Get out of here. Bressie is an unqualified chancer who just talks about himself. He is like those personal trainers who became so because they lost loads of weight.
Bressie’s has life experience, better than any college qualification*
*He’s going to go get one of those as well.
Its important of course, but not enough to base a whole nations mental health campaign on.
But fair play to him. Shows humility that he feels he needs to add the science to the experience. Thats commendable.
I dunno, we’re basing a health service good eating policy on a food blogger.
Who is that?
What are his quals and exp.
Nutrition, diet and food science are pretty complex issues
Not at all. It’s his vision for healthcare as a whole in the whole country we are paying him for.
You literally couldn’t make it up to quote our much missed pal.
Ah grand so, we’re away in a hack lads.
1 Like
Let’s take his most recent effort for the laugh.
The entire article is based on the premise that we don’t need the EU, the multinationals are what we need. The whole article is of course nonsense as the only reason they are here is because we are members of the EU.
Lets then, leaving the fact that the whole article is based on a flawed premise, take his proposal.
Why not let host jurisdictions become shareholders in the companies that are making profits and distorting GDP figures? Rather than taking all the money in tax, why not take some in shares and invest it? Let’s be smart. Why not treat wealth associated with foreign capital as an annuity that accrues annually, much like wealth connected to an oil find?
By taking shares in multinationals, Ireland could create a sovereign wealth fund linked to the performance of the best-governed companies in the world, which would provide for future generations. In 2012, US multinationals made $100bn profit in Ireland, on which they are supposed to pay 12.5pc tax, or $12.5bn. In fact, they paid $4bn.
Why not encourage multinationals to pay the difference between what they pay and what they ought to pay in shares? Shares are permanent wealth, whereas taxes are transitory income. This is also attractive because shares or share options are cheaper for the company than giving cash. They already give their employees share options, so why not their host country?
So why not say to Apple and other multinationals, if the EU is going to be vindictive and retrospective, why not pay Ireland the difference between what you have paid us in tax and what you ought to have paid us, in shares?
This is classic McWilliams, in theory it sounds great, but it’s so lacking in actual thinking that even the most minor examination causes it to fall apart.
1. In 2012 US multinationals made $100bn profit in Ireland.
No, no they didn’t. They routed $100bn in profits through Ireland. They’ll route it somewhere else just as quick if the mood takes them or if we try to tax it.
2. on which they are supposed to pay 12.5pc tax, or $12.5bn.
Again they wouldn’t have routed it our way if they thought they’d have to pay tax on them.
3. In fact, they paid $4bn
Lets say we do the proposed 50/50 tax share split with the €4bn we do get. Where does the €2bn we just lost in tax take go? Cue €2billion in spending cuts.
4. This is also attractive because shares or share options are cheaper for the company than giving cash.
Share options are indeed cheaper, but what they’ll give us is the right to buy their shares in 5 years time at current prices. What if they fall, we get the money back? What if they go bankrupt? We lose all our money? If they go up great, if not we’ve lost 5 years of having that cash to spend.
So forget share options, we’ll go with shares, again great, what if they fall by 50% in the next year? Now instead of getting tax in cash off them we’ve lost half of it and we’re worse off.
Let’s say it all goes well and share prices rise, woop di do, will the country get a better return than we could have earned by spending that money on capital projects? What about unquantifiable stuff like improving mental health services etc? Is that a better return than your sovereign wealth fund making 10%?
Anyway the fact that you are allowing them to give you shares rather than cash gives them an unfair advantage over indigenous companies and is therefore ILLEGAL. Which is the whole problem in the first place.
5. Why not treat wealth associated with foreign capital as an annuity that accrues annually, much like wealth connected to an oil find
This is the most important point. Funds based on oil finds like the The Norwegian Sovereign Wealth Fund (which I presume is what he is referencing here) is based on tax earnings from Oil. Oil which they own and allow companies to sell on their behalf, taking a cut along the way. They OWN the oil. The companies cannot get the oil without Norway’s agreement. The tax is therefore unavoidable. It’s completely different than levying a tax on Apple who can just say nah I rather not.
Most of the oil is drilled by Statoil (literally meaning state oil) which is majority owned by the Norwegian government, it’s a completely different fucking shark. BTW if he proposed setting up something similar on the basis of our oil discoveries then I’m all for it.
Essentially if we are going to tax them, lets take it in cash.
8 Likes
What a bunch of lovely lads.
What’s even more amazing that the story iself is the Wells Fargo’s response to it. " we have fired over 5,300 people over the past several years"… really, you absolute cunts. DId it even occur to you during those years to actually investigate what was going on and put some controls in place.
1 Like
Ffs he called that a property bubble would burst . Hardly Nobel prize winning stuff. Any leaving cert economics student could have called that .
It is obvious to anyone with a functioning brain that speculative bubbles always burst. The problem is the steady stream of horseshit being fed by those that benefit most from the mania, in this case the banks, financial media, property agents, developers, politicians, everyone with skin in the game to keep the party going as long as possible. During the height of the property bubble in the US, the “this time its different” mantra was just as loud as it was in 1999 before the tech crash of 2000. That’s a very intense barrage of biased opinion that dwarfs any number of smart Leaving Cert students. Most people were actually convinced that property values could never go down again, including those that should have known better. Greed is a terrible vice.
1 Like
That’s why they are called bubbles.
1 Like
The state is already invested in these companies anywas through the National pension fund I assume. Why double down
Tough day for the markets with bonds and stocks plunging. Draghi disappointed yesterday, basically admitting what they have been doing has failed. Fed threatening to raise rates in Sept. A perfect storm is brewing.
The world is fucked
In many, many ways. Spend away when you can because we’ll be trading in fags soon.
Indeed invest in as many gay people as you can
1 Like
Buy as much land as you can. Having an acre out the back to allow you grow your own food will be invaluable in a few years.