# Developers showing signs of panic ?



## redstar (26 Sep 2007)

Poor developers - now they call for a cut in stamp duty, "a bigger increase in mortgage relief for first-time buyers and a renewed commitment to full implementation of the National Development Plan" and for Govt to borrow as much as possible to keep infrastructure projects going.

http://www.rte.ie/business/2007/0926/construction.html?rss

Where was their concern over stamp duty and mortgage relief during the boom years, eh ? They weren't too bothered then how this affected buyers, but now that their own pockets might be somewhat lighter due to a downturn out comes the 'concern'.


----------



## MrMan (26 Sep 2007)

This has been talked about for a number of years, but for developers with new developemnts stamp duty is not so much of an issue anyway considering they are mostly marketed at owner occupiers now.


----------



## Jock04 (26 Sep 2007)

and when/if times get tough, car dealers will be shouting for cheaper petrol, cuts in VRT etc.

Is there really any surprise here?


----------



## Slash (26 Sep 2007)

It's funny the way builders and "developers" call on the Govt to do things, when so many of them appear on the Revenue list of tax defaulters - if you don't pay tax, you can't call on Govt to do anything, you should just go to jail and stay there. Obviously, not all builders are tax dodgers, but it seems a very large number are.

In the list of tax defaulters published yesterday The largest tax settlement was paid by a building company based in Celbridge, Co Kildare. Midland Contractors of The Mill House, Main Street, Celbridge, Co Kildare, made a settlement of €2.32 million. This was for underpayment of PAYE and PRSI and contracts tax. Whatever about not paying your own taxes, failing to pay over your employees' PAYE and PRSI is stealing, and the owners should go to jail. (Rant over).


----------



## MrMan (26 Sep 2007)

Hasn't everybody been calling for reform to stamp duty and extending mortgage relief. Every sector also calls on the govt to further their needs, so it seems a little picky to home in on builders.


----------



## redstar (26 Sep 2007)

Don't recall the builders calling for this reform when everyone else was.
Surely the time for them to be calling for sd reform was when prices were rising, not falling ?  Why make a point, as an industry, in only calling for reform now ?


----------



## Green (26 Sep 2007)

Slash said:


> It's funny the way builders and "developers" call on the Govt to do things, when so many of them appear on the Revenue list of tax defaulters - *if you don't pay tax, you can't call on Govt to do anything,* you should just go to jail and stay there.


 
If only this statement were true. The Government (well the FF part of it) were delighted to welcome the principals of Bovale Ltd to the tent at the Galway races both last year and this. The fact that they settled for €22m with Revenue in '06 obviously didn't deter FF from having the crack with them. 

Also, even if you do go to jail no action will be taken against you in political life. The jailed councillor from Co. Galway Michael Fahy petitioned Galway County Council to have his seat kept for him, despite the rules stating that after missing meetings for 6 months you have in effect tendered your resignation. Of course they were delighted to oblige !! This is the same guy who was convicted of fraud from the same body!!!


----------



## Conan (26 Sep 2007)

YOBR,
I are being a bit hard on poor(sic) FF. They obviously could not remenber that the Bovale lads had not paid their tax, just like the FF Senator (retired) who yesterday claimed that he was doing so much "wheeling'n'dealing in property" that he forgot to pay income tax.
After all would you remember lodging/withdrawing the odd €50,000 to or from your account 10 years ago ?
Alzheimers, sure its.............(I forgot what I was going to say). See.


----------



## ubiquitous (26 Sep 2007)

YOBR said:


> If only this statement were true. The Government (well the FF part of it) were delighted to welcome the principals of Bovale Ltd to the tent at the Galway races both last year and this. The fact that they settled for €22m with Revenue in '06 obviously didn't deter FF from having the crack with them.


Its funny how many people seem to make such a big thing of the Baileys' links with FF in view of their tax compliance record (or lack thereof), but don't seem to complain much about the influence wielded by other controversial and well-connected developers - including one very prominent company which not too long ago, was notorious for its appalling health & safety record, including a string of fatalities on its sites and prosecutions by the Health & Safety Authority.


----------



## Purple (27 Sep 2007)

As long as political parties are not state funded the problem of actual and perceived influence over those parties by groups or companies will exist. If we want democracy we should be willing to fund it with a system of payments by the exchequer weighted in favour of smaller parties.
As for developers; has anyone on this site ever sold a property for less than the highest bid because they thought that the under bidder deserved it more? If yes then revel in the down turn and pontificate about groups lobbying in their own interest. If no, then stop being so bloody hypocritical.


----------



## room305 (27 Sep 2007)

Purple said:


> As long as political parties are not state funded the problem of actual and perceived influence over those parties by groups or companies will exist. If we want democracy we should be willing to fund it with a system of payments by the exchequer weighted in favour of smaller parties.



To my mind, state-funding of political parties would lead to political parties becoming ever more divorced from the civil society they purport to represent. Surely, weighting the funding in favour of smaller parties in such a system, would only accelerate this process?


----------



## ubiquitous (27 Sep 2007)

room305 said:


> Surely, weighting the funding in favour of smaller parties in such a system, would only accelerate this process?



Especially given 

- the current trend of smaller parties going into coalition with bigger parties  and in the process abandoning much of what they ever stood for. 

- the possibility of backbench TD's quitting or being kicked out of the bigger parties and establishing themselves as one-man "parties" thereafter.


----------



## Purple (27 Sep 2007)

I agree with your points ubiquitous but given the dominance of FF and the economies of scale enjoyed by any organisation in an advertising campaign etc, I think that things balance out in favour of a weighted system. Anyway, this is off topic.


----------



## Green (27 Sep 2007)

IMHO the damage to Dublin and other parts of Ireland is already done by poor planning. This was already acknowledged last year in a report by the European Environmental Agency. Since the 1960's we should have had a clear policy on land use planning allied to public transport. However, we have been failed by the political, in particular local government, and planning system.


----------



## Green (27 Sep 2007)

ubiquitous said:


> Its funny how many people seem to make such a big thing of the Baileys' links with FF in view of their tax compliance record (or lack thereof), *but don't seem to complain much about the influence wielded by other controversial and well-connected developers* - including one very prominent company which not too long ago, was notorious for its appalling health & safety record, including a string of fatalities on its sites and prosecutions by the Health & Safety Authority.


 
Feel free to enlighten us on this subject. For me, the Bovale example is the most glaring example of a lack of any type of ethics or morale standard.


----------



## ubiquitous (27 Sep 2007)

I'm not going to name either this guy or his company for fear of breaking the "no libel" posting guidelines but if you google "worker died on dublin apartment site" or something similar you should get a good idea of the sort of character I am talking about. 

It speaks volumes for the level of hypocrisy and double standards in this country that the fact that people actually *died* as a consequence of this company's malpractices is more or less forgotten a decade or so later, while the Baileys are widely reviled and cited as "the most glaring example of a lack of any type of ethics or morale standard" although nobody died as a result of their crimes.


----------



## contemporary (27 Sep 2007)

ubiquitous said:


> It speaks volumes for the level of hypocrisy and double standards in this country that the fact that people actually *died* as a consequence of this company's malpractices is more or less forgotten a decade or so later, while the Baileys are widely reviled and cited as "the most glaring example of a lack of any type of ethics or morale standard" although nobody died as a result of their crimes.



well said


----------



## Green (27 Sep 2007)

ubiquitous said:


> It speaks volumes for the level of hypocrisy and double standards in this country that the fact that people actually *died* as a consequence of this company's malpractices is more or less forgotten a decade or so later, while the Baileys are widely reviled and cited as "the most glaring example of a lack of any type of ethics or morale standard" *although nobody died as a result of their crimes*.


 
I think I know which company you mean although I wound't fully agree that its hypocrisy not too mention them and mention the Bovale example. 

I'm not sure if your statement that *although nobody died as a result of their crimes* is strictly true although I'm not trying to demean the point your making. We pay our taxes to fund public services, especially health services. Those who are less well off depend totally on these public health services. The more money we have, the more we can put into these services and I'm sure that people on these waiting lists have died waiting for vital operations.


----------



## ubiquitous (27 Sep 2007)

So throwing another €22m (the amount of the Bovale/Baileys' tax settlement, which btw included a large chunk of interest & penalties) into the €?? billion per annum health budget would have got rid of waiting lists?  I doubt it...


----------



## Sherman (27 Sep 2007)

ubiquitous said:


> I'm not going to name either this guy or his company for fear of breaking the "no libel" posting guidelines but if you google "worker died on dublin apartment site" or something similar you should get a good idea of the sort of character I am talking about.
> 
> It speaks volumes for the level of hypocrisy and double standards in this country that the fact that people actually *died* as a consequence of this company's malpractices is more or less forgotten a decade or so later, while the Baileys are widely reviled and cited as "the most glaring example of a lack of any type of ethics or morale standard" although nobody died as a result of their crimes.


 
Ever thought that maybe the evasion of taxes by Bovale etc. could have led to funding shortfalls / cutbacks in building inspection services, which could have led to cutting corners knowing the chances of censure were low, which could have led to the tragic death of that worker?


----------



## ubiquitous (27 Sep 2007)

This might have been the case had this company not been successfully censured for health & safety breaches  - in fact they have been, and they have been prosecuted and convicted. My point is that that the public odium that attached to these crimes is a lot less than that suffered by the Baileys whose crimes and indiscretions imho pale into comparison with those of this particular company.


----------



## Purple (27 Sep 2007)

Sherman said:


> Ever thought that maybe the evasion of taxes by Bovale etc. could have led to funding shortfalls / cutbacks in building inspection services, which could have led to cutting corners knowing the chances of censure were low, which could have led to the tragic death of that worker?



I think that's stretching things by any standard. Not even Pat Rabbitte would have come out with that. The Bailey's are no worse or better than any other tax evader that steals from the people of Ireland, be they a builder, a plumber, a solicitor or a doctor. If any poster here has ever done a nixer and trousered the cash they are guilty of the same crime, so it's just a case of being pi**ed-off because the Bailey brother are smarter than them.

The reason that people die on trolleys in A&E is because of under-funding but it is also because the service is badly run and the Triage nurse can't tell people to shag off home and go to their GP the next day. 22 million on top of the other 10 billion won't change that.


----------



## ludermor (27 Sep 2007)

Sherman said:


> Ever thought that maybe the evasion of taxes by Bovale etc. could have led to funding shortfalls / cutbacks in building inspection services, which could have led to cutting corners knowing the chances of censure were low, which could have led to the tragic death of that worker?


 
Absolutly not. I work in construction and the progress in safety over the past 6/7 has been incredible (but still a long way to go) The lack of inspection was nothing to do with finance or resourses it was the whole attitude of the time. 
Im not sure which developer ubiquitousis talking about but anyway.... 9-10 years ago my cousin dies on a building site (charlotte quay) and it was pure health and safety neglience. Someone had died the year beforehand on another site by this developer and the next year another person died. All of his sites were closed for a few weeks and a severe H&S audit carried out. The developer offered my cousins fiance 10k pounds for her troubles. That was the price he put on a life. It would have bought a lot of barriers for his sites.  So how someone can compare (and state it is worse!) tax evasion to loss of human life  kinda puzzles.


----------



## Sherman (28 Sep 2007)

Purple said:


> I think that's stretching things by any standard. Not even Pat Rabbitte would have come out with that. The Bailey's are no worse or better than any other tax evader that steals from the people of Ireland, be they a builder, a plumber, a solicitor or a doctor. If any poster here has ever done a nixer and trousered the cash they are guilty of the same crime, so it's just a case of being pi**ed-off because the Bailey brother are smarter than them.
> 
> The reason that people die on trolleys in A&E is because of under-funding but it is also because the service is badly run and the Triage nurse can't tell people to shag off home and go to their GP the next day. 22 million on top of the other 10 billion won't change that.


 
You know well I was not just talking about the Baileys - they were merely the example used by Ubiquitous to make his point regarding differing levels of moral bankruptcy. You can see equally well I said it was _potentially _a _contributory factor, _not the sole cause.

The culture under which people like the Baileys flourished, and under which certain political figures still seem to operate, contributed to massive shortfalls in public expenditure. The fact that they lived like kings, as did certain beloved political figures, lent the evasion of taxes (aka fraud on all of us) an air of respectability - as you point out, there is enormous undisclosed black market activity in this country, the Baileys being just one of the more glaring examples due to the size of their evasion over the years.

Your reference to the Bailey brothers being smarter than small-time tax evaders is facetious - they defrauded the state on a huge scale, pure and simple. Are small-time drug lords jealous because John Gilligan is smarter than them?


----------



## room305 (28 Sep 2007)

ludermor said:


> Absolutly not. I work in construction and the progress in safety over the past 6/7 has been incredible (but still a long way to go) The lack of inspection was nothing to do with finance or resourses it was the whole attitude of the time.
> Im not sure which developer ubiquitousis talking about but anyway.... 9-10 years ago my cousin dies on a building site (charlotte quay) and it was pure health and safety neglience. Someone had died the year beforehand on another site by this developer and the next year another person died. All of his sites were closed for a few weeks and a severe H&S audit carried out. The developer offered my cousins fiance 10k pounds for her troubles. That was the price he put on a life. It would have bought a lot of barriers for his sites.  So how someone can compare (and state it is worse!) tax evasion to loss of human life  kinda puzzles.



That is a very sad tale but very well said.


----------



## Sherman (28 Sep 2007)

ludermor said:


> Absolutly not. I work in construction and the progress in safety over the past 6/7 has been incredible (but still a long way to go) The lack of inspection was nothing to do with finance or resourses it was the whole attitude of the time.
> Im not sure which developer ubiquitousis talking about but anyway.... 9-10 years ago my cousin dies on a building site (charlotte quay) and it was pure health and safety neglience. Someone had died the year beforehand on another site by this developer and the next year another person died. All of his sites were closed for a few weeks and a severe H&S audit carried out. The developer offered my cousins fiance 10k pounds for her troubles. That was the price he put on a life. It would have bought a lot of barriers for his sites. So how someone can compare (and state it is worse!) tax evasion to loss of human life kinda puzzles.


 
Your example is exactly what I was getting at. Gross tax evasion is stealing from the state. I still say the lack of finances could have contributed to a lack of enforcement of building regulations. Why as you say yourself has compliance increased massively in the last 6-7 years? Could it have coincided with massive increases in available funding I wonder?

I don't see where anyone on this thread was comparing or stating that tax evasion is worse than causing someone's death


----------



## room305 (28 Sep 2007)

Sherman said:


> You know well I was not just talking about the Baileys - they were merely the example used by Ubiquitous to make his point regarding differing levels of moral bankruptcy. You can see equally well I said it was _potentially _a _contributory factor, _not the sole cause.



The HSE could happily burn €22 million with a mistaken coffee cup order. It is their profligacy with taxpayers cash that is the biggest contributory factor to hospital waiting lists - not tax evasion. Don't forget the settlement included penalties and interest, so the contribution would have been less if it was paid when due.



Sherman said:


> The culture under which people like the Baileys flourished, and under which certain political figures still seem to operate, contributed to massive shortfalls in public expenditure. The fact that they lived like kings, as did certain beloved political figures, lent the evasion of taxes (aka fraud on all of us) an air of respectability - as you point out, there is enormous undisclosed black market activity in this country, the Baileys being just one of the more glaring examples due to the size of their evasion over the years.



This is high moral ground grandstanding of a preposterous level. So every plumber and hairdresser doing Saturday nixers for beer money takes their cue from the activities of the Bailey brothers? The Bailey brothers lived like kings because they ran a very successful and profitable business. If it wasn't profitable there wouldn't have been any tax liability to evade.

The culture of tax evasion that arose in the eighties was a response to the punative taxes being charged. As the tax rate dropped so did the number of people evading.



Sherman said:


> Your reference to the Bailey brothers being smarter than small-time tax evaders is facetious - they defrauded the state on a huge scale, pure and simple. Are small-time drug lords jealous because John Gilligan is smarter than them?



The answer to your question is yes, yes they are.


----------



## Sherman (28 Sep 2007)

room305 said:


> The HSE could happily burn €22 million with a mistaken coffee cup order. It is their profligacy with taxpayers cash that is the biggest contributory factor to hospital waiting lists - not tax evasion. Don't forget the settlement included penalties and interest, so the contribution would have been less if it was paid when due.
> 
> This is high moral ground grandstanding of a preposterous level. So every plumber and hairdresser doing Saturday nixers for beer money takes their cue from the activities of the Bailey brothers? The Bailey brothers lived like kings because they ran a very successful and profitable business. If it wasn't profitable their wouldn't have been any tax liability to evade.


 
Or perhaps it was the evasion that enabled them to be so profitable in the first place?



room305 said:


> The culture of tax evasion that arose in the eighties was a response to the punative taxes being charged. As the tax rate dropped so did the number of people evading.


 
Sorry, I just don't buy this 'it's not their fault' argument.  This is moral buck-passing.

BTW, I mentioned nothing about hospitals or waiting lists - I mentioned only building inspections.  Health provision in this country is another discussion entirely.


----------



## Green (28 Sep 2007)

Sherman said:


> The culture under which people like the Baileys flourished, and under which certain political figures still seem to operate, contributed to massive shortfalls in public expenditure. The fact that they lived like kings, as did certain beloved political figures, *lent the evasion of taxes.............. an air of respectability*


 
This is exactly my point, by FF allowing these guys (and perhaps other devlopment companies as mentioned by other posters) into the tent, they are saying you have done nothing wrong and we as the main party in Government we are happy to be seen with you. They are saying in effect Your standards are our standards. They should have the courage not to let them in and publicy say so!


----------



## ubiquitous (28 Sep 2007)

Sherman said:


> ...the Baileys - they were merely the example used by Ubiquitous to make his point regarding differing levels of moral bankruptcy.



This isn't correct. It was YOBR who cited the Baileys/Bovale as "the most glaring example of a lack of any type of ethics or morale standard". I simply questioned why he (and others) chose to pick on the Baileys while other very well known developers had escaped the sort of negative publicity and mockery that the Baileys have suffered, despite the fact that these other developers have been found by the courts as being responsible for the deaths of their workers.


----------



## ubiquitous (28 Sep 2007)

YOBR said:


> This is exactly my point, by FF allowing these guys (and perhaps other devlopment companies as mentioned by other posters) into the tent, they are saying you have done nothing wrong and we as the main party in Government we are happy to be seen with you. They are saying in effect Your standards are our standards. They should have the courage not to let them in and publicy say so!



So the former govt ministers who successively stood over the blood infection scandals (and the subsequent cover-ups and hounding of victims) can tell a couple of jumped-up hucksters "sorry, our standards are too high for you"?

ps Why do you use the word "perhaps"? It seems to me that you still rank tax evasion as a bigger crime than supervising the deaths of one's own workers.


----------



## ubiquitous (28 Sep 2007)

YOBR said:


> ubiquitous has it ever occurred to you that a poster here might know more about one issue that another? and that is the reason that they mention one issue and not another. Maybe you should think about that?



But *we all *know more about the Baileys than the other company that I don't want to mention. This is because the media have made a point of attacking the Baileys at every possibility in the past 4-5 years. In comparison we have barely heard a dickybird about the other company's crimes, whose managing director enjoys a very high (and largely positive) media profile - so much so that if I mention his name here, this site might well get a libel writ.

Why is this? Why have this guy's crimes been airbrushed out of public attention while the Baileys are attacked at every opportunity?

Is it to do with the fact that on one hand you have a very suave, PR- & media-friendly tycoon (albeit with a few skeletons in his cupboard) and on the other hand you have 2 guys who still look and sound like the small farmers they were before they hit rich?

Maybe you should think about that?


----------



## Purple (28 Sep 2007)

Sherman said:


> You know well I was not just talking about the Baileys - they were merely the example used by Ubiquitous to make his point regarding differing levels of moral bankruptcy. You can see equally well I said it was _potentially _a _contributory factor, _not the sole cause.


 My point is that it’s not a sliding scale of moral bankruptcy; it’s the same crime no matter what the scale. It’s just that some people are better at it than others. I make no distinction between the Baileys and a teacher doing a grind and pocketing the cash. 



Sherman said:


> The culture under which people like the Baileys flourished, and under which certain political figures still seem to operate, contributed to massive shortfalls in public expenditure. The fact that they lived like kings, as did certain beloved political figures, lent the evasion of taxes (aka fraud on all of us) an air of respectability - as you point out, there is enormous undisclosed black market activity in this country, the Baileys being just one of the more glaring examples due to the size of their evasion over the years.


 It has also been argued that the black economy, and indeed bogus non-residential accounts, is the only thing that kept any money in the country in the 1980’s. That does not make their actions right but you are seeing links where there are none. 
Again, I think you are stretching things to suggest that high profile tax evaders were the role models for the “man in the street” evaders. If for no other reason than their crimes have only come to light in the last few years. 



Sherman said:


> Your reference to the Bailey brothers being smarter than small-time tax evaders is facetious - they defrauded the state on a huge scale, pure and simple.


  I agree that they “defrauded the state on a huge scale, pure and simple”, why does this negate the reality that they were good at it?



Sherman said:


> Are small-time drug lords jealous because John Gilligan is smarter than them?


 Room305 answered that one. Do you think it’s OK for small time drug dealers to pontificate about John Gilligan’s crimes just because he’s a better drug dealer than they are?


----------



## Green (28 Sep 2007)

ubiquitous said:


> Is it to do with the fact that on one hand you have a very suave, PR- & media-friendly tycoon (albeit with a few skeletons in his cupboard) and on the other hand you have 2 guys who still look and sound like the small farmers they were before they hit riches?


 
Not a plausible explantion as he is not media friendly and never gives interviews. He also keeps a very low profile..


----------



## ubiquitous (28 Sep 2007)

YOBR said:


> Not a plausible explantion as he is not media friendly and never gives interviews. He also keeps a very low profile.. .




Did it ever occur to you that there his policy not to give interviews might just be a part of a clever media strategy? If I had been responsible for my own workers' deaths, I wouldn't give interviews either. All things considered, the guy gets a very good press and is on the business pages literally every other week. If that isn't a high profile, I don't know what is...

ps How much of the Irish Times article was taken up by the story of the site deaths? How much of a similar article about the Baileys be taken up with the tax evasion story? I rest my case.


----------



## Green (28 Sep 2007)

ubiquitous said:


> Did it ever occur to you that there his policy not to give interviews might just be a part of a clever media strategy? If I had been responsible for my own workers' deaths, I wouldn't give interviews either.


 
Your contradicting your own point! How can not giving interviews be part of a clever media strategy?


----------



## ubiquitous (28 Sep 2007)

YOBR said:


> How can not giving interviews be part of a clever media strategy?



If you don't understand this, then you don't know a whole lot about PR & media management.


----------



## Purple (28 Sep 2007)

Ubiquitous has pointed out the posting guidelines and asked people to follow them. This is perfectly reasonable and by not doing so you are potentially leaving Brendan open to being sued for liable. This is grossly unfair.


----------



## Green (28 Sep 2007)

Purple said:


> Ubiquitous has pointed out the posting guidelines and asked people to follow them. This is perfectly reasonable and by not doing so you are potentially leaving Brendan open to being sued for liable. This is grossly unfair.


 
I am aware of the posting guidelines and have followed them at all times in this thread. I reject your allegation that I am exposing anyone to any legal action. Also, Purple I don't believe you have moderator status on this forum?

Ubiquitous has roundly attacked other posters in this thread for not mentioning other companies yet he won't mention them himself.


----------



## Afuera (28 Sep 2007)

ubiquitous said:


> This might have been the case had this company not been successfully censured for health & safety breaches  - in fact they have been, and *they have been prosecuted and convicted*.


If they have been convicted of the crime then how could it open you up to libel to name them?


----------



## ubiquitous (28 Sep 2007)

YOBR said:


> Also, Purple I don't believe you have moderator status on this forum?


 
One does not have to be a moderator in order to comment on libel and/or the posting guidelines. I am not a moderator but sometimes do so.



YOBR said:


> Ubiquitous has roundly attacked other posters in this thread for not mentioning other companies yet he won't mention them himself.



I attacked nobody, quite apart from "roundly" doing so. I simply asked why were people so indignant about certain tax evaders to the point that they seemed to regard their crimes as more reprehensible than causing the deaths of workers. I am still waiting for an answer...



Afuera said:


> If they have been convicted of the crime then how could it open you up to libel to name them?


Because I have neither the time nor the inclination to go off researching either the details of the story itself, or the court conviction(s) that arose from the deaths. Nor, I guess, has Brendan. I also don't think its any harm to respect the posting guidelines.


----------



## Purple (28 Sep 2007)

YOBR said:


> Also, Purple I don't believe you have moderator status on this forum?


Correct. So what?
Other posters have criticised me in the past for inappropriate posts. The fact that they are not moderators makes their criticism no less valid.


----------



## Green (28 Sep 2007)

Purple said:


> Correct. So what?
> Other posters have criticised me in the past for inappropriate posts. The fact that they are not moderators makes their criticism no less valid.


 
It is up to moderators only to enforce the posting guidelines....."and by not doing so you are potentially leaving Brendan open to being sued for liable." It should not be permissable for individual members to make such acusations against other members.


----------



## ubiquitous (28 Sep 2007)

YOBR said:


> Except that you didn't have the time, interest or courage to do so.......



So...? That's why I thanked gonk for his research.



YOBR said:


> It is up to moderators only to enforce the posting guidelines....."and by not doing so you are potentially leaving Brendan open to being sued for liable." It should not be permissable for individual members to make such acusations against other members.



Codswallop

Time to shut this thread.


----------



## redstar (28 Sep 2007)

Er,  so does anyone think developers _are_ showing signs of panic ... ?


----------



## room305 (28 Sep 2007)

Sherman said:


> Or perhaps it was the evasion that enabled them to be so profitable in the first place?



I doubt it. The tax evasion was spread over a number of years and settlements normally involve penalties and interest which in many cases greatly exceed the original sum. It certainly wouldn't be sufficient to fund annual salaries for the directors in excess of €5M and to build up a company valued at around €120M.



Sherman said:


> Sorry, I just don't buy this 'it's not their fault' argument.  This is moral buck-passing.



You are jumping to conclusions here. I never said that tax evaders were not at fault, I merely pointed out that a high tax rate environment contributes to an increased incentive to evade taxes. I cannot see why you would feel this absolves the offenders from blame.



Sherman said:


> BTW, I mentioned nothing about hospitals or waiting lists - I mentioned only building inspections.  Health provision in this country is another discussion entirely.



Well it is very easy but rarely productive to point to one sum of money wasted or not collected by the government and then imagine what could have been done with the money. Has there ever been any evidence that tax evasion by construction firms contributed to lower site inspection rates? Do you even know if inspection rates have been increasing and whether or not this has contributed to an improvement in worker safety?

It seems to my mind that you are making very spurious connections linking the two.


----------

