was KBC bailed out.

Odd though that the free market applies to borrowers (don’t pay or we’ll take it away) and not to lenders (oh. You lent 2 million euro to bozo the clown. That’s not your fault. Here’s a tax payer bailout).

Even odder that tax payers get angry with the little guy and not the big guy.

No they werent, I detailed it in a previous post

Franz Von Peppercorn

368100 wrote: »

No they werent, I detailed it in a previous post

So what’s the Belgian taxpayer got to do with anything?

markodaly

klaaaz wrote: »

So when the law of the land was not followed by an alleged court order in which no written news outlet has stated that such a court order even exists, then the defenders of the banksters in this thread treat criticism of the banksters and their hired violent goonsters as "fake news!"

The court order that doesn't exist..... clutching at straws. I suppose any port in a storm.

Yes, people are stupid enough to believe anything.

368100

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

So what’s the Belgian taxpayer got to do with anything?

I dont know, I didnt bring it up

JP Liz V1

Are the evictees back in the house?

markodaly

Fann Linn wrote: »

Well, do you dispute the UDA/ Loyalist connection?

Yes. Its all crap spouted on Social media. What is the actual Link here?

The owner of the company bought a cat from an ex UDA man or something really tenuous like that?

Show me facts!

riemann

Geuze wrote: »

People who commit VAT fraud of 177,000 are not vulnerable, they are cold, calculating criminals.

No that's probably not true.

A likely circumstance is a man engaged in business unfortunately not in full understanding of how the tax system works at first. Instead of putting vat contribution of invoice away, it goes into cash flow.
Stupid, yes.
Criminal, no.
Illegal, yes.

Sad situation for all involved.

Jeff2

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

Are the evictees back in the house?

Two are after not paying.

It's better than Corrie.

BattleCorp

riemann wrote: »

Geuze wrote: »

People who commit VAT fraud of 177,000 are not vulnerable, they are cold, calculating criminals.

No that's probably not true.

A likely circumstance is a man engaged in business unfortunately not in full understanding of how the tax system works at first. Instead of putting vat contribution of invoice away, it goes into cash flow.
Stupid, yes.
Criminal, no.
Illegal, yes.

Sad situation for all involved.

Did he not understand how getting stuff from a quarry worked either? In that he'd have to pay for it.

The lengths people are going to defend the indefensible is beyond me.

runawaybishop

riemann wrote: »

No that's probably not true.

A likely circumstance is a man engaged in business unfortunately not in full understanding of how the tax system works at first. Instead of putting vat contribution of invoice away, it goes into cash flow.
Stupid, yes.
Criminal, no.
Illegal, yes.

Sad situation for all involved.

That's not what happened. He got the max penalty which means it was deliberate and he did went out of his way to frustrate revenue.

Kermit.de.frog

riemann wrote: »

No that's probably not true.

A likely circumstance is a man engaged in business unfortunately not in full understanding of how the tax system works at first.

Can't hire proper accountants, no?

Just ignorant was he?

It's not a defence in any case. The law is the law.

Fann Linn

markodaly wrote: »

Yes. Its all crap spouted on Social media. What is the actual Link here?

The owner of the company bought a cat from an ex UDA man or something really tenuous like that?

Show me facts!

Go look on twitter like the rest of us. I posted his name so ye should find it handy enough.

Jeff2

riemann wrote: »

No that's probably not true.

A likely circumstance is a man engaged in business unfortunately not in full understanding of how the tax system works at first. Instead of putting vat contribution of invoice away, it goes into cash flow.
Stupid, yes.
Criminal, no.
Illegal, yes.

Sad situation for all involved.

Yes, once.
But over 18 years of being an idiot who is greedy and wants to keep all the money.

BattleCorp

Anyway, I've to go to bed now because I've to get up at 6am to travel 1.5 hours to Dublin to work so that I can pay my mortgage.

Night night.

markodaly

Fann Linn wrote: »

Go look on twitter like the rest of us. I posted his name so ye should find it handy enough.

Ah, Twitter, the paragon of truth...

Yeap, its all nonsense and fake news.

Fann Linn

markodaly wrote: »

Ah, Twitter, the paragon of truth...

Yeap, its all nonsense and fake news.

Same old Mark.

Jeff2

In all honesty would anyone here rent a house out to the evicted.?

Me. Feck, not a chance I would.

PARlance

Jeff2 wrote: »

Two are after not paying.

It's better than Corrie.

I think it's the 97 and 108 year old that got back in.

riemann

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Can't hire proper accountants, no?

Just ignorant was he?

It's not a defence in any case. The law is the law.

Ah kermit, welcome.

This is a place for big boy speak. If there are some words you aren't familiar with, you may find a thesaurus seful.

What may confuse you is scale. Different levels of turnover require different approaches. Some businesses experience explosive growth, some don't.

In some instances the Revenue Commissioners issue legal proceedings with the intention of collecting the unexpected. In other instances they may decide not to collect, even if it is in the 8 figure category.

Its quite complicated, so again, if you experience any difficulty understanding, please get in touch.

riemann

BattleCorp wrote: »

Anyway, I've to go to bed now because I've to get up at 6am to travel 1.5 hours to Dublin to work so that I can pay my mortgage.

Night night.

Jesus sounds like a sad life. Maybe you should have worked harder.

fullstop

listermint wrote: »

Fiddling the books and fiddling the banks and people are still defending it.

Hilarious.

I suppose there is always planks that enjoy taking the contrary view just to annoy everyone else

The ‘thanks’ function is very handy on threads like this. Scroll to the end of long post, thanked by a certain 4-word username who is the biggest contrarian around, skip reading it because you can guarantee it’s nonsense

riemann

Jeff2 wrote: »

Yes, once.
But over 18 years of being an idiot who is greedy and wants to keep all the money.

And yet banks are throwing money at him.

Who is the real idiot here!?

riemann

BattleCorp wrote: »

Anyway, I've to go to bed now because I've to get up at 6am to travel 1.5 hours to Dublin to work so that I can pay my mortgage.

Night night.

This really is very sad. I've nothing else to add.

pablo128

riemann wrote: »

And yet banks are throwing money at him.

Who is the real idiot here!?

The last time a bank loaned him money was 2004. Remember this was in the boom. He never paid a cent.

Roll on 14 years and you are defending him to the hilt and your reason is a lad said he was British.

Let that sink in.

MrMusician18

BattleCorp wrote: »

Did he not understand how getting stuff from a quarry worked either? In that he'd have to pay for it.

The lengths people are going to defend the indefensible is beyond me.

Or indeed loans from ACC, a state owned bank at the time.

fullstop

[Deleted User] wrote: »

this has been subject to court scrutiny and passed muster

whats your basis for the scattershot rhetoric?

In fairness to him he hasn’t a clue what he’s talking about, and he just learned a new phrase today...’due dilligence’. Wants to get a chance to use it where possible.

Kermit.de.frog

riemann wrote: »

Ah kermit, welcome.

This is a place for big boy speak. If there are some words you aren't familiar with, you may find a thesaurus seful.

What may confuse you is scale. Different levels of turnover require different approaches. Some businesses experience explosive growth, some don't.

In some instances the Revenue Commissioners issue legal proceedings with the intention of collecting the unexpected. In other instances they may decide not to collect, even if it is in the 8 figure category.

Its quite complicated, so again, if you experience any difficulty understanding, please get in touch.

Firstly, don't insult other posters. It's against the forum charter.

You clearly think the man is stupid and we are supposed to believe that. Again did he have proper certified accountants like most businesses?

That is your defence for him, that he is an idiot essentially.

No one is buying that as you can see. Ignorance is not a defence in law in any case.

markodaly

riemann wrote: »

This is a place for big boy speak. If there are some words you aren't familiar with, you may find a thesaurus seful.

Oh the irony. LOZ

markodaly

Those claiming the guy didn't know much about his tax responsibilities are like those in the church who did not know it was wrong to rape and sexually assault preteen children, back in the day.

Again, people are just so ****ing stupid.

MrMusician18

riemann wrote: »

No that's probably not true.

A likely circumstance is a man engaged in business unfortunately not in full understanding of how the tax system works at first. Instead of putting vat contribution of invoice away, it goes into cash flow.
Stupid, yes.
Criminal, no.
Illegal, yes.

Sad situation for all involved.

The penalty applied was 100% indicating that the individual did not cooperate. It's hard to say it was a mere oversight in that case.

riemann

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Firstly, don't insult other posters. It's against the forum charter.

You clearly think the man is stupid and we are supposed to believe that. Again did he have proper certified accountants like most businesses?

That is your defence for him, that he is an idiot essentially.

No one is buying that as you can see. Ignorance is not a defence in law in any case.

Where did I insult a poster?

Please try and keep up, I know it's tough.

You are a moderator, I assume this is indicative of an education of sorts. Whether or not this is true remains to be seen. I just know a moderator is someone whom I would respect in real life and I wish you well.

riemann

markodaly wrote: »

Oh the irony. LOZ

Oh no I missed a character.

WoollyRedHat

The Strokestown-Last nite

davidk1394

pablo128 wrote: »

markodaly wrote: »

If they farmers were Travelers instead the same suspects would be lauding the evictions.

I said earlier in the thread that the 70 heroes in the dead of night wouldn't be as quick to attack a travellers camp full of burglars terrorising their neighbours.

I’d gladly fire the first shot if that was the case

relax carry on

riemann wrote: »

No that's probably not true.

A likely circumstance is a man engaged in business unfortunately not in full understanding of how the tax system works at first. Instead of putting vat contribution of invoice away, it goes into cash flow.
Stupid, yes.
Criminal, no.
Illegal, yes.

Sad situation for all involved.

The penalty applied by Revenue says otherwise. It's 100% of the the tax putting it into the deliberate behaviour category with no cooperation. The 100% penalty is not used lightly. This is not someone who didn't know what they were doing.

eagle eye

Kermit.de.frog wrote:

No one is buying that as you can see. Ignorance is not a defence in law in any case.

Yes what he did was wrong but what the bank did was wrong as well.
Sending in these thugs was a serious error and it doesn't appear as if they have learned anything from it.
I don't feel one bit sorry for this bank because of how they have handled things.
If the house and lands are going to be taken by anyone I want it to be the state and not that bank.

end of the road

bubblypop wrote: »

Being a retired Garda does not make you a pensioner. You can retire from AGS at 50 years old.

Not bailed out by the Irish taxpayer, therefore absolutely no argument

doesn't matter as we don't know when he retired or his age. doesn't change the facts of the disgraceful treatment he received.

bubblypop wrote: »

What about the others?
If they had just left the property, there wouldn't have been any issues.

that doesn't change the behaviour of the individuals carying out the eviction.

goat2

Was the business that he ran successful, if not, may be he could not afford to pay,

Geuze

riemann wrote: »

No that's probably not true.

A likely circumstance is a man engaged in business unfortunately not in full understanding of how the tax system works at first. Instead of putting vat contribution of invoice away, it goes into cash flow.
Stupid, yes.
Criminal, no.
Illegal, yes.

Sad situation for all involved.

Revenue penalties of 100% of the unpaid VAT indicate a severe and sustained lack of co-operation with Revenue.

Not, as you describe, a person "unfortunately not in full understanding of how the tax system works"

Geuze

goat2 wrote: »

Was the business that he ran successful, if not, may be he could not afford to pay,

He collected VAT from customers, and kept it.

177,000 VAT.

eagle eye

This thread is throwing up some great stuff. A retired guard in his fifties is not a pensioner, even.though he is on a pension.

Jeff2

goat2 wrote: »

Was the business that he ran successful, if not, may be he could not afford to pay,

No idea, but in business you charge tax and then pay it to revenue and not pocket €177,000

markodaly

Geuze wrote: »

He collected VAT from customers, and kept it.

177,000 VAT.

For our slow friends, that could pay the annual salary of 2 nurses and 3 Special Needs Assistants...

Yet, people defend him...

If you defend this guy, you basically give up your right to complain about our public services and lack of funding thereof.

Jeff2

eagle eye wrote: »

This thread is throwing up some great stuff. A retired guard in his fifties is not a pensioner, even.though he is on a pension.

I believe 25 years service and you can retire full pension.

Dank Janniels

Iv been offline all day today, what an absolute u turn all this has become!! Poor innocent elderly couple to a middle aged tax dodging farmer!! Haha brilliant!! Hon the Rossies!!

worded

STB. wrote: »

That's about as relevant as discussing Irish taxpayers and unsecured bond holders.

Banks are cúnts. There was an awful lot of gambling going on between 2000 and 2006 and those gambling debts were covered by the Irish taxpayer. KBC made a net profit after tax of €113m for the first six months of this year. They recently sold just under €2 billion of non performing loans to Goldman Sachs, so lets say they are not in the halfpenny place.

Nobody disagrees that people must pay back their loans. I resent it myself! It was the manner in which they did it in this particular case that is under debate. There are many in this thread who are not getting that point.

Here is corruption for you ...

Wells Fargo Bank Corruption in the USA – Skip to about 30 mins unless you have the time to listen to the history of the bank ...

Jaw dropping corruption e.g. where their dedicated whistling blowing line lead to the whistle blower being fired. 1000s of whistle blowers got the bullet !

https://open.spotify.com/episode/7IuY8qs0iEmF8w0sNAKvyQ?si=WL3sNqBVQgmfWE7PsC-tgA

Bank worth 250 Billion ! Wealthiest bank in USA. Warren Buffet major stake holder

eagle eye

Jeff2 wrote:

I believe 25 years service and you can retire full pension.

30 for all emergency services I believe.

BattleCorp

end of the road wrote: »

bubblypop wrote: »

Being a retired Garda does not make you a pensioner. You can retire from AGS at 50 years old.

Not bailed out by the Irish taxpayer, therefore absolutely no argument

doesn't matter as we don't know when he retired or his age. doesn't change the facts of the disgraceful treatment he received.

that doesn't change the behaviour of the individuals carying out the eviction.

I've seen the video. What disgraceful treatment did he receive. I saw him on the ground with the security guys pinning him down. Neither you nor I know what led to that but I can assure you it wasn't because he was minding his own business on the street.

I didn't see the security lads thumping the fcuk out of anyone. I saw them doing no more than any bouncer would do on a Saturday night.

You can argue that the security aren't licenced, I can't say if they are or aren't.

Face facts, none of this would have happened if:

a. The mortgage was paid.

b. The farmers obeyed the court order and left the bank's property without a struggle.