Yes, I agree. Two wrongs don't make a right.
Yes, I agree. Two wrongs don't make a right.Two words: bike shed.
That's the poisonous atmosphere where people see petty fraud not as stealing from the people of Ireland as you put it, but stealing from the government that steals from the people of Ireland.Yes, I agree. Two wrongs don't make a right.
I agree. The incompetence of the State, or rather the people who work for the State, is at the root of many of our countries problems.That's the poisonous atmosphere where people see petty fraud not as stealing from the people of Ireland as you put it, but stealing from the government that steals from the people of Ireland.
What would you see as the threshold for "petty" fraud? And would deliberately evading a "petty" amount of tax fall in the same category as fraudulently obtaining an equivalent amount of welfare money?That's the poisonous atmosphere where people see petty fraud not as stealing from the people of Ireland as you put it, but stealing from the government that steals from the people of Ireland.
It's not incompetence.I agree. The incompetence of the State, or rather the people who work for the State, is at the root of many of our countries problems.
“There are four ways in which you can spend money.
You can spend your own money on yourself. When you do that, why then you really watch out what you’re doing, and you try to get the most for your money.
Then you can spend your own money on somebody else. For example, I buy a birthday present for someone. Well, then I’m not so careful about the content of the present, but I’m very careful about the cost.
Then, I can spend somebody else’s money on myself. And if I spend somebody else’s money on myself, then I’m sure going to have a good lunch!
Finally, I can spend somebody else’s money on somebody else. And if I spend somebody else’s money on somebody else, I’m not concerned about how much it is, and I’m not concerned about what I get. And that’s government. And that’s close to 40% of our national income.”
Why are you asking me these questions?What would you see as the threshold for "petty" fraud? And would deliberately evading a "petty" amount of tax fall in the same category as fraudulently obtaining an equivalent amount of welfare money?
Two words: bike shed.
I agree. The incompetence of the State, or rather the people who work for the State, is at the root of many of our countries problems.
Hardly, the bike shed is a story precisely because everyone knows it's happening every day of the week, somewhere or other.Two other words: knee jerk.
Hardly, the bike shed is a story precisely because everyone knows it's happening every day of the week, somewhere or other.
You've neatly proven my point.I'd have let you away with National Childrens Hospital, but bike shed is, as yet, an unknown.
And you mine!You've neatly proven my point.
Because you seem to have introduced the phrase to the thread. The use of petty would seem to imply that there's some threshold beyond which one's perception would change (otherwise why use an adjective that describes the scale)... I was interested to understand your perspective.Why are you asking me these questions?
That is indeed the meaning of the term.. The use of petty would seem to imply that there's some threshold beyond which one's perception would change (otherwise why use an adjective that describes the scale)..
I don't particularly have a perspective here. My initial comment here was to question a claim that prospective fraudsters might be deterred by what the neighbours thought of them.. I was interested to understand your perspective.
Again, as I haven't even ventured any substantive opinion here in this regard, why should you be so interested apart perhaps from nosiness?And since the thread is about the relative treatments of welfare vs tax cheats, I'm interested how that perspective applies to the other category of offender.
That's partially correct, I didn't know that , wasn't clear from the original article, just said it was for 2 industrial estates to back up for grid shortages. So they were bought to feed power back into grid during peak usage periods, didn't the government put that stipulation on data centres in last few years? However I bet the guys responsible got a big dressing down from their US headquartersThe generators stuck in Dublin Port have nothing to do with the government or any government department. They don't have anything to do with the national grid.
They were bought by the owners of 2 data centres as back-up for their own systems.
I don't see how asking someone to expand on their posts, on topic, on a discussion forum, is nosiness. If that's the benchmark for nosiness, then we're all a fiercely nosey bunch...That is indeed the meaning of the term.
Obviously the bigger and more audacious the fraud, the more society and the law disapproves and punishes it when it's detected.
I don't particularly have a perspective here. My initial comment here was to question a claim that prospective fraudsters might be deterred by what the neighbours thought of them.
Again, as I haven't even ventured any substantive opinion here in this regard, why should you be so interested apart perhaps from nosiness?
If there's another and more genuine motivation here, I'm happy to answer any query, but my own opinion on the respective treatments of welfare vs tax cheats is hardly any more on-topic here than yours is.I don't see how asking someone to expand on their posts, on topic, on a discussion forum, is nosiness. If that's the benchmark for nosiness, then we're all a fiercely nosey bunch...