Mick Wallace takes 41k extra from taxpayer

Monty Burnz

Well, after his fine speechifying about how honest he is and how he would pay back the taxpayers' €2 million euros plus that he pilfered by only taking half his TD's salary, it turns out that Mick Wallace is now helping himself to an extra €41,000 per annum of the taxpayers' money.

Based on the pay rises he awarded himself and his son as he ran his business into the ground and defrauded the taxpayer, I'm not at all surprised of course. But presumably the people who defended the 'honest developer' :rolleyes: after his €2 million euro tax fraud will continue to defend him on the back of this latest wheeze?

After all, the people in Tipperary still love that crook Lowry, and the Healy Raes can do no evil down in Kerry. Sure they are all great men - sure they fixed the roads!

We really do get the (crooked) politicians we deserve.

Buford T Justice

Another politician is shown to be as bent as the rest of them.....


Shock horror.

As you say, build a road here, open a hospital there and he'll never be voted out ala healey rae and his ilk.

Dannyboy83

Look how angry people are...nothing they can do about it.

Great little democracy we have

bbsrs

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

Look how angry people are...nothing they can do about it.

Great little democracy we have

It seems to me nobody can do anything , the people don't have a voice and if they did no one in a position to change anything would listen. Yes we can vote but from what I can see no matter who you vote for it's just more of the same.

Monty Burnz

bbsrs wrote: »

It seems to me nobody can do anything , the people don't have a voice and if they did no one in a position to change anything would listen. Yes we can vote but from what I can see no matter who you vote for it's just more of the same.

Well Wallace will probably be standing for election again in a few years time - what odds that he will be voted in again?

Of course he should have been booted out of the Dáil when his tax fraud was exposed - it is ridiculous that there is no mechanism for this. In Britain his feet wouldn't have touched the ground on the way out.

spank_inferno

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Well Wallace will probably be standing for election again in a few years time - what odds that he will be voted in again?

I'd reckon it would be almost a certainty.

Ireland loves re-electing rogues to represent them.
We don't want "dem up in dublin & the meeja" telling us what to do.

antoobrien

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Well, after his fine speechifying about how honest he is and how he would pay back the taxpayers' €2 million euros plus that he pilfered by only taking half his TD's salary, it turns out that Mick Wallace is now helping himself to an extra €41,000 per annum of the taxpayers' money.

Your indignation is misplaced.

He's taking something that he's entitled to (if my job offered me an extra 40% of my salary tax free, I'd jump at it).

Your indignation should targeted at the fact that the €41k is available to him in the first place.

Einhard

antoobrien wrote: »

Your indignation is misplaced.

He's taking something that he's entitled to (if my job offered me an extra 40% of my salary tax free, I'd jump at it).

Your indignation should targeted at the fact that the €41k is available to him in the first place.

No, I think his indignation is entirely correctly placed, and stems not so much from the fact that Wallace is collecting something to which he is entitled, but that, as part of Wallace's attempts at redemption, he undertook to forego half his salary in an attempt to pay down the massive debt he wracked up as a tax cheat. Only, in newly claiming an allowance worth more than that forfeited part of his salary, he was doing nothing of the sort. His "honest, sincere" regrets and contrition turned out to me nothing more than a cynical ploy. I wonder what his political ally Clare daly thinks of all this?

As for the "ah sure they're all at it" reactions...that's nonsense. I realise that politicians aren't the most popular of people, but Wallace and Lowry stand out because they sought to cheat and line their own pockets. If people have evidence that other politicians are up to this kind of thing, then they should produce it. Cynicism is one thing, and a healthy dose is quite refreshing, but the kind of cynicism that seeks to tar all politicians as corrupt is the laziest form, adds nothing of substance, and actually undermines genuien political discussion and, I'd argue, democracy.

/end rant

NIMAN

I'm not even surprised by anything that happens around our politicians these days.

Wallace has just proved that he is like all the rest, despite coming in on a ticket of "you'll see a new breed of politics now". No change, at all.

If people are angry about him then we live in a democracy and he can be turfed out on his arse in the next election, but as much as people shout and cry in this country, others can see no wrong in some. I wouldn't be surprised if he gets re-elected.

Monty Burnz

NIMAN wrote: »

If people are angry about him then we live in a democracy and he can be turfed out on his arse in the next election, but as much as people shout and cry in this country, others can see no wrong in some. I wouldn't be surprised if he gets re-elected.

There's a large constituency in our fair country who hate gombeen men in general, but love their gombeen man. It's actually quite depressing. Our chances of getting decent politicians and decent government are hamstrung by the stupidity of the electorate and a system that does little to ameliorate it.

alastair

Einhard wrote: »

No, I think his indignation is entirely correctly placed, and stems not so much from the fact that Wallace is collecting something to which he is entitled, but that, as part of Wallace's attempts at redemption, he undertook to forego half his salary in an attempt to pay down the massive debt he wracked up as a tax cheat. Only, in newly claiming an allowance worth more than that forfeited part of his salary, he was doing nothing of the sort. His "honest, sincere" regrets and contrition turned out to me nothing more than a cynical ploy. I wonder what his political ally Clare daly thinks of all this?

You don't know if he'll be spending a cent of that allowance on anything that will substitute for his tax re-imbursement. It could well be all going to constituient services overheads. Cynicism/skepticism about where it's going is no substitute for proof - and we've no proof that he's not spending it as intended.

The problem is clearly more to do with the mechanism that allows unvouched expenses, and less to do with Wallace's 'redemption' or lack of same. If he had to produce evidence that none of this money went into his own pocket - and did so - would you have the same problem? I don't think so.

Monty Burnz

alastair wrote: »

You don't know if he'll be spending a cent of that allowance on anything that will substitute for his tax re-imbursement. It could well be all going to constituient services overheads. Cynicism/skepticism about where it's going is no substitute for proof - and we've no proof that he's not spending it as intended.

It's intended to be spent on whatever the 'party leader' wants - that is why it is unvouched. It's rather odd that he didn't feel the need to take this extra 41k of tax-free income until after he promised to give half of his salary to pay back some of the tax he cheated us of (in one of the most ironic robbing Peter to pay Paul exercises we've seen in this country).

Of course, just because receipts are not required does not prevent the crook politician from providing them voluntarily and putting them in the public domain.

alastair wrote: »

The problem is clearly more to do with the mechanism that allows unvouched expenses, and less to do with Wallace's 'redemption' or lack of same. If he had to produce evidence that none of this money went into his own pocket - and did so - would you have the same problem? I don't think so.

The problem is the unvouched expenses and crooked politicians. We could do without both.

alastair

Monty Burnz wrote: »

It's intended to be spent on whatever the 'party leader' wants - that is why it is unvouched. It's rather odd that he didn't feel the need to take this extra 41k of tax-free income until after he promised to give half of his salary to pay back some of the tax he cheated us of (in one of the most ironic robbing Peter to pay Paul exercises we've seen in this country).

Of course, just because receipts are not required does not prevent the crook politician from providing them voluntarily and putting them in the public domain.

The problem is the unvouched expenses and crooked politicians. We could do without both.

Except that you've no proof that Wallace is in any way corrupt in claiming these expenses. Regardless of how 'odd' you think his timing might be. Neither of us know when he started claiming it btw.

donalg1

This doesnt surprise me in the slightest sure he knowingly didnt pay his tax, gave himself a pay rise at the same time, told the revenue he would never pay it back, refused to leave his cushy high paid job as a public representative, and all that is before the rest of his dodgy dealings. The main is a disgrace and hasnt an ounce of shame, saddest thing is he will probably be re-elected if he ran again at the next election.

Monty Burnz

alastair wrote: »

Except that you've no proof that Wallace is in any way corrupt in claiming these expenses. Regardless of how 'odd' you think his timing might be. Neither of us know when he started claiming it btw.

If I was going to imprison him, I would be looking for a criminal standard of proof. In assessing him as a politician and as a man, I will judge him to the same standard as I judge everybody else: on the balance of probabilities. There's no proof Bertie Ahern was corrupt either, is there?

On the balance of probabilities, Mick Wallace is a disgraceful politician - tax cheating, promise-breaking, shamelessly self-promoting, money-grabbing, and a huge hypocrite to boot.

alastair

Monty Burnz wrote: »

If I was going to imprison him, I would be looking for a criminal standard of proof. In assessing him as a politician and as a man, I will judge him to the same standard as I judge everybody else: on the balance of probabilities. There's no proof Bertie Ahern was corrupt either, is there?

There is to some degree actually - a judicial tribunal made findings to that effect that he lied in relation to his role in corrupt dealings. The same can't be said for Wallace and these expenses.

Monty Burnz wrote: »

On the balance of probabilities, Mick Wallace is a disgraceful politician - tax cheating, promise-breaking, shamelessly self-promoting, money-grabbing, and a huge hypocrite to boot.

There's a difference between calling someone a 'disgraceful politician' and claiming that they're engaged in corruption. One's a subjective opinion, the other requires some actual evidence beyond supposition.

Monty Burnz

alastair wrote: »

There is to some degree actually - a judicial tribunal made findings to that effect that he lied in relation to his role in corrupt dealings. The same can't be said for Wallace and these expenses.

Fine - we will give him a free pass on this until someone sets up a billion-euro tribunal on the matter. :rolleyes:

alastair wrote: »

There's a difference between calling someone a 'disgraceful politician' and claiming that they're engaged in corruption. One's a subjective opinion, the other requires some actual evidence beyond supposition.

Perhaps you might quote the post where I said that Wallace was corrupt? I said that he was dishonest, a hypocrite, a tax-cheat, money-grabbing etc. etc. - but I don't recall stating that he was corrupt.

alastair

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Perhaps you might quote the post where I said that Wallace was corrupt? I said that he was dishonest, a hypocrite, a tax-cheat, money-grabbing etc. etc. - but I don't recall stating that he was corrupt.

You said he was crooked. If that doesn't mean corrupt, what did you intend?

He doesn't need any 'free pass' on these expenses btw - the system says he's entitled to claim them, and not only that - they can't have anything to do with his liability to repay the tax man. The problem is the expenses mechanism - not Wallace's taking advantage of it.

Gurgle

alastair wrote: »

You said he was crooked. If that doesn't mean corrupt, what did you intend?

Crooked is someone who doesn't follow the rules.
Corrupt is someone who accepts bribes to not follow the rules.

The difference is subtle but important.

bobbysands81

bbsrs wrote: »

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

Look how angry people are...nothing they can do about it.

Great little democracy we have

It seems to me nobody can do anything , the people don't have a voice and if they did no one in a position to change anything would listen. Yes we can vote but from what I can see no matter who you vote for it's just more of the same.

Of course we can do something about it... but we choose not to because (by and large) we're as apathetic as it comes. We're terrified of sticking out heads above the parapet in case anyone says anything to us. And when people do try and effect change every name in the world is thrown at them through the media.

Notable exceptions to the above were the OAPs a number of years back and the people with a disability outside the Dail the other night.

You reap what you sow and, in voting in Fine Gael and Labour, how we've reaped.

alastair

Gurgle wrote: »

Crooked is someone who doesn't follow the rules.
Corrupt is someone who accepts bribes to not follow the rules.

The difference is subtle but important.

Main Entry: crooked

Definition: evil, corrupt


http://thesaurus.com/browse/crooked

Gurgle

bobbysands81 wrote: »

You reap what you sow and, in voting in Fine Gael and Labour, how we've reaped.

The options were:
Fine Fàil / PDs / Greens who squandered a decade of budget surplus and spent the first 2 years of recession guaranteeing the gambling debts of their masters

Sine Fein / Anarchists who would have us back to dependence on potatoes and using sea shells for currency

Fine Gael / Labour who at least weren't blatant crazies or convicted criminals

T'was the best choice from a poor selection.

Monty Burnz

alastair wrote: »

Main Entry: crooked

Definition: evil, corrupt


http://thesaurus.com/browse/crooked

You think someone who commits tax fraud is not crooked? That's Michael Lowry off the hook too.

Gurgle

alastair wrote: »

Main Entry: crooked

Definition: evil, corrupt


http://thesaurus.com/browse/crooked

So corrupt is a subset of crooked
You can be crooked but not corrupt, but you can't be corrupt without being crooked.

donalg1

alastair wrote: »

Main Entry: crooked

Definition: evil, corrupt


http://thesaurus.com/browse/crooked

Who cares if he is corrupt or not or crooked or however you want to phrase it or not phrase it as such. Fact is he is as dodgy as they come and will try any scam going if it means he can get some more money to line his own pockets.

Scofflaw

Gurgle wrote: »

Crooked is someone who doesn't follow the rules.
Corrupt is someone who accepts bribes to not follow the rules.

The difference is subtle but important.

Particularly in respect of potential libel. Can people be sure they stick to established facts here, please.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Einhard

alastair wrote: »

Except that you've no proof that Wallace is in any way corrupt in claiming these expenses. Regardless of how 'odd' you think his timing might be. Neither of us know when he started claiming it btw.

I'm not claiming that wallace is corrupt for taking the expenses, or that it is even illegal for him to be doing so. I am pointing out though, that he peddled a lot of guff about how he would reimburse the taxpayer for his original fraud through deductions from his wages, and only then does he claim thes enew expenses. You might not see that as evidence of his character, but I do, and I don't think I'm being too reactionary in doing so.

bobbysands81

Gurgle wrote: »

bobbysands81 wrote: »

You reap what you sow and, in voting in Fine Gael and Labour, how we've reaped.

The options were:
Fine Fàil / PDs / Greens who squandered a decade of budget surplus and spent the first 2 years of recession guaranteeing the gambling debts of their masters

Sine Fein / Anarchists who would have us back to dependence on potatoes and using sea shells for currency

Fine Gael / Labour who at least weren't blatant crazies or convicted criminals

T'was the best choice from a poor selection.

You've just proved my very point!

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results, well that's exactly what we do with politics on this island.

Monty Burnz

bobbysands81 wrote: »

You've just proved my very point!

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results, well that's exactly what we do with politics on this island.

Labour/FG got the country off its knees in the 90s, then Fianna Failure got in and turned an incipient boom into a bubble. Hopefully Lab/FG will be able to pull off the same trick this time, but of course by the time things are turning around in 3 or 4 years (all going well) the public will be sick of them and will vote in Fianna Failure again.

Sinn Fein's and the ULA's economic policies are frankly hilarious.

Gurgle

bobbysands81 wrote: »

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results, well that's exactly what we do with politics on this island.

Fianna Fàil ran the country for 69 of the last 80 years.
How is a Fine Gael / Labour coalition 'doing the same thing'?

Seems like the easiest and most sensible thing would be to remove the "leaders allowance".

Sure wasn't it brought in by Bertie to buy off the independents? Save a few hundred grand in one sweep.