Budget 2019


#381


#382

I just mean like we’re 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 they’ll be sold off at an undervalue and the taxpayer won’t ever get to benefit from those profits that the general public have suffered to generate.


#383

We’re not interested in people and their lives anymore – it’s market value that we care about now.


#384

How do you know what the value of the banks are?


#385

So you think we should keep the banks in order to maximise the profit/value from the. It’s a fair argument but the main problem I’d have with them is exactly the rate one - with political ownership they’d 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.


#386

#387

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.


#388

I see betting tax has been doubled in the budget. Who pays this, the gambler or the bookie? There’s a predictable article in the Indo today screaming that “illegal gambling will return” when was illegal gambling and thing and where did it take place?


#389

I don’t 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 don’t like massive state ownership and that’s 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 Fitzgerald’s cozy relationship with AIB). There’s 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 we’re not such an outrageously indebted nation. Keep them for 5 to 10 years say.


#390

It’s levied on the gambler but paid by the bookie at moment. Bookies can go and fuck themselves.


#391


#392

They can be enforced if the bank’s want. Banks haven’t wanted to enforce them for the last few years due to negative equity. Even a loan that isn’t being paid back is an asset on their balance sheet.


#393

There’s money in babies


#394

Fannie and Freddie were privately owned, they received government subsidizes and were under Federal regulations, however.


#395

She should join scum fein if she wants even more free money and houses


#396

I’d be comfortable enough with that approach and I agree there is no “perfect” solution. It seems to be the general approach at the moment with them leaking AIB back bit by bit. I’d trust the civil service a hell of a lot more on something like this then I’d trust the politicans ( of all political hues)


#397

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.


#398

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 doesn’t generate loads of political blowback. See the recent Permanent TSB loan bundle transfer for knicker-twisting of the highest order


#399

Was tjere not a time where the gambler paid the tax along with the bet or am I dreaming ?


#400

You’ve missed the point as usual.