Island is a bit small imo.
2 Likes
You are talking about whataboutery when you are the one who brought up the banks ffs.
I simply stated that this assertion on the 40 odd billion was bollix, and that investors who relied on the State to regulate things were wiped out and that much of that money went to protect you and I.
In response to that, you fly off the handle and call me a cunt.
All of this btw when I said that redress should be provided.
I will put it down to you being under pressure.
And then young taxpayers in Dublin canât get on the ladder. Hard to accept.
1 Like
You can put it down to you being a cunt.
Comparing investing in a banks shares to buying a home of bricks and mortar.
2 Likes
I made it quite clear.
Pensioners and others put their life savings in what they thought were well regulated businesses.
They were wiped out.
What we have here is a redress scheme running up to âŹ350k for homes that people thought were well well built.
You tried to play a few moral angles here but have been clearly shown up to be all about you. Understandable, but donât be going around calling others cunts because they point out the fallacy of your argument. To be honest, I find it quite offensive that you attempted to use the banks as your argument. I know lots of people who had their lives ruined by the collapse in Irish banks share prices. You attempted to use them to enhance your case when it suited, but then disparaged them when it came down to it.
2 Likes
I did absolutely no such thing. Youâre a lying cunt on top of everything else.
Those who invested in the banks shares were obviously sold a pup, a generation had pensions wiped out due to the loose touch regulation of the banking sector in the 00s, lessons have been learned and regulations have obviously tightened in that sector.
I wouldnât compare this with the current MICA issue in Donegal, I would be completely in favour of 100% redress, yes it all of our money, but housing is a basic human right, citizens have to be protected by their government.
Sanctions should be placed against the protagonists but that will be extremely difficult to do given the corporate veil and the time that has passed since construction.
A few lads are ball hopping which can be entertaining, but then there are others who donât seem to understand the seriousness of the MICA issue and almost feel that it is the fault of the homeowner??
Loose touch regulation of the banks was one of the main reasons behind the Wall Street Crash of 1929.
I wouldnât be so sure that the lessons learned from the most recent crash will remain forever more.
You attempted to use the banks to enhance your case. You tried to use the moral conviction of âbankersâ when it suited, when the reality was always far more nuanced.
The reality is that you think that you are better than pensioners who got nothing from the State after they lost their savings on what they thought was a well regulated sector. You are crapping on them when the Irish State has in place a large scale redress scheme.
Good man.
the only reality I see is youâre protecting big business, as usual.
Nobody said MICA wasnât serious.
What they said was the the redress scheme is more than sufficient.
You are confused on the âhuman rightsâ aspect. If that is the angle, the redress should be a home of the size of a standard social house for the the user. The redress is far in excess of that.
It isnât ball hopping. Billions in costs will mean less social houses are built. Thatâs the reality.
1 Like
Nope. I compared the corruption of the unregulated/unpoliced sector to the corruption of the unregulated/unpoliced construction sector.
The pensioners that you are referring were investing in a scheme that could go up or down. Simple as down.
Who in big business am I trying to protect?
I donât know you pal, yourself probably?
was it the investors that were bailed out or the banks? the bail out wasnât for people that got burned, it was for the institutions that were complicit in burning them
So you donât have anything. Best of luck.
bar you taking the side of big business and government in almost every financial argument or discussion that comes up on here, nothing no. But then again itâs an anonymous form
So you think that anyone who has a potential rebuild cost of âŹ200,000 should be able to find âŹ20,000 plus rent a house for around another âŹ10,000 during the rebuild process and continue to pay their existing mortgage as well?
Tim has no idea of how normal people live. Heâs probably posting from the Hamptons
The money that went into banks went into an assortment of things including bond holders and deposit holders.
The OAP who put their retirement in what they were told were regulated banks were not bailed out. They got no redress from the State
Letâs boil this down to what it is, the scheme is set to increase from 275k up to 350k. The protestors want more. The cost of this is going to run into the billions for what is ultimately a few thousand people. As the @Little_Lord_Fauntleroy says, building homes or 3,000sqf when they average family home is far smaller is not right given the larger issues in housing and the reality of restricted funds.