That_Guy wrote: » What a joke of a topic.
bigroad wrote: » They could be just fat women ,how is one to know.
ButtersSuki wrote: » It's all smoke ad mirrors to avoid the elephant in the room -Delaney's fees.
ButtersSuki wrote: » Oh Jesus, not this again. He pays f*ck all Brian as he's outsourced his "services" via a company instead of being a PAYE Employee of RTE. So on his fees he pays corporation tax @ 12.5% after deductible expenses (of which there are many). He's not doing anything illegal, he's simply taking advantage of a system which wasn't set up to monitor this type of practice and was designed for large companies and not "1 man bands", which his company is. This type of avoidance has recieved much criticism from many quarters. What is galling however is that this behaviour is not morally acceptable to many, but given the man's constant protrayal of himself as a "Man of de peeple" and the fact he proclaims his heroes as Larkin, Connolly et al., it is at best profoundly hypocritical of him to do so. That's the VERY short version. I'm happy to discuss this at length if you wish.
RustyNut wrote: » Offer them a seat, a tyred sounding thanks means they are preggers, a punch in the snot means fat.
somesoldiers wrote: » Question 2: what did Ivan Calorie ever do wrong? Over to you Butters
Odyssey 2005 wrote: » Another s e show. A big load of nothing...
Brian Scan wrote: » To spend the money he must take it out of the company, if he does this he pays tax on it at the same rate as anyone else. I don't like the man, but your hatred borders on the irrational.
constitutionus wrote: » ya'd almost thing there was nothing happening in the world. you know , like the head of the Olympic committee being charged with fraud, embezzlement, tax evasion and associating with criminals yesterday or sommat. guess its a slow day.
sligojoek wrote: » Suicide special on Darcy. I've tears streaming down my cheeks already. I'm out. Byyyyyyyyyyeeeeeeee.
ButtersSuki wrote: » 1) That's a very simplistic view on matters financial Brian, very simplistic indeed. 2) Thanks for your concern about my "irrationality" and "hatred". Are you qualified to make such diagnoses or is that merely your opinion? FWIW, your constant defence of the man despite all of the evidence presented to you is IMO: irrational, sychophantic and fanatical.
sligojoek wrote: » What happened the Palmanarians and de dashcams?
Brian Scan wrote: » Since your own view on his tax situation was simplistic, I replied in similar vein. I have never defended Joe Duffy. Apologies if I offended you.
ButtersSuki wrote: » Well your comment was offensive tbh. I don't know if you're being sarcastic or not but apology accepted. Likewise, I apologise if I crossed the line with my comments towards your good self. I disagree that my view was simplistic however. I have on more than one occasion detailed the man's affairs and the hypocrisy by which he lives his life. I stand by everything I have said on him, he is a fraud and a hypocrite and he is utterly unqualified to be in the role he is in and his remuneration for doing so is utterly scandalous. You can call that hatred if you like, I prefer to call it the truth.
hullaballoo wrote: » Mod: If you want to have a discussion about Duffy's wages/tax affairs, start a new thread, please. Tanks.
sligojoek wrote: » Suicide special on Darcy.