I just mean like weâre talking like we have to make the banks as profitable as possible at the expense of the general public so as to help the taxpayer but as soon as the banks are actually making a profit, rather than keep those profitable banks for the taxpayer theyâll be sold off at an undervalue and the taxpayer wonât ever get to benefit from those profits that the general public have suffered to generate.
2 Likes
Weâre not interested in people and their lives anymore â itâs market value that we care about now.
1 Like
How do you know what the value of the banks are?
So you think we should keep the banks in order to maximise the profit/value from the. Itâs a fair argument but the main problem Iâd have with them is exactly the rate one - with political ownership theyâd be a continuous political football with corresponding interference which would most likely reduce their inherent profitability. You move from rates being changed to loans given to vested interests, jobs to political supporters etc etc etc.
Market value means the best possible deal for tax payers.
Holding onto the banks has resulted in feeble organisations that cost all of us more money.
I see betting tax has been doubled in the budget. Who pays this, the gambler or the bookie? Thereâs a predictable article in the Indo today screaming that âillegal gambling will returnâ when was illegal gambling and thing and where did it take place?
I donât have some grand Marxist or Thatcherite vision. I would observe that when Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac (or whatever they were called) blew up in the US the neo-liberals said it was because they were state-owned but the banks in this country blew up just as bad and they were private owned.
I appreciate that you donât like massive state ownership and thatâs fine. If politicians interfered with their profitability it would amount to direct government intervention to help mortgage-holders, which we never have currently. Loans to vested & party interests would be a bigger problem but it already happens currently (ie. Garrett Fitzgeraldâs cozy relationship with AIB). Thereâs a realistic scenario where business people criticize the government and next day the bank calls in their loan.
Maybe a fair compromise might just be to keep the profitable banks in state ownership for long enough that the taxpayer recoups 100% of the money they put into them, or until weâre not such an outrageously indebted nation. Keep them for 5 to 10 years say.
Itâs levied on the gambler but paid by the bookie at moment. Bookies can go and fuck themselves.
They can be enforced if the bankâs want. Banks havenât wanted to enforce them for the last few years due to negative equity. Even a loan that isnât being paid back is an asset on their balance sheet.
Thereâs money in babies
Fannie and Freddie were privately owned, they received government subsidizes and were under Federal regulations, however.
She should join scum fein if she wants even more free money and houses
Iâd be comfortable enough with that approach and I agree there is no âperfectâ solution. It seems to be the general approach at the moment with them leaking AIB back bit by bit. Iâd trust the civil service a hell of a lot more on something like this then Iâd trust the politicans ( of all political hues)
Not true. The handwringing over Vulture funds is really the banks getting non engaging mortgage holders off the books.
They had no reason to engage while we had State influence and courts refusing to enforce contracts.
These were not assets either, they would have been written down by the banks.
Agree about the negative equity point but broadly speaking they are not enforceable in any sort of legally efficient way or in a way that doesnât generate loads of political blowback. See the recent Permanent TSB loan bundle transfer for knicker-twisting of the highest order
Was tjere not a time where the gambler paid the tax along with the bet or am I dreaming ?
Youâve missed the point as usual.
There was I think.