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

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.