Anglo Fail

Scofflaw

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Well you've hit on an interesting point.

Ordinary people would be expected to grab their money now, for two reasons : firstly, it's THEIR money, entrusted to a bank to look after it properly, and secondly because they're not expert investors.

Expert investors take calculated risks and have come across badly-run (I love the way you soften the truth yet again by phrasing it as "not very well run", given what we've heard) businesses before, and have had to deal with it as part of their chosen professional occupation.

Thirdly, the ordinary people's money is all they have, as distinct from any reasonably competent investor who spread their risk.

Unfortunately it's the expert investors who are being looked after, while those whose money is at unwarranted risk are having to pay more money to ensure that they might at some stage get their original money back.....not only that, but they didn't choose to do this, and gave no-one the authority to act unilaterally on their behalf.

Except that ordinary depositors haven't lost their money, Liam - that was kind of the whole point of the bank guarantee. The expert investors have taken a variety of hits instead.

cordially,
Scofflaw

thebman

Scofflaw wrote: »

Except that ordinary depositors haven't lost their money, Liam - that was kind of the whole point of the bank guarantee. The expert investors have taken a variety of hits instead.

cordially,
Scofflaw

It does however look increasingly like the people and our money are the lowest priority for the government when you look at an inability to get public finances under control and a save the banks at all costs but who cares about the people with 100% mortgages we encouraged them to get attitude of the government.

Only really public services costs are increasing for the people. The government is doing everything it can to get as much of the peoples money as possible and then wondering why the economy isn't expanding.

Granted some sort of seizure of deposits is not on the cards IMO but the government isn't exactly encouraging confidence with their mismanagement of the banking crisis and their desire to get the peoples money from any source they can while refusing to accept any changes to their own lifestyles.

When they get the people that angry, they will vent be it in protests or fear or some other way.

Liam Byrne

Scofflaw wrote: »

Except that ordinary depositors haven't lost their money, Liam - that was kind of the whole point of the bank guarantee. The expert investors have taken a variety of hits instead.

cordially,
Scofflaw

But we have to pay €18,000 - €25,000 each in order to get it back. So if you €18,000 savings then they HAVE lost your money.

Boskowski

I don't care what anyone says, call me a socialist, but the banks and the big businesses need to be put on the curb. And the political system needs a bloody cleanup operation as well.

Drastic, is it? Yes, but I think it's necessary.

Doesn't matter what country you look at, western democracies are all about letting the plebs thinks they run the show because the can vote in their representatives every - whatever it is - 4 or 5 years, but of course they're not our 'representatives' at all and in reality we couldn't be farther away from running the show unless we were actually living on the moon.

Behind the curtains the real show happens and this is were big business fights over our money that is supposedly raised to fund things for our benefit like roads, hospitals, schools and stuff. Our 'representatives' are paid off by said big businesses it's so obvious it's actually nauseating. Just look who sits on what board and has shares in what bank and whatnot.

Every state project has exploding costs in the area of trebling or quadroupling. They can't even build a bloody motorway from tax payers money without creating some scam scheme where the tax payer could afford 200 miles motorway but couldn't afford a 350m bridge so despite having paid for the entire thing already we also have to pay fees for the next 120 years so that someone can make a ginormous profit when the whole thing should have nothing to do with them in the first place. Just an example. The scam is everywhere and it's so obvious it's nauseating. Sorry I'm repeating myself.

If the whole NAMA and Anglo scan is not tipping is over the edge I don't know what will.
Ah hold on, no tipping over. We're too busy in the rat race paying our mortgage and numbing our minds with x-factor and premiership football instead of kicking ass where it's warranted.

The whole thing is systemic and needs a rather dramatic cleanup. I'm not saying there should be no businesses and there should be no profits. No problem with that, but our current political and economical system makes a mockery of the term representative democracy and this bullsh1t needs to end. We, the plebs, need to take the power back.

Scofflaw

thebman wrote: »

It does however look increasingly like the people and our money are the lowest priority for the government when you look at an inability to get public finances under control and a save the banks at all costs but who cares about the people with 100% mortgages we encouraged them to get attitude of the government.

Only really public services costs are increasing for the people. The government is doing everything it can to get as much of the peoples money as possible and then wondering why the economy isn't expanding.

Granted some sort of seizure of deposits is not on the cards IMO but the government isn't exactly encouraging confidence with their mismanagement of the banking crisis and their desire to get the peoples money from any source they can while refusing to accept any changes to their own lifestyles.

When they get the people that angry, they will vent be it in protests or fear or some other way.

The problem there - for any government - is that to get the public finances under control requires cutting costs and raising taxes. Neither of those is popular, and neither of them improve the economy - cutting the state bill seems like a no-loss measure, but isn't, because when you cut €3bn from the State bill, you've removed €3bn of demand from the economy.

Bailing out the banking system is absolutely necessary, because the economy won't function without it.

As for bailing out people with 100% mortgages - look at it this way. If public services are cut, if taxes are raised, if the banks are bailed out, then the guy with the 100% mortgage and the guy with no property are affected equally. If the government "sorts out" the guy with the 100% mortgage, how is that fair on someone who either couldn't or wouldn't buy property during the boom?

Liam Byrne wrote:

But we have to pay €18,000 - €25,000 each in order to get it back. So if you €18,000 savings then they HAVE lost your money.

Er, link, perhaps?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Boskowski

Scofflaw wrote: »

Bailing out the banking system is absolutely necessary, because the economy won't function without it.

while that's true as such it's been so overused to muddy the waters I just can't hear it anymore.

Scofflaw

Boskowski wrote: »

while that's true as such it's been so overused to muddy the waters I just can't hear it anymore.

Sure, but the very reason it's been used to muddy that waters is because it is true - and sadly, it seems it has to be repeated quite often, because there seem to be quite a lot of people who don't understand the role banks play.

Really, though, it's an argument for proper bank regulation, maybe more. If you buy a car, you might be a bit annoyed if the CD player isn't great, but the brakes are supposed to damn well conform to a proper specification. Banks aren't ordinary businesses - they usually can't be allowed to fail, so they shouldn't really be allowed to operate with a free hand at all.

At this stage, I'm not really convinced that the major banks should be allowed outside the hands of the state. The state is admittedly incompetent - that's shown by their failure to regulate them properly in the first place - but it's also unadventurous and risk-averse. Let minor banks handle the adventurous lending, and break them up the moment they reach a certain size. They're not normal businesses - why do we allow them to act like it?

cordially,
Scofflaw

oppenheimer1

hobochris wrote: »

Would a better solution not have been, put a state guarantee over BOI and AIB, set up an assistance fund(like the EU did for dell) and let Anglo go to the wall.

Anyone who loses out from Anglo going to the wall can apply to the Anglo assistance fund, with bondholder applications being refused as they made a bet and lost, but deposits being taken out of the fund.

The only problem I see with that is the investors overseas may have interpreted that action as the Government not standing behind the banking sector. This decreased confidence could have led them to think that the government would cut the other banks loose once the going got too tough, possibly triggering a run on the other banks. The other banks and institutions all had money tied up in Anglo too. All the while the fallout from Lehmans was fresh in the mind.

Its hard to know what exactly would have happened, but this was occurring in the middle of the financial crisis and the fallout from Anglo would have been very difficult to contain.

Liam Byrne

Scofflaw wrote: »

Bailing out the banking system is absolutely necessary, because the economy won't function without it.

That should not include bailing out corrupt and insolvent banks.

Scofflaw wrote: »

As for bailing out people with 100% mortgages - look at it this way. If public services are cut, if taxes are raised, if the banks are bailed out, then the guy with the 100% mortgage and the guy with no property are affected equally. If the government "sorts out" the guy with the 100% mortgage, how is that fair on someone who either couldn't or wouldn't buy property during the boom?

Hold on just a second now......no-one was suggesting bailing anyone out until this government decided (without consulting the people and under secretive and dubious circumstances that allows them to make all sorts of outlandish claims) that they would bail out a select few and skew the market via NAMA to ensure that market forces were subverted.

So either you bail out NO-ONE or you bail out EVERYONE.

And given that it's OUR money that's been used to bail out the banks, the above paragraph could be equally applied to that; a select few well-connected people CHOSE to gamble and rip people off.....others didn't.

So ask your own question regarding fairness; is it fair that people who didn't gamble should be not only excluded from the bailout, but also be asked to foot the bill for the bailout and foot the bill for payoffs and pensions for the greedy incompetents AND be hit with additional bank charges and government levies ?

The can of worms re fairness was opened by this government - your party included.

If no-one was bailed out then their exposure and pain would be directly related to the amount that they gambled.

THAT would be fair; but fairness isn't a word that this government understands.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Er, link, perhaps?

:rolleyes: You don't need a link to do basic maths. Check the cost of the bailout and divide it by the population.

Yitzhak Rabin

Scofflaw wrote: »

Er, link, perhaps?

cordially,
Scofflaw

I'm guessing, its a bailout of conservatively 36 bn. Probably in and around 2 million tax paying workers at the moment.

So thats 36,000,000,000 / 2,000,000 = 18,000 per worker.

Scofflaw

You don't need a link to do basic maths. Check the cost of the bailout and divide it by the population.

No, but you do need some justification. Tax is in no sense divided equally between all tax payers, and that cost is not levelled against someone getting their money back under the guarantee as was implied by the context.

It's a nice throwaway line, but given the context (the 'little people' getting it in the neck) I'm afraid I have to say it smells quite a bit of the cattle shed. Contrary to the repetitive complaints on internet forums and Joe Duffy, it's not the little people who pay taxes - that's a myth. The little people, by and large, receive taxes.

Also, I appreciate that you really hate paying out any money, but not everyone would accept that the extra taxes aren't preferable to a bank collapse.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Laminations

You really will go to any lengths to defend the banking strategy (the greens role particularly). Cuts in services will affect the little people, and even if the 18,000 a head debt is burdened by the better off, unless they were part of the decision making at these private banks, they shouldn't be paying for them, you consistently point to a banking collapse as the alternative to the route taken- newsflash, there were many alternatives. The government ballsed it up and you for some reason can't admit it.

recedite

Boskowski wrote: »

I don't care what anyone says, call me a socialist, but the banks and the big businesses need to be put on the curb. And the political system needs a bloody cleanup operation as well.

Drastic, is it? Yes, but I think it's necessary.

Doesn't matter what country you look at, western democracies are all about letting the plebs thinks they run the show because the can vote in their representatives every - whatever it is - 4 or 5 years, but of course they're not our 'representatives' at all and in reality we couldn't be farther away from running the show unless we were actually living on the moon.

Behind the curtains the real show happens and this is were big business fights over our money that is supposedly raised to fund things for our benefit like roads, hospitals, schools and stuff. Our 'representatives' are paid off by said big businesses it's so obvious it's actually nauseating. Just look who sits on what board and has shares in what bank and whatnot.

Every state project has exploding costs in the area of trebling or quadroupling. They can't even build a bloody motorway from tax payers money without creating some scam scheme where the tax payer could afford 200 miles motorway but couldn't afford a 350m bridge so despite having paid for the entire thing already we also have to pay fees for the next 120 years so that someone can make a ginormous profit when the whole thing should have nothing to do with them in the first place. Just an example. The scam is everywhere and it's so obvious it's nauseating. Sorry I'm repeating myself.

If the whole NAMA and Anglo scan is not tipping is over the edge I don't know what will.
Ah hold on, no tipping over. We're too busy in the rat race paying our mortgage and numbing our minds with x-factor and premiership football instead of kicking ass where it's warranted.

The whole thing is systemic and needs a rather dramatic cleanup. I'm not saying there should be no businesses and there should be no profits. No problem with that, but our current political and economical system makes a mockery of the term representative democracy and this bullsh1t needs to end. We, the plebs, need to take the power back.

Well said, Botoxski. Viva la Revolution!

Liam Byrne

Scofflaw wrote: »

No, but you do need some justification. Tax is in no sense divided equally between all tax payers

Oh, that's true for sure. Remind me again why your party supports a government that includes a corrupt individual who has no tax clearance cert ?

Scofflaw wrote: »

, and that cost is not levelled against someone getting their money back under the guarantee as was implied by the context.

I have no idea what you are getting at here. If someone has €18,000 in the bank and they have to pay €18,000 in taxes to get back, then the bailout has gained them nothing.

Scofflaw wrote: »

It's a nice throwaway line, but given the context (the 'little people' getting it in the neck) I'm afraid I have to say it smells quite a bit of the cattle shed. Contrary to the repetitive complaints on internet forums and Joe Duffy, it's not the little people who pay taxes - that's a myth. The little people, by and large, receive taxes.

Condescending bull, simular to what we've heard elsewhere. But since you love your links, I'll bite : where is your link to back up your claim that "the little people, by and large, receive taxes" ?

And remember you're not allowed talk in generalisations or averages, because you wouldn't let me do so.

How does someone who's, for example, not on social welfare, has no kids, and has forked out for their own house, etc, "receive taxes" ?

These annoying "little people" as you call them don't have €18,000 in the bank. So they are completely losing the €18,000

A typical person might have, say, €18,000 - €50,000 in the bank, so they might gain slightly.

Someone with €1,800,000 in the bank would probably be happy enough that they were paying 10% extra to make sure they got their cash.

So who's gaining more in that scenario ?

You guessed it, and even if the averages aren't as "average", it sure ain't the "little people" that you so condescendingly refer to.

Scofflaw wrote: »

but not everyone would accept that the extra taxes aren't preferable to a bank collapse.

Well if we were given the facts and a choice, I could make an objective decision as to what I wanted and accept a democratic decision.

I don't appreciate being lied to with new revelations as to how much worse things really are every few weeks, and neither do the EU or the international markets.

I also don't appreciate that Iceland and other countries are on their way out and have already gone after some of those responsible while Ireland's politicians have done feck-all worthwhile over the last 2 years other than ensure that vested interests and connected people get their pensions and payoffs and get to transfer their cash to their wives.

ei.sdraob

Liam has a very good point

instead of solving the Anglo problem there and then, liquidating the bank and recovering as much money in firesales and pushing the EUrozone to come up with a eurozone wide deposit guarantee (which will be required one way or another)

We will pay larger amount that would be needed to pay depositors via reduced services (hello hospital closures) and more taxes for a very long time

there is no free lunch


Actually who said that depositors would have had to be paid back a cent in 2008? Moving all of the Anglo depositors (whoever they were) to the other banks and putting a gurantee (only for depositors none of this bondholder crap) and pushing the eurozone members for a larger eurizone backing/support would have solved the problem there and then


instead after 2 years we have more uncertainty, more bull**** and still in a deep recession

Scarab80

BingoMingo wrote: »

"given the broad similarities in the type and geography of their property-related lending, their common implicit reliance on the backing of the Irish State, and even name confusion."

This Means, People of Ireland, you are all so stupid you can't tell the difference between AIB and Anglo. We had to bail Anglo out in case you got confused and thought we were talking about AIB. !!

4FS.- It Means "We had to spend 29Bn cos our country is populated by idiots who can't spell".

No it doesn't. It means international news agencies getting AIB and Anglo Irish Bank mixed up, which was still happening up to a few weeks ago.

BingoMingo wrote: »

This is,(according to Vincent Browne) Ireland's most powerful man talking. God Help Us.

Sorry Scarab80 but you picked the wrong muppet there!! He is definitely on my No Fly List.

With respect, Patrick Honohan is probably the most respected economist in the country and has also proved himself on the international stage as lead economist and senior financial sector adviser with the World Bank.

Unless you have personally reviewed primary documentation in relation to Anglo and the bailout you are relying on someone elses interpretation of the figures.

As an interest observer I'll go with the respected economist who has produced a detailed 180 page report on the crisis rather than a random internet poster who feels the need to use bold, italics and underline to get his point across, call me crazy!

Scofflaw

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Oh, that's true for sure. Remind me again why your party supports a government that includes a corrupt individual who has no tax clearance cert ?



I have no idea what you are getting at here. If someone has €18,000 in the bank and they have to pay €18,000 in taxes to get back, then the bailout has gained them nothing.



Condescending bull, simular to what we've heard elsewhere. But since you love your links, I'll bite : where is your link to back up your claim that "the little people, by and large, receive taxes" ?

And remember you're not allowed talk in generalisations or averages, because you wouldn't let me do so.

How does someone who's, for example, not on social welfare, has no kids, and has forked out for their own house, etc, "receive taxes" ?

These annoying "little people" as you call them don't have €18,000 in the bank. So they are completely losing the €18,000

A typical person might have, say, €18,000 - €50,000 in the bank, so they might gain slightly.

Someone with €1,800,000 in the bank would probably be happy enough that they were paying 10% extra to make sure they got their cash.

So who's gaining more in that scenario ?

You guessed it, and even if the averages aren't as "average", it sure ain't the "little people" that you so condescendingly refer to.



Well if we were given the facts and a choice, I could make an objective decision as to what I wanted and accept a democratic decision.

I don't appreciate being lied to with new revelations as to how much worse things really are every few weeks, and neither do the EU or the international markets.

I also don't appreciate that Iceland and other countries are on their way out and have already gone after some of those responsible while Ireland's politicians have done feck-all worthwhile over the last 2 years other than ensure that vested interests and connected people get their pensions and payoffs and get to transfer their cash to their wives.

The fact that the "little people" receive taxes rather than pay them has been dealt with at some length on the "Half don't pay taxes" thread. The difference in Ireland's Gini coefficient before and after taxes and transfers makes the difference visible in summary form. You can also refer to Ronan Lyon's post on the matter, which is linked there.

The spread of tax payment is also geographic - I have a post summarising the difference in tax and transfers between the different counties - over the decade the bank bailout is expected to be spread over, I and other Dublin taxpayers will in any case have transferred that amount or more to rural taxpayers like yourself.

If you're going to do the maths, you should really do all the maths, rather than trotting out simplistic headline-grabbers, although I appreciate the latter help fuel your apparent state of perpetual outrage.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Liam Byrne

Scofflaw wrote: »

The fact that the "little people" receive taxes rather than pay them has been dealt with at some length on the "Half don't pay taxes" thread. The difference in Ireland's Gini coefficient before and after taxes and transfers makes the difference visible in summary form. You can also refer to Ronan Lyon's post on the matter, which is linked there.

The spread of tax payment is also geographic - I have a post summarising the difference in tax and transfers between the different counties - over the decade the bank bailout is expected to be spread over, I and other Dublin taxpayers will in any case have transferred that amount or more to rural taxpayers like yourself.

If you're going to do the maths, you should really do all the maths, rather than trotting out simplistic headline-grabbers, although I appreciate the latter help fuel your apparent state of perpetual outrage.

Ah well, it was worth a try to get you to be consistent, but now you've gone from blankly blaming "little people" to blaming the bane of Greens existence : "rural" people....

What about little people living in Dublin ?

For someone who supposedly dislikes generalisations, you're making a lot of poor, generalised statements in order to support your objectionable stance.....actually let's make that stances, since you'd prefer if we'd all paid twice as much for crap housing in Dublin, making everyone worse off due to extra demand.

And nice avoidance of the questions re Ahern's tax status.