cactus flower wrote:

Why can't we tax it?

A better way to put that might be: Why won't we tax it?

cactus,

i don;t see why we shouldn't have a "west of ireland extraction tax" like the bank levy back in the early 00's. say, 5% of the open market value of resourse extracted.

i don;t like taxing (heavily) legitimate business (being more of a neoclassical economist) but this deal stinks and we need to have our national interests protected.

Hermes wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

Why can't we tax it?

A better way to put that might be: Why won't we tax it?

We haven't so far, but I don't see why we couldn't, and I think we should. There is no reason why exploration firms shouldn't be able to write off exploration costs and then pay tax once the operation is up and running. I can't think of any business in the world that doesn't involve risk. The way the free market is supposed to work is that investors take a punt on drilling on the basis of preliminary survey. I find it deeply ironic that the free marketeers all think we should indulge in a heavy spot of market distortion for the benefit of sharefholders in oil and gas firms.

cactus flower wrote:

Hermes wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

Why can't we tax it?

A better way to put that might be: Why won't we tax it?

We haven't so far, but I don't see why we couldn't, and I think we should. There is no reason why exploration firms shouldn't be able to write off exploration costs and then pay tax once the operation is up and running. I can't think of any business in the world that doesn't involve risk. The way the free market is supposed to work is that investors take a punt on drilling on the basis of preliminary survey. I find it deeply ironic that the free marketeers all think we should indulge in a heavy spot of market distortion for the benefit of sharefholders in oil and gas firms.

That's a fair view. God forbid that I take Shell's side in this particular point, but, any move made now involves re-negotiation. Shell won't want to re-negotiate and our Government, won't want to do it, if for no other reason, it would be an admission that the original negotiations were made a dog's dinner of. My own view is much stronger: I believe the original negotiations arrived at an unlawful settlement and that heaven and earth will have to be moved to put it right. I take a much stronger view than S2S. I say let's investigate, try and jail some executives and politicians, and send Shell away with its tail between its legs with no deal (at least). After that's done, let's begin to talk about what we'll do with our national wealth. This current deal is a con job from start to finish and was arranged by con artists. Get them all out of the picture first. First rule in my book is don't send a traitor to make a deal and don't get into a business relationship with a murdering thief.

I think it's normal for there to be a sort of royalty on oil or gas extracted, that'd be the main source of money for the government out of it. Bertie did away with it years ago, for God knows what reason, instead we get trickle-down stuff like employment. Not a very good deal.

As for re-negotiating the deal, it wouldn't look any worse than the alterations made to the plans following the rí rá with the five in jail.

At the end of the day, sovereignty over Irish territiory, and that includes the Corrib gas field, rests with the Irish government. It is private property just as my filed is priovate property. The government cam come alonng at any time and build a road on it, if they feel it's in the national interest. Maybe it's time the Greens did a fifth column and demanded the re-negotiation of the Corrib deal. Given the economic conditions, such a move might have popular support.

www.village.ie/Archives/News_Take/Ray_Burke_was_right/+Ray+Burke+gas&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=ie" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:VHVcFvFaP5EJ:www.village.ie/Archives/News_Take/Ray_Burke_was_right/+Ray+Burke+gas&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=ie

Sinn Fein are calling for action on this. http://www.anphoblacht.com/news/detail/26647

This from Matt Cooper on the issue - if anyone has a subscription perhaps they could quote it here.

Ray Burke is a disgraced, jailed ex politician. It is time that there was renegotiation. No other country gives their assets away like this.

There is no reason that I can see why the tax rate should not be put up in the budget.





I'm very sorry that the VIllage magazine is defunct. Since it went monthly I thought it was a very good publication and had started to buy it.
Our Chekov made some excellent contributions.

Is there any reason to think that the deal Ray Burke negotiated is in any way compromised? Just because Ray Burke was corrupt that does not mean that every thing he was involved in should be put under review. A bad deal and a corrupt deal are two different things.

The Village is defunct for a reason.

905 wrote:

Is there any reason to think that the deal Ray Burke negotiated is in any way compromised? Just because Ray Burke was corrupt that does not mean that every thing he was involved in should be put under review. A bad deal and a corrupt deal are two different things.

The Village is defunct for a reason.

Because the deal is inexplicable in terms of normal practice, and severely disadvantagous to the Irish nation and population.

The poor old Village was broke. God knows how Vincent gets people to finance these things.

905 wrote:

Is there any reason to think that the deal Ray Burke negotiated is in any way compromised? Just because Ray Burke was corrupt that does not mean that every thing he was involved in should be put under review. A bad deal and a corrupt deal are two different things.

The Village is defunct for a reason.

Quite true. There's no reason to suspect that absolutely everything Burke did was tainted by corruption (but it is a good indicator that everything he touched should be examined to know for sure). However, the details in this particular case ought to be made public. This deal stinks to high heaven and the State's demand that the details remain a secret points strongly to an odour that might well be a product of deliberate rot. There's no reason to believe otherwise. Tis all well and fine to believe something based on faith when there's no concrete evidence. But, when the evidence is deliberately witheld by the government, whilst at the same time they ask us to take this 'truth' on faith, any resulting believer is not behaving in a rational fashion.

Hermes wrote:

905 wrote:

Is there any reason to think that the deal Ray Burke negotiated is in any way compromised? Just because Ray Burke was corrupt that does not mean that every thing he was involved in should be put under review. A bad deal and a corrupt deal are two different things.

The Village is defunct for a reason.

Quite true. There's no reason to suspect that absolutely everything Burke did was tainted by corruption (but it is a good indicator that everything he touched should be examined to know for sure). However, the details in this particular case ought to be made public. This deal stinks to high heaven and the State's demand that the details remain a secret points strongly to an odour that might well be a product of deliberate rot. There's no reason to believe otherwise. Tis all well and fine to believe something based on faith when there's no concrete evidence. But, when the evidence is deliberately witheld by the government, whilst at the same time they ask us to take this 'truth' on faith, any resulting believer is not behaving in a rational fashion.

Do they claim there is a confidentiality clause? Any good link on this?