Kildare farmer objects to €8bn Intel investment...

Boggles

fryup wrote: »

yeah i know, but i'm talking about thugs out there who might see him as an easy target

Thugs did see him as an easy target, they were wrong.

As for criminals entering his property and trying to steal his belongs, that's something all farmers face daily all over the country.

To me it didn't look like he had much.

Kermit.de.frog

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

So if planners came to your house and told you that it needed to be demolished to make way for a new bypass or ring road that would ease traffic congestion I'm assuming you would have no problem with it?

Good of the community and all that, yeah?

How would anything anywhere be built then following your logic?

STB.

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

How would anything anywhere be built then following your logic?

I think this deserves an answer, even if it isn't posed at me.

It wasn't for major infrastructure for public use.

It was to secure the land and a working farm for a foreign multinational.

seasidedub

I watched the documentary-film about this and read about it extensively too.

He's being portrayed as the "David" to Intel's Golaith. His story is interesting - is love to know more about his upbringing and background as he's definitely a bit "off". Not mentally impaired, just a bit off. He sees this as clear case of the little guy fighting the big multinational corporations and the state who reckon they can force him to sell up by offering huge money and harassing him (in his view).

But here's the thing: do we in Ireland want the "common good" or not? For example, We say we pay too much for childcare and want scandi style day care which is funded through taxation. Then some people say they don't want to pay for other people's kids, "I minded my own" etc.

When I lived in Finland I owned a house leading to a forest. Municipality simply announced road would be widened, taking several metres off all our front gardens. End of. No compensation, no legal right to fight as it was for the common good. This is Finland, not China etc. Again, no compensation for this.

So, what do we want? Common good, or individual rights? It's not an easy call actually. Easy if you have nothing but very different as soon as you have something....

Boggles

STB. wrote: »

I think this deserves an answer, even if it isn't posed at me.

It wasn't for major infrastructure for public use.

It was to secure the land and a working farm for a foreign multinational.

Just to add. Illegally.

STB.

Boggles wrote: »

Just to add. Illegally.

For sure. Just to add that the legislation was amended subsequently to allow for this to be done legally.

Just think about that.

Some man has a working farm and the IDA can come in and say we are taking it off you regardless to give to a foreign multinatiional for industrial purposes, but don't worry its for the greater good.

When did private ownership become something the state think they could meddle in.

seasidedub

STB. wrote: »

Boggles wrote: »

Just to add. Illegally.

For sure. Just to add that the legislation was amended subsequently to allow for this to be done legally.

Just think about that.

Some man has a working farm and the IDA can come in and say we are taking it off you regardless to give to a foreign multinatiional for industrial purposes, but don't worry its for the greater good.

When did private ownership become something the state think they could meddle in.

I agree - but lots of groups are suggesting now that landowners who are supposedly "hoarding" landbanks should be taxed to help or forced to develop due to the housing issue. Private individuals are now being told they can't airbnb a second property (their own property), a big drive to assess how much room a person needs, ie a single person shouldn't be able to live in a 4 bed house. Landlords not entitled to sell a legally owned property without leaving a tenant in situ etc.

Interference in private rights are being fully suggested now, so we need to decide what we really want.

Boggles

seasidedub wrote: »

He's being portrayed as the "David" to Intel's Golaith. His story is interesting - is love to know more about his upbringing and background as he's definitely a bit "off". Not mentally impaired, just a bit off.

Been a "bit off" is open to interruption, isn't it? I mean lets be honest people buried in their smart device 10 hours a day hungry for e-likes is a bit off isn't it? How many examples do you need of society been a "bit off" especially in the last decade or so.

As for his upbringing, neither remarkable or unique, replicated up and down the country 1000s of times over.

The son who stayed to work the farm. He has 2 brothers who didn't apparently.

seasidedub wrote: »

He sees this as clear case of the little guy fighting the big multinational corporations and the state who reckon they can force him to sell up by offering huge money and harassing him (in his view).

In his view?

It was an illegal land grab by a semi state body with "unlimited" legal funds, what would you call it?

seasidedub wrote: »

But here's the thing: do we in Ireland want the "common good" or not? For example, We say we pay too much for childcare and want scandi style day care which is funded through taxation. Then some people say they don't want to pay for other people's kids, "I minded my own" etc.

Completely separate debate, but to be brief we need kids, even for people who don't have kids, those kids will be the ones paying their pensions when they retire.

seasidedub wrote: »

When I lived in Finland I owned a house leading to a forest. Municipality simply announced road would be widened, taking several metres off all our front gardens. End of. No compensation, no legal right to fight as it was for the common good. This is Finland, not China etc. Again, no compensation for this.

Well that is plainly wrong IMO.

seasidedub wrote: »

So, what do we want? Common good, or individual rights? It's not an easy call actually. Easy if you have nothing but very different as soon as you have something....

Well it's very easy in this case, one was a law abiding citizen the other broke the law.

The question I think you should be asking is.

What do we determine as the common good?

Is illegal land grabs to hand to trillion dollar companies for the greater good of society?

Companies that once a bar graph hits a certain threshold can up sticks and fúck off somewhere else in a hot minute?

STB.

seasidedub wrote: »

I agree - but lots of groups are suggesting now that landowners who are supposedly "hoarding" landbanks should be taxed to help or forced to develop due to the housing issue. Private individuals are now being told they can't airbnb a second property (their own property), a big drive to assess how much room a person needs, ie a single person shouldn't be able to live in a 4 bed house. Landlords not entitled to sell a legally owned property without leaving a tenant in situ etc.

Interference in private rights are being fully suggested now, so we need to decide what we really want.

Yes, but a lot of that stuff will be shot down, because there will be many who will say, hang on a second, no you wont.

Funny you should mention housing.

The IDA are sitting on an unused landbank of 2700 acres that they bought with tax payers money. 64% of their properties lie vacant. These are gambles the IDA took that obviously never materialised.

They should definitely be the first in the queue to be contacted for handing over to the particular council for housing purposes.

The IDA would love that wouldn't they.

rn

I think both issues should be considered separately. The CPO issue has been dealt with. And IDA lost. However the Intel investment should be fast tracked, while still following proper procedure. There's no reason it can't all be through in 24 weeks, end to end.

rn

There is a significant "greater good" met by having a trillion dollar company invest and be located in your locality and in our country in terms of a generator of wealth and finance in our economy.

sk8erboii

Whats that? International investment, more jobs, and development?

Dont want it. Not local.


>50 age range is cancerous in ireland. This demographic needs to die soon. Nothing but welfare leeches and backwards policy makers.

STB.

rn wrote: »

I think both issues should be considered separately. The CPO issue has been dealt with. And IDA lost. However the Intel investment should be fast tracked, while still following proper procedure. There's no reason it can't all be through in 24 weeks, end to end.

No they shouldn't. Clearly the previous actions and long term plan are linked.

The illegal CPO was only dealt with after years through various courts before someone had the sense to see the madness that was being tried on.

One man fighting multiple agencies and government departments.

The CPO issue has been dealt with, as its now legal to do this. This legislation change was done without my consent.

sk8erboii wrote: »

Whats that? International investment, more jobs, and development?

Dont want it. Not local.

>50 age range is cancerous in ireland. This demographic needs to die soon. Nothing but welfare leeches and backwards policy makers.

Private companies can at at time, seek property. Forcing people to sell is another matter altogether.

rn wrote: »

There is a significant "greater good" met by having a trillion dollar company invest and be located in your locality and in our country in terms of a generator of wealth and finance in our economy.

It is not the IDA's job to target working farms to be put to better uses for the common good for private multinational companies.

And make no mistake, this man was targeted.

Boggles

rn wrote: »

There is a significant "greater good" met by having a trillion dollar company invest and be located in your locality and in our country in terms of a generator of wealth and finance in our economy.

The "Greater Good" shouldn't be measured in Wealth creation, the bulk of which belongs to Intel by the way.

It should be measured in Cost.

In this instance, what is the cost going forward of trampling over one law abiding citizens rights?

If they can to do it to one, they can do it to all.

Again though I don't know how much more we can do for Multi Nationals, yet another law change on the back of this case.

Hand them blank statute books and tell them fill it in themselves?

I think they are a fantastic thing for Ireland, but there has to be a point were it will be impossible to bend over any more.

Mad_maxx

seasidedub wrote: »

I watched the documentary-film about this and read about it extensively too.

He's being portrayed as the "David" to Intel's Golaith. His story is interesting - is love to know more about his upbringing and background as he's definitely a bit "off". Not mentally impaired, just a bit off. He sees this as clear case of the little guy fighting the big multinational corporations and the state who reckon they can force him to sell up by offering huge money and harassing him (in his view).

But here's the thing: do we in Ireland want the "common good" or not? For example, We say we pay too much for childcare and want scandi style day care which is funded through taxation. Then some people say they don't want to pay for other people's kids, "I minded my own" etc.

When I lived in Finland I owned a house leading to a forest. Municipality simply announced road would be widened, taking several metres off all our front gardens. End of. No compensation, no legal right to fight as it was for the common good. This is Finland, not China etc. Again, no compensation for this.

So, what do we want? Common good, or individual rights? It's not an easy call actually. Easy if you have nothing but very different as soon as you have something....

We are Irish, we want to have our cake and eat it.

We also bitch about high mortgage rates yet viscerally oppose repossessions

Boggles

Mad_maxx wrote: »

We are Irish, we want to have our cake and eat it.

We also bitch about high mortgage rates yet viscerally oppose repossessions

I think Irish people in general would be forgiven to be wary of the banking sector.

I mean how many of those mortgages are in default because the banks illegally stole their low interest mortgage?

I think there is only sector scoffing down cake TBH.

ShlugEireann

How come they don't expand out the back?

Plumbthedepths

seasidedub wrote:

When I lived in Finland I owned a house leading to a forest. Municipality simply announced road would be widened, taking several metres off all our front gardens. End of. No compensation, no legal right to fight as it was for the common good. This is Finland, not China etc. Again, no compensation for this.

Widening the road was for the common good allowing the community safer access to the forest, widening the road so a private company could operate in the forest is not for the common good. See the difference?

HopsAndJumps

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Widening the road was for the common good allowing the community safer access to the forest, widening the road so a private company could operate in the forest is not for the common good. See the difference?

It could be argued that about 5000 jobs not the common good. High wage jobs, high tax going back into the economy to fund services, is that not the common good?

See the difference?

ShlugEireann

HopsAndJumps wrote: »

It could be argued that about 5000 jobs not the common good. High wage jobs, high tax going back into the economy to fund services, is that not the common good?

See the difference?

how many low wage jobs?

Also public services are severely lacking. Trains are packed, buses are packed, roads are jammed, not enough housing etc.

Mad_maxx

Boggles wrote: »

I think Irish people in general would be forgiven to be wary of the banking sector.

I mean how many of those mortgages are in default because the banks illegally stole their low interest mortgage?

I think there is only sector scoffing down cake TBH.

Do you think banks here are doing well?

Mad_maxx

ShlugEireann wrote: »

how many low wage jobs?

Also public services are severely lacking. Trains are packed, buses are packed, roads are jammed, not enough housing etc.

The likes of Intel tend not to be " low wage" job providers.

Besides, half of something is better than all of nothing

Boggles

Mad_maxx wrote: »

Do you think banks here are doing well?

Fantastically yeah.

1.6 billion profit for AIB, exempt from corporation tax for 20 years.

I'd call that doing all right, wouldn't mind being exempt from tax for a couple of decades meself.

What do you reckon?

ShlugEireann

Mad_maxx wrote: »

The likes of Intel tend not to be " low wage" job providers.

Besides, half of something is better than all of nothing

Think you should take a visit to a multinational and see who's cleaning the floors, who's working in the canteens, who's cutting the grass.

Plumbthedepths

HopsAndJumps wrote:

It could be argued that about 5000 jobs not the common good. High wage jobs, high tax going back into the economy to fund services, is that not the common good?

It's not, trampling on property rights for the benefit of private business is never a good thing.

blackwhite

Boggles wrote: »

Fantastically yeah.

1.6 billion profit for AIB, exempt from corporation tax for 20 years.

I'd call that doing all right, wouldn't mind being exempt from tax for a couple of decades meself.

What do you reckon?

Just need to make losses this year that equal the next 20 years of profits and you'll be treated the same.


Are there really still idiots who think that this was some sort of special deal that AIB got?

It's the same carry-forward of tax losses that every single Irish company is entitled to avail of if they make a loss.

And what's more - as the Government sells the AIB shares off, the value of the future tax losses is factored into the price that they get.

It's amazing how gullible people can be for an easy headline - and how unwilling they are to do the tiniest piece of research to educate themselves on the facts

Boggles

blackwhite wrote: »

It's the same carry-forward of tax losses that every single Irish company is entitled to avail of if they make a loss.

Yeah tis the same level playing field for all

:pac:

Butcher makes dramatically loses his business goes under, he doesn't get bailed out, he doesn't get tax exempt.

But sure we need a banking system you say, but sure don't we need butchers, bakers and candle stick makers too?

We are aware that is the way world works, but don't induce vomit in the back mouth by trying to paint a false narrative that we all weren't shafted to the Nth degree by the banks.

But hey The Greater Good right?

HopsAndJumps

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

It's not, trampling on property rights for the benefit of private business is never a good thing.

Private business.... And thousands of workers and the country as a whole.

blackwhite

Boggles wrote: »

Yeah tis the same level playing field for all

:pac:

Butcher makes dramatically loses his business goes under, he doesn't get bailed out, he doesn't get tax exempt.

But sure we need a banking system you say, but sure don't we need butchers, bakers and candle stick makers too?

We are aware that is the way world works, but don't induce vomit in the back mouth by trying to paint a false narrative that we all weren't shafted to the Nth degree by the banks.

But hey The Greater Good right?

The shareholders of the banks when they made the losses were wiped out - and the bailout meant that the Govt took over ownership.

It’s the equivalent of the local going bust - and to save the jobs and his suppliers he sells his shares to someone else for next to nothing - but the new owner agrees to invest new capital into the shop. Maybe that’s too complex for you to process?

Are people really so stupid that they don’t realise that “the banks” don’t own themselves - or have the same owners now?

The impact of keeping the same tax rules in place meant that the new shareholder (the Irish State) needed to inject less capital during the bailout - and is now getting a higher price as they divest those shares to new investors.

In the case of AIB - choosing not to change the law on forward tax losses means that we take the value up front, instead of getting higher taxes in the future.

Some people seem to think it’s a good idea to defer getting that money over 2 years - and pay interest on the additional borrowing that’s needed in the short term. :rolleyes:

McMurphy

Finally got around to watching this last night, yeah I agree it was a weird docu-drama, and found myself googling to see if Reid had an actor playing him, or was it himself in it.

Someone offered me 10m to vacate my run down farm, and my house riddled with hoarded clutter, I'd take the hands of them.

However, I'm not Thomas Reid, it's plain this man cares not a jot for money or other material possessions, his run down farm and clutter ridden house is his world, and he seems to be very happy in that world.

Kinda chilling how the state blatantly tried to underhandedly get him out, and but for a blunder in court would have succeeded.

Boggles

blackwhite wrote: »

It’s the equivalent of the local going bust - and to save the jobs and his suppliers he sells his shares to someone else for next to nothing - but the new owner agrees to invest new capital into the shop. Maybe that’s too complex for you to process?

Butcher wouldn't have shares he would just go bust, no bail out, no tax right off.

So it's not a level playing field is it?

I'd rather chance my arm being an apologist for the Catholic Church than the Banks TBH, but go right ahead Sir.

Boggles

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

However, I'm not Thomas Reid, it's plain this man cares not a jot for money or other material possessions, his run down farm and clutter ridden house is his world, and he seems to be very happy in that world.

Kinda chilling how the state blatantly tried to underhandedly get him out, and but for a blunder in court would have succeeded.

His solicitor advised him after the High Court went against him to wind it up.

It was his decision alone to go to the Supreme Court, where again the judgement of 5 Supreme Court Judges was unanimous.

He alluded to it in the film how it effected him, but he certainly underplayed it, can you even begin to image the absolute constant pressure for the best part of a decade he was under, they tried to steal the one thing in life he cared about the most. It's extremely hard to process.

In a world where a few arrogant cúnts in the banks hoped up on coke can ruin the "greater good" or an arm of the state can try and illegally crush a law abiding citizen and hand what he owns to a private company.

Isn't Thomas Reid fantastic? He is the Greater Good.

He must be worth 10 Chip factories.

blackwhite

Boggles wrote: »

Butcher wouldn't have shares he would just go bust, no bail out, no tax right off.

So it's not a level playing field is it?

I'd rather chance my arm being an apologist for the Catholic Church than the Banks TBH, but go right ahead Sir.

Who's defending the banks of anything - just explained how tax and company law works to somebody who clearly hasn't got a clue.

But please - drop the ad hominems when you know you don't have a clue what you are posting about. Tell us all we need to know about you anyway



As for the butcher - if he sets the business up as a private company - as many do - then he's quite capable of selling the shares in the company to someone else - and the company can avail of all of the other rules, including the carry-forward of tax losses - as anyone else.

The rules for companies and sole traders are different - which is why plenty chose to incorporate.

That you are either ignorant of that - or are pretending to because it doesn't suit your ill-informed rants - doesn't change facts.
Nor does your need to resort to ad hominems because you're incapable of arguing the point.

But sure head off, grab your pitchfork and chant your slogans if that's what makes you feel like a big man. Certainly easier than actually thinking about the complexities of a situation anyway :rolleyes:

Boggles

blackwhite wrote: »

As for the butcher - if he sets the business up as a private company - as many do - then he's quite capable of selling the shares in the company to someone else - and the company can avail of all of the other rules, including the carry-forward of tax losses - as anyone else.

Again though you are missing the point.

Can he force the government using borrowed and tax revenue to bail him out?

No he can't, you trying to paint this as some sort of leveling playing field is pretty weird TBH.

We bend over for the banks and we bend over for Multi Nationals. How many fúcking examples do you need? Have you read this thread?

I'm fine with that, it's the way things work. But when the píss starts been taken that grinds the old gears a little.

Mad_maxx

Boggles wrote: »

Fantastically yeah.

1.6 billion profit for AIB, exempt from corporation tax for 20 years.

I'd call that doing all right, wouldn't mind being exempt from tax for a couple of decades meself.

What do you reckon?

The share price of the banks tells me something else but perhaps that's just massive shorting?

Mad_maxx

ShlugEireann wrote: »

Think you should take a visit to a multinational and see who's cleaning the floors, who's working in the canteens, who's cutting the grass.

You find those kind of positions in every place of employment.

What's your point?

blackwhite

Boggles wrote: »

Again though you are missing the point.

Can he force the government using borrowed and tax revenue to bail him out?

No he can't, you trying to paint this as some sort of leveling playing field is pretty weird TBH.

We bend over for the banks and we bend over for Multi Nationals. How many fúcking examples do you need? Have you read this thread?

I'm fine with that, it's the way things work. But when the píss starts been taken that grinds the old gears a little.

You claimed earlier butchers were unable to use tax losses against future profits.
Those goalposts are shifting so fast you'd better make sure they aren't breaking the speed limit


The banks were bailed out because the consequences of not bailing them out would have been worse for the country.

The actual owners of the banks (their shareholders) were wiped out, and their shares from 2008 are completely worthless. Same situation as any small business owner who has a business fail.
What part of that do you struggle to understand?


Just because the legal entity continues to trade under the same name doesn't mean that the owners were protected. The bail-out wasn't handed to them - it was pumped into the banks to pay back their borrowings and cover their losses.


"Bailing out" a butchers shop in the same way as the bank was bailed out would mean that Mr Butcher gets turfed out, and gets zero compensation for the new owner taking over his business. The "Bail Out" is then installing a new butcher (working for the new owner) to run the business and bring it back to profitability - then the new owner sells it on (hopefully for more than they had to invest in the "Bail Out").

Substitute "Bank" for "Butcher" and that's what happened in the Bailout - yet someone people clearly don't have the wit to understand that and think it was some magical get-out for "the banks"

Boggles

blackwhite wrote: »

You claimed earlier butchers were unable to use tax losses against future profits.

No I didn't.

I was asked a very simple question.

Mad_maxx wrote: »

Do you think banks here are doing well?

I gave a pretty simple answer.

Boggles wrote: »

Fantastically yeah.

1.6 billion profit for AIB, exempt from corporation tax for 20 years.

I'd call that doing all right, wouldn't mind being exempt from tax for a couple of decades meself.

What do you reckon?

Nothing in that is not a fact.

You went off on some weird tangent how banks operate on the same level playing field as all other private companies.

They don't.

But way off topic. So as you were.

rn

Large private business gleans profits world wide and brings foreign cash into Ireland and local economy in terms of large numbers of people employed and spending. That's a real "common good" for Ireland and kildare. There's also a positive return to tax man on any money spent in terms of income taxes and vat from people having purchasing power.

The concept preferring local, small business or public enterprises is nonsense. That type of business can't thrive in the absence of the large private business and it only moves existing money around the economy.

Boggles

rn wrote: »

Large private business gleans profits world wide and brings foreign cash into Ireland and local economy in terms of large numbers of people employed and spending. That's a real "common good" for Ireland and kildare. There's also a positive return to tax man on any money spent in terms of income taxes and vat from people having purchasing power.

The concept preferring local, small business or public enterprises is nonsense. That type of business can't thrive in the absence of the large private business and it only moves existing money around the economy.

That's bollix, just Tourism and Argi Food combined is about a 20-25 billion industry. Take away "the local" economy and you don't have an economy.

What that has to do with an arm of state illegally taking a working farm off a law abiding citizen and handing it to a private company what ever their standing, I have no idea.

That is not the common good, very bad in fact.

MrMusician18

Boggles wrote: »

That's bollix, just Tourism and Argi Food combined is about a 20-25 billion industry. Take away "the local" economy and you don't have an economy.

What that has to do with an arm of state illegally taking a working farm off a law abiding citizen and handing it to a private company what ever their standing, I have no idea.

That is not the common good, very bad in fact.

Indeed, but what had that got to do with an unrelated planning objection.

This place is actually mad. I never thought I'd actually have to defend an organization that willing to invest 8bn in a facility that will secure thousands of good jobs for a decade.

The same people will be giving out that "the man" has it in for the ordinary wurker if Intel are so frustrated by this process that they go somewhere else.

Boggles

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Indeed, but what had that got to do with an unrelated planning objection.

I have all ready explained it to you more than once.

He believes if they expand they will come for his land again and this time they will get it.

He is entitled under our law to object.

He hasn't broken any laws. He is entitled to do what he is doing.

That clear enough?

MrMusician18

Boggles wrote: »

I have all ready explained it to you more than once.

He believes if they expand they will come for his land again and this time they will get it.

He is entitled under our law to object.

He hasn't broken any laws. He is entitled to do what he is doing.

That clear enough?

What he believes is not founded in any evidence. There is nothing to suggest they will try to cpo him again.

Because you believe something, doesn't make it true.

What is true is that if this goes to court after ABP, Intel will most likely leave, they don't have the time in such a competitive commercial space to be held up. Like Athenry, the appellant can lose in court but still have the bigger victory. Is that fair?

This is what it boils down to, one man's unfounded fear for retaining his land on one side vs billions of euro in tax revenue and 5000 good jobs on the other.

Boggles

MrMusician18 wrote: »

What he believes is not founded in any evidence. There is nothing to suggest they will try to cpo him again.

Because you believe something, doesn't make it true.

What is true is that if this goes to court after ABP, Intel will most likely leave, they don't have the time in such a competitive commercial space to be held up. Like Athenry, the appellant can lose in court but still have the bigger victory. Is that fair?

This is what it boils down to, one man's unfounded fear for retaining his land on one side vs billions of euro in tax revenue and 5000 good jobs on the other.

You seem to have a problem with the law. That ain't Thomas Reid's fault.

There will be an election soon, make sure you mention it on the door.

Plumbthedepths

HopsAndJumps wrote:

Private business.... And thousands of workers and the country as a whole.

Exactly private business does not get to trump property rights of the citizen. The rest of your of comment is hyperbole.

McMurphy

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Exactly private business does not get to trump property rights of the citizen. The rest of your of comment is hyperbole.

That's what I took from the documentary/film.

A hospital, a school, maybe even an airport runway or a bypass or motorway, but there's no way that the constitution should be trumped by big business.

What next, Tesco evicting whole apartment complexes to make way for a Tesco extra?

Boggles

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Like Athenry, the appellant can lose in court but still have the bigger victory. Is that fair?

Depends how you define victory, especially in terms of the "greater good" or "common good".

For the record any muldoon 100 miles up the country making frivolous objections should be fired out of a canon, In my humble opinion.

That said I firmly believe we got bad knee jerk legislation off the back off that incident that we will all pay for it in the next 5-10-15 years.

I also had a major problem with Leo meeting with Tim Cooke to discuss a case that was in the middle of judicial review, that shouldn't happen. That is an absolute no no.

But then again Leo can label an elected official a Paedo and then try laugh it off, so I suppose it's to be expected.

HopsAndJumps

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Exactly private business does not get to trump property rights of the citizen. The rest of your of comment is hyperbole.

Can you argue my supposedly hyperbolic statement rather than just saying its exaggerated?

Lets just take the direct Intel employees from the new building. Excluding the approximately 3k jobs from support staff and contract workers and lets exclude the current 5000 blue badge workers currently in Intel.

So a rough guess at an Intel average wage is about 50k an arbitrary number, in reality its probably much higher.

That works out at 14k tax per worker x 1800 = 25.2 million euro in tax that go into public services. Then there is the rest of those wages, which get spent on goods further fueling the economy. Plus the corporation tax that's paid (which is probably a lot less than 12.5% unfortunately)

Plumbthedepths

HopsAndJumps wrote:

Lets just take the direct Intel employees from the new building. Excluding the approximately 3k jobs from support staff and contract workers and lets exclude the current 5000 blue badge workers currently in Intel.

So basically as far as you are concerned if a private company wants to acquire a parcel of land , once there's a few jobs in the offing the land owners rights are null and void. Fair summation?

Boggles

It actually begs the question how many illegal acquisitions have the IDA actual carried out since 1986.