This is how ‘austerity’ works…
So only down 30% (approx) over last five years.
Unless member of the Quinn family or a developer 
Plus ça change plus c’est la même chose.
Do the Weston family reside here? I didn’t think so. Also, how are their Irish stores faring compared to the rest of their assets?
Denis O’Brien, however his initial wealth accumulation happened, has most of his current business operations overseas, they’re the ones increasing his wealth. His Irish interests are mostly vanity projects.
Campbell Soup? Again, tenuous Irish connection, negligible exposure to our austerity.
If we were to seize all of the Irish operations and assets of these first three, would that even cover a month of our defecit never mind make a dent in our outstanding borrowings? Sensationalist bullshit trying to claim that they’re in some way benefiting from the austerity in this country.
Although soup is good recession food.
But it makes good press.
One shite rag cites another shite rag as “Evidence”
bitch, please! The methodology is rubbish, assets are exaggerated, debts and taxes seem to be ignored. A while ago the same list had Sean Quinn pegged as a billionaire despite the personal and business debts.
This is good news.
So most of the top dogs are down on the year, especially those with assets tied up in the likes of property, retail or print media, mirroring the state of those industries in general. Those with large shareholdings in globally expanding companies are doing well and we have some new entrants as well.
How by any objective assessment is this a case of “the rich getting richer”?
I guess “Most rich people in general remaining relatively rich even if they have lost more money than most earn in a lifetime and some people in successful enterprises manage either get rich or get richer” doesn’t have much of a ring to it …
Socialism truly is the gospel of envy.
How is austerity making them richer?
What you really mean is you’re not rich enough to have accountants and solicitors worry about your tax bill, yet you’re rich enough to have to pay taxes.
Something along those lines.
Why do these people need so much money anyway? What sort of sad bastards spend their lives chasing more when they already have everything they need?
Aren’t the rich (and those that wish to be like them) really just the stupider end of society?
Strange statement given that it is a particular brand of ‘socialism’ that has been employed to defend these ‘risk-takers’ wealth over the past number of years.
Without ‘socialism’ the entire financial sector, and by extension so-called capitalism itself, would have collapsed a few years back…and it seems that some maintain their belief in the one true faith…the Cardinal Bradys of economics…
All hail the self-delusional ‘risk-takers’ 
It’s all relative where are you on the stupidity scale → globalrichlist.com/
Pretty young woman marries a rich old man, she tells him upfront she is marrying him for his money. He accepts this and they get married. A few years later as looks at the itemised bill from he latest shopping spree, he calls her in and says you lied to me, you didn’t marry me for my money, you married me to get the things that money buys. As your income goes up so do your outlays, accountants, solicitors, yachts, houses and managing resources are a recurring expense if you are making the times rich list, of course you want mo’ money, but, would you prefer everyone lived the green dream and we did not rise above subsistence level, how much better off would we be then?
Eh… thats bollocks. There is only so much “stuff” you can buy. Why do the wealthy leave such generous wills if we all spend it as quick as we make it.
And are you saying there is no such thing as enough?
Some of them, yes, but there are also some people who keep doing what made them rich in the first place because (i) they love it or (ii) they feel responsible for the business and other people who work there or (iii) they’re naturally restless and need to keep busy for their own peace of mind.
Some rich people are utterly useless, but others provide a lot to society.
A society is hardly capitalist if it needs socialism to “save” it but let’s not start that debate.
You said that the richest people in Ireland are getting richer and to support this statement you linked to a newspaper article that shows some rich people are indeed getting richer (generally when at the helm of or inheriting ownership of a successful company) but other rich people, generally those with a lot of property or running companies in badly hit sectors of the economy, are losing vast sums (while still remaining enormously rich).
As an indictment of Ireland as a haven for back-scratching, poor-robbing, fat cats, it’s hardly damning …
These rich are generating wealth and in doing so creating jobs. Would you rather the government have their money?
Somewhat debatable.
“Riches are a power like that of electricity, acting only through inequalities or negations of itself.” - John Ruskin
“There is no wealth but life… Life, including all its powers of love, of joy and of admiration. That country is the richest which nourishes the greatest number of noble and happy human beings.” - John Ruskin
Looking to that list:
Westons
Exclusive chain stores like Brown Thomas
Denis O’Brien
Essentially economic rents from assuming rights over national broadcast spectrums
John Dorrance
Condensed soup (optimal nourishment for our productive forces)
Liam Casey
Disruption of traditional supply chain models to take advantage of very cheap Asian labour
Others who got richer: Bono and U2, Michael O’Leary, Dermot Desmond, Larry Goodman, Margaret Heffernan of Dunnes Stores, and David Power of Paddy Power… Enough said?
I hear your quip about ‘would you rather give it to the government?’ I would say it is the duty of good government to manage and regulate capitalism to ensure that the greater good is served… that the inhumane ‘natural selection’ forces of unfettered competitive capitalism are infused with a human intelligence, purpose, and conscience.
We did actually leave the earlier unfettered competitive capitalism behind in the 19th century and move towards managed or regulated capitalism. But somewhere along the way, the forces of the nineteenth century prevailed again, and management and regulation let up. The result of that was 2006/7. There is a continuing fight about which way it is going to go from here, and I would personally be firmly on the side of managed and regulated capitalism. You are on the other side - an anachronism in my eyes - a naive product of a concerted and insidious propaganda.
EDIT Btw - actually, unfettered competitive capitalism inevitably evolves towards monopoly. That is in its nature. That is the primary reason why we had to move to managed or regulated capitalism at the beginning of the twentirth century. And when we let up on that regulation and management, why it ended up evolving back the way it did.
In the western world we all consume “stuff” we don’t really need or that could be replaced with other “stuff” that’s less expensive or more ethically produced. It doesn’t matter how little someone may percieve themselves to have in this country, how disadvanteged they may believe they are, there are billions in the world who would see that same person in a similar light to how that person sees the people on the rich list.
Most of the rich list don’t have much in the way of liquid assets, what they have is a circumstance in which they can generate an income to pay for their current expenditure and service debt which pays for their capital expendature. Even a person on social welfare in this country has an income, a guaranteed income, a substantial income in relative global terms. They may not percieve it to be enough, but that’s no different to rich people not percieving what they’ve got to be enough. It’s not really that difficult to understand.