New Household Tax - Boycott

meglome

stevedublin wrote: »

Thats for sure.

I can see you are good at inventing excuses and distorting facts, well done.
Do you intend staying in this country for the next few years?
I hope you won't mind paying punitive taxes or the country enduring massive govt spending cuts to pay for the bad investment decisions of international financial institutions then.

Steve I have done the opposite to distorting facts. I have stated clear and unambiguous facts. You may not choose to accept them but that is a different issue. Sure our banks helped bring it all down on our heads but it's simply not true to say we wouldn't have had to borrow the majority of the money without the banks.

stevedublin wrote: »

Not really, I just want people to know the truth - if there were no bank bailouts we wouldn't be having this household charge/property tax.
Sorry if i dont have a time machine to be able to back that up.

That is just untrue. Look at the links I supplied, links written by people who know what they are talking about. Do you not see the difference between that and what some random bloke says down the pub?

stevedublin wrote: »

If the middle classes were to be forced to leave the country because of this soon-to-be property tax, then there would be no-one left to support welfare entitlements or help create jobs of those who traditionallly vote for the "loony left".

We are 14 billion in a hole this year alone. While greater efficiencies will cut that bill there is no way is can all be saved by efficiency.

later12 wrote: »

Unabashed straw man there. While expenditure cuts can cause short term declines in domestic demand, they have been shown to be ultimately expansionary,not least in our own case.

Really how do we stop overspending by 14 billion a year?

later12

meglome wrote: »

Really how do we stop overspending by 14 billion a year?

By focusing our consolidation on expenditure cuts: to be specific, current government expenditures like welfare transfers and public sector pay, for a start.

This charge aimed to raise about €160 million. We could have cut that from welfare.

stevedublin

meglome wrote: »

We are 14 billion in a hole this year alone. While greater efficiencies will cut that bill there is no way is can all be saved by efficiency.

Really how do we stop overspending by 14 billion a year?

So your solution is punitive taxes.

meglome

stevedublin wrote: »

The money used to borrow for the bank bailouts could have been used to help plug this gap without taxing the family home.
There are other ways to raise taxes that relate to the taxpayers ability to pay e.g. raise income tax or VAT.

Simple question why didn't we have enough tax money coming in? The reason is Fianna Fail bought elections by moving us away from sustainable but unpopular taxes to using stamp duty, income tax and vat. This is all fine and dandy until you hit a bump in the road or worse go into recession. Since stamp duty, vat and income tax fall substantially you can no longer fund the country. A property tax will be even more unpopular in a recession but it won't be less necessary.

stevedublin

meglome wrote: »

That is just untrue. Look at the links I supplied, links written by people who know what they are talking about. Do you not see the difference between that and what some random bloke says down the pub?

I can see that they are cleverer at making their point. Do you honestly believe that we would have this household charge if it wasn't for the bank bailouts?

meglome

stevedublin wrote: »

I can see that they are cleverer at making their point. Do you honestly believe that we would have this household charge if it wasn't for the bank bailouts?

Steve I really don't get what you're missing here. There is no doubt whatsoever that we'd be raising new taxes even without the bank bailout. NO DOUBT WHATSOEVER. We need sustainable tax streams, like a property tax brings. I can ask some other economists for you but I know what they will say.

meglome

later12 wrote: »

By focusing our consolidation on expenditure cuts: to be specific, current government expenditures like welfare transfers and public sector pay, for a start.

This charge aimed to raise about €160 million. We could have cut that from welfare.

I'm not disagreeing with you but I am asking how we find 14 billion.

djpbarry

stevedublin wrote: »

The money used to borrow for the bank bailouts could have been used to help plug this gap without taxing the family home.

How about you produce some figures to support that?

oscarBravo

later12 wrote: »

I think people are probably bored of me re-posting papers on why revenue raising measures are less effective than expenditure cuts, but I can do it again if you'd like. I'm certainly not an apologist for such inexcusable expenditure.

Neither am I, but I'm sufficiently pragmatic to realise that the hysteria that's unleashed at the suggestion that we should pay €2 each week in extra taxation will be directed without pause for breath at the suggestion that social welfare rates are anything other than sacrosanct, or that any attempt to address the public service pay bill will be greeted as anything but an attack on frontline services.

Unabashed straw man there. While expenditure cuts can cause short term declines in domestic demand, they have been shown to be ultimately expansionary,not least in our own case.

I'm sure if you explained that to Joe Higgins, he'd be first in line to vote for cuts in social welfare rates.

stevedublin wrote: »

There are other ways to raise taxes that relate to the taxpayers ability to pay e.g. raise income tax or VAT.

Strangely enough, I have seen very few "RAISE INCOME TAX INSTEAD!!" posters at any of the protests against this tax. I wonder why that is?

stevedublin wrote: »

So your solution is punitive taxes.

Actually, that's your solution too (see above). Or do you agree with later12 that the solution is deep cuts to public sector pay and social welfare?

later12

meglome wrote: »

I'm not disagreeing with you but I am asking how we find 14 billion.

No, it's actually not a question of €14 billion. You're ignoring factors like increased economic growth at current anticipated levels in making up the deficit.

At present, the government are planning about €3 billion euros savings from taxes through to 2015, and about €5.5 billion arising through expenditure cuts. My preferred option would be to find an additional €3 billion in savings from public sector pay and welfare transfers in particular.

gerryo777

later12 wrote: »

By focusing our consolidation on expenditure cuts: to be specific, current government expenditures like welfare transfers and public sector pay, for a start.

This charge aimed to raise about €160 million. We could have cut that from welfare.

We could also save almost a billion euro by taking back all the allowances that our teachers and guards get.

later12

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm sufficiently pragmatic to realise that the hysteria that's unleashed at the suggestion that we should pay €2 each week in extra taxation will be directed without pause for breath at the suggestion that social welfare rates are anything other than sacrosanct

Then you're not being realistic. The cuts to social welfare so far have not resulted in anything like the level of opposition that has materialised with respect to the household charge, which is facing outright revolt.

murphaph

stevedublin wrote: »

The money used to borrow for the bank bailouts could have been used to help plug this gap without taxing the family home.
There are other ways to raise taxes that relate to the taxpayers ability to pay e.g. raise income tax or VAT.

Sure what's the difference between taxing the family home and taxing the family clothes etc./income?

stevedublin

stevedublin wrote: »

I can see that they are cleverer at making their point. Do you honestly believe that we would have this household charge if it wasn't for the bank bailouts?

Steve, can you please answer the direct question that's been put to you several times now without a direct answer as yet: How can you claim that the HC would not be necessary if it were not for bank bailouts, when bank recapitalization costs make up only 5% of our current budget deficit?

If our bank debts disappeared completely tomorrow, we would still be in the red to the tune of 95% of what we are today with the EU/IMF, mainly due to our rampant public sector spending. To borrow a phrase from an old crook, "as a community, we are living way beyond our means". I don't like bank bailouts any more than you, but you can't continue to ignore the central point here: they are a red herring; the real issue is the unsustainable level of public spending on health, social welfare, etc, and what, if anything can be done about reducing its cost ASAFP.

stevedublin

murphaph wrote: »

Sure what's the difference between taxing the family home and taxing the family clothes etc./income?

You pay VAT when you buy the clothes, but then there is no annual tax.
People pay stamp duty for their home when they buy it, the property tax is in addition to this.
There is no annual charge for other basic human needs like food, clothes etc.

stevedublin

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't like bank bailouts any more than you, but you can't continue to ignore the central point here: they are a red herring; the real issue is the unsustainable level of public spending on health, social welfare, etc, and what, if anything can be done about reducing its cost ASAFP.

Hehe, they are very good at propaganda, it is the bank bailouts that are the central point and spending that is the red herring.
But if you lot want no public spending on health or social welfare, okay, lets see what happens

stevedublin

meglome wrote: »

I'm not disagreeing with you but I am asking how we find 14 billion.

The property tax would have to be an average of €8,000 to make 14 billion. (assuming everyone pays, hehe)

stevedublin

djpbarry wrote: »

How about you produce some figures to support that?

from http://www.notourdebt.ie/faq

The Irish Government is scheduled to make €47.9 billion of promissory note related payments between March 2011 and March 2031 – this is composed of €30.6 billion capital reduction – the €30.6 billion owed – and €16.8 billion in interest repayments.

stevedublin

Apologies, the above figure is not right, maybe its just Anglo debt,
€70 billion according to this source:
http://www.iboa.ie/aib/press/2011/04/01/70bn-the-total-cost-to-the-taxpayer-of-the-bank-ba/

stevedublin

oscarBravo wrote: »

Actually, that's your solution too (see above). Or do you agree with later12 that the solution is deep cuts to public sector pay and social welfare?

Neither, we should stop paying the promissory notes first.

stevedublin

according to http://www.iboa.ie/aib/press/2011/04/01/70bn-the-total-cost-to-the-taxpayer-of-the-bank-ba/ (at the very end)

Our interest payments will hit €9bn annually by 2014.

€9 billion is more than 5% of €14 billion

beeftotheheels

stevedublin wrote: »

Neither, we should stop paying the promissory notes first.

Which would require leaving the EU. You good with that? You sure that MS and Google and all those MNCs who employ thousands of Irish people would be good with that?

The PNs are a backstop to Irish Central Bank ELA to prevent the ECB engaging in monetary financing. We have to repay it or leave the EU unless the EU treaties get changed, specifically a watering down of Art 123 TFEU.

PeadarCo

stevedublin wrote: »

according to http://www.iboa.ie/aib/press/2011/04/01/70bn-the-total-cost-to-the-taxpayer-of-the-bank-ba/ (at the very end)


€9 billion is more than 5% of €14 billion

Do you know how much of that interest is related to bank debt and how much is associated with intrest that dervives from the borrowings required to finance the primary budget deficit(The deficit - bank interest costs)

stevedublin

PeadarCo wrote: »

Do you know how much of that interest is related to bank debt and how much is associated with intrest that dervives from the borrowings required to finance the primary budget deficit(The deficit - bank interest costs)

not sure, but from the article:

The Coalition is trying to separate the bank debt -- somewhere north of €170bn -- and the national debt -- close to €100bn -- but this is just a bookkeeping exercise.

The amount from the bank debt would be at least 63% of total govt debt, still going to be much more than €0.7 billion (5% of €14 billion)

stevedublin

beeftotheheels wrote: »

Which would require leaving the EU. You good with that? You sure that MS and Google and all those MNCs who employ thousands of Irish people would be good with that?

I'm not completely convinced that refusing to pay promissory notes would mean Ireland leaves the EU. Greece defaulted on its debt (ordinary sovereign debt, not even "bank bailout" debt) and is still in the EU.
Also, I am not sure that all MNCs would fire everyone they employ in the country in the unlikely event that Ireland leaves the EU.

PeadarCo

stevedublin wrote: »

not sure, but from the article:
The amount from the bank debt would be at least 63% of total govt debt, still going to be much more than €0.7 billion (5% of €14 billion)

My take on it was total government debt was 170bn and thats assuming all money allocated to the banks in the bailout is drawn down. The article notes the total cost of the bailout could be 70.3bn. At the moment it appears to be 46.3bn. I assume the 100bn remaining is associated with goverment primary deficit. The article mentions nothing about the interest rates that applies to the various types of debt. Each having different maturites and accordinly different rates.

Also given the 9bn figure relates to 2014 how does relate to 2012 and that figure is just a total of all interest payments. Given that the current deficit is about 18bn and thats primary. Have you any figures showing the current breakdowns?

beeftotheheels

stevedublin wrote: »

I'm not completely convinced that refusing to pay promissory notes would mean Ireland leaves the EU. Greece defaulted on its debt (ordinary sovereign debt, not even "bank bailout" debt) and is still in the EU.

Eh, yeah, that's the point!

Defaulting on private sector creditors is fine, defaulting on official creditors which Greece did not, and could not do, is the problem.

Let there be no doubt that the ECB is an official creditor here as evidenced by its inability to partake in the Greek PSI necessitating their pre-emptive swap into bonds not being CACed or tendered.

stevedublin wrote: »

Also, I am not sure that all MNCs would fire everyone they employ in the country in the unlikely event that Ireland leaves the EU.

Everyone? No, not at all. Just most. The capital controls we'd have to introduce would mean they'd need to move any regional head quarter activity out, any financing out, any IP out, and any significant cash generative activities out. The benefits to employing people here would evaporate since what benefit producing here if all our exports are subject to import tariffs (retaliation for our capital controls) on entering the EU? We'd be outside the VAT directives so they could be subject to double indirect tax costs.

The Irish American Chamber of Commerce has made clear that they expect us to remain within the EU and indeed within the euro. You'd be playing Russian roulette with thousands of jobs.

Did you really think that the Government weren't doing this because they didn't feel like it, or did you even consider that there could be a little bit more to it than that?

djpbarry

stevedublin wrote: »

from http://www.notourdebt.ie/faq

The Irish Government is scheduled to make €47.9 billion of promissory note related payments between March 2011 and March 2031 – this is composed of €30.6 billion capital reduction – the €30.6 billion owed – and €16.8 billion in interest repayments.

stevedublin wrote: »

Apologies, the above figure is not right, maybe its just Anglo debt,
€70 billion according to this source:
http://www.iboa.ie/aib/press/2011/04/01/70bn-the-total-cost-to-the-taxpayer-of-the-bank-ba/

Both are right, in a sense. The total cost of the bailout will be of the order of €65-70 billion, the future payments on promissory notes making up about half of that sum.

However, the cost of borrowing to cover day-to-day government spending will be far higher - it is expected that by 2015 this figure will hit €100 billion, by which time the current deficit will still be €5 billion per annum.

It's funny how people refer to the "black hole" of bank recapitalisation, because it should be remembered that it's possible that some of that €70 billion will be recouped by selling the state's shares in Bank of Ireland and AIB at some point in the future. The €100 billion used to pay for welfare and public sector salaries, on the other hand, will be gone forever.

stevedublin

PeadarCo wrote: »

Also given the 9bn figure relates to 2014 how does relate to 2012 and that figure is just a total of all interest payments. Given that the current deficit is about 18bn and thats primary. Have you any figures showing the current breakdowns?

According to megelome's figures, the current deficit is 14bn, not 18bn.
I'm not sure if 9bn is just for bank bailout or not.
Why is the current breakdown so important?, the property tax wont get really big until a few years (2014 onwards).
I don't have all the facts and figures (where do I get them?), which can be cherry picked to suit a viewpoint anyway (daft.ie recently produced figures which suggests house prices are increasing!, turns out they were only for new or changed asking prices on its site!)

stevedublin

The current deficit has been quoted by megelome as €14bn, PeaderCo as €18bn and djpbarry as €5bn.

djpbarry

stevedublin wrote: »

The current deficit has been quoted by megelome as €14bn, PeaderCo as €18bn and djpbarry as €5bn.

Eh, no. I said it is projected to be €5 billion in 2015. It currently stands at €14 billion.

stevedublin

beeftotheheels wrote: »

Eh, yeah, that's the point!

Defaulting on private sector creditors is fine, defaulting on official creditors which Greece did not, and could not do, is the problem.

Let there be no doubt that the ECB is an official creditor here as evidenced by its inability to partake in the Greek PSI necessitating their pre-emptive swap into bonds not being CACed or tendered.

I'm not an expert in economics, but whatever Greece did, we need to do too.

beeftotheheels wrote: »

The Irish American Chamber of Commerce has made clear that they expect us to remain within the EU

I agree with these guys, Ireland will not be leaving the EU.

stevedublin

stevedublin wrote: »

I don't have all the facts and figures (where do I get them?), which can be cherry picked to suit a viewpoint anyway (daft.ie recently produced figures which suggests house prices are increasing!, turns out they were only for new or changed asking prices on its site!)

I lol'd at that when I heard it. Firstly, asking prices are no indicator whatsoever of actual sale prices, which are invariably lower at the moment, sometimes very significantly so, and secondly DAFT is hardly an impartial source of information. Yet another report from a vested interest talking up the freefalling property sector and prematurely calling the bottom, like we've seen regularly for several years now. Friends first, daft.ie, sherry fitzgerald, all the usual suspects telling us it's a good time to get the chequebook out (yet again).

The CSO house price index would have been a far better guide for anyone who could wait a few weeks, but DAFT probably couldn't have spun that in a way that suited their "quick, start buying before all the houses are gone" standpoint.

djpbarry

stevedublin wrote: »

I'm not an expert in economics...

You've hidden it well.

stevedublin wrote: »

...but whatever Greece did, we need to do too.

You really don't. Greece is utterly ****ed. Utterly. Whatever Greece does, Ireland should be doing the opposite.

beeftotheheels

stevedublin wrote: »

I'm not an expert in economics, but whatever Greece did, we need to do too.

Greece will be a ward of the international community/ EU for decades to come. Their economy is crippled and they have absolutely no hope. They're damned if they do and they're damned if they don't. They may recover their economic sovereignty sometime in the middle of the next decade but they won't be able to run a deficit for decades after that because they won't have access to the sovereign debt markets just as they didn't on euro entry because their track record on default made their risk premium too high.

Their domestic economy is contracting and their ability to attract inward investment is stiffled by the perception that they have a corruption issue combined with the fact that their very social contract is fraying at the edges and civil unrest does not look that far off, indeed a coup probably wouldn't be all that shocking.

Their people are suffering from a degree of austerity we wouldn't want to imagine, soup kitchens are now a reality on the ground.

Forgive me for saying that anyone with half a brain in their heads does not want this for Ireland.

stevedublin wrote: »

I agree with these guys, Ireland will not be leaving the EU.

Well then don't go around proposing half baked ideas like not repaying the promissory notes without understanding that such a failure could, in all likelihood, result in our ejection from the EU.

A negotiated settlement with some alteration of the role of the ECB is required, not an ill thought out knee jerk reaction to not wanting to pay a €100 tax.

stevedublin

beeftotheheels wrote: »

Their people are suffering from a degree of austerity we wouldn't want to imagine, soup kitchens are now a reality on the ground.

Forgive me for saying that anyone with half a brain in their heads does not want this for Ireland.

No, I don't. Thats why I am saying to resist the property tax.

beeftotheheels wrote: »

A negotiated settlement with some alteration of the role of the ECB is required,

I agree.

beeftotheheels wrote: »

not an ill thought out knee jerk reaction to not wanting to pay a €100 tax.

Its not the €100 itself, its what it will grow to over the next few years.

stevedublin

djpbarry wrote: »

Whatever Greece does, Ireland should be doing the opposite.

So you think Ireland should avoid defaulting, have spending increases and cut taxes then
:eek:

john reilly

oscarBravo wrote: »

As opposed to a car tax, which has decreased year on year since its introduction? There is no provision in law to evict people for non-payment of property tax. Sure, it's theoretically possible that a future law could be introduced to evict people for non-payment of property tax, but it's also theoretically possible that a future law could be introduced to evict people for non-payment of car tax.

It would be nice if we could stick to the facts while discussing this issue. I accept that it's unlikely to happen, though. Jesus wept, that idiotic meme just won't go away, will it? Just as well nobody - apart from anti-property tax scaremongers - is talking about people being thrown out of their houses then, isn't it?

what do we get for our money. why is it that the ordinary working joe soap is the one being hit again. if they cant throw you out of your house if you dont pay then what can they do.

southsiderosie

djpbarry wrote: »

You've hidden it well.

beeftotheheels wrote: »

Forgive me for saying that anyone with half a brain in their heads does not want this for Ireland.

MOD NOTE:

Less of this kind of stuff, please.

beeftotheheels

stevedublin wrote: »

No, I don't. Thats why I am saying to resist the property tax..

So, in order to improve our situation and balance our books we need to move away from the unsustainable transactional taxes of old (which evaporated when the banking crisis hit thus causing our huge deficit), and onto a more stable and recurrent tax base which a property based tax would be a feature of.

How is refusing to pay the sustainable taxes required to balance our budget and keep it balanced over the longer term going to help us avoid becoming like Greece where non-payment of taxes is endemic and a large part of the problem?

It is kind of like me announcing that I'm going to lose weight through the consumption of nothing but cheeseburgers. It might sound like a nice diet but I really don't see how it is going to achieve the aim of resulting in weight loss.

PeadarCo

stevedublin wrote: »

According to megelome's figures, the current deficit is 14bn, not 18bn.
I'm not sure if 9bn is just for bank bailout or not.
Why is the current breakdown so important?, the property tax wont get really big until a few years (2014 onwards).
I don't have all the facts and figures (where do I get them?), which can be cherry picked to suit a viewpoint anyway (daft.ie recently produced figures which suggests house prices are increasing!, turns out they were only for new or changed asking prices on its site!)

The breakdown is important as for example total interest costs could be 9 bn but only 100 million could be as a result of bank debt and the rest from the primary deficit.(Thats just an example) The reverse could also apply.

If you oppose the charge based on the idea it is to repay banks not current expenditure the reason why different amounts of interest were incurred is very important.

PeadarCo

djpbarry wrote: »

Eh, no. I said it is projected to be €5 billion in 2015. It currently stands at €14 billion.

This primary deficit(excluding bank and related for 2011 appears to be about 15.95bn(18.7-2.75)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-16417570

and

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/01/04/uk-ireland-economy-deficit-idUKTRE8031LS20120104

uberalles

High end Govt pensions and pay should take a huge drop IMO. It would make this tax more palatable to those footing the bill.

It's all going on local services = BS. It's to keep TDs etc sorted for life.

uberalles

uberalles wrote: »

It's all going on local services = BS. It's to keep TDs etc sorted for life.

This kind of populist nonsense has no basis in fact, and is typical of the kind of chip-on-the-shoulder rhetoric that's confusing debate on the issue.

K-9

later12 wrote: »

Then you're not being realistic. The cuts to social welfare so far have not resulted in anything like the level of opposition that has materialised with respect to the household charge, which is facing outright revolt.

Well most opposition to cuts to welfare will be recipients, whereas a tax affecting 1.6/.7 Million people is going to attract plenty of opposition. It doesn't really mean anything.

Godge

Bullseye1 wrote: »

How can you say they will be worth €1000 in a years time? This is pure speculation. Do you really expect those apartments sold in Dublin for 800,000 and now worth 300,000 to be worth 800,000 in 25-30 years time?

yes it is pure speculation but it is also pure speculation to say it won't.

Maybe those apartments sold for 800,000 and now worth 300,000 will be worth 1,000,000 in three years, that would see them rise slower than the speed at which they fell.

Who knows what the future holds? That is why all the application forms for mortgages had small print that property goes up and comes down.

later12

beeftotheheels wrote: »

Which would require leaving the EU.

In fairness, that isn't quite established. It [default on outstanding promissory notes] could have very negative consequences for the Irish financial system, but I would think it practically impossible that this require Ireland to leave the EA, let alone the EU.

K-9 wrote: »

Well most opposition to cuts to welfare will be recipients, whereas a tax affecting 1.6/.7 Million people is going to attract plenty of opposition. It doesn't really mean anything.

I think that does mean something. It means that cuts to welfare are a lot less potentially destabilising, as well as being the right thing to do from an objective, macroeconomic viewpoint.

We are talking about €3 billion in extra cuts over the next three years. Whilst that is a lot of money, it isn't exactly debilitating, and would be likely have a much more positive effect on GDP growth than revenue-raising will have. If it were combined with a low inflationary outlook and hence responsible behaviour on the part of the unions, it would effectively result in an internal devaluation.

beeftotheheels

later12 wrote: »

In fairness, that isn't quite established. It [default on outstanding promissory notes] could have very negative consequences for the Irish financial system, but I would think it practically impossible that this require Ireland to leave the EA, let alone the EU.

For the purposes of this post default is defined as being an all out refusal to pay as advocated on this thread.

1. Default on the PNs and IBRC is insolvent.
2. IBRC cannot now repay ELA to CBI which is also rendered insolvent.
3. ELA was only agreed on the basis that it would be collateralized (by now worthless PNs) and repaid as in any other case it would have constituted illegal monetary financing of a bank controlled by a MS contrary to Art 123.

CBI is bust, ECB has breached its mandate prohibiting monetary financing by allowing CBI accept PNs as collateral when IBRC was in State ownership, an agreement which could only have been made on the basis that the Irish Gov would keep the ELA appropriately collateralized and ensure repayment.

So, ECB can take an Art 125 position which allows them ignore what the Irish Gov has done and insist we still owe the money (with interest) albeit we've massively p!$$ed them off (the lose something to gain nothing analysis), or

We exit stage left from the EU which is the only way we can, under the current treaty, make the PN issue actually disappear, although that leaves a still insolvent CBI with Target 2 issues as those balances will be euro denominated although since we'd already be well on the road to pariah status we could try redenominating them under domestic law.

The PNs are that big a deal and the ECB is that hog tied hence there will be no meaningful deal on them until the treaty role of the ECB is changed. There just cannot be, they have no wiggle room.

Bullseye1

I love your optimisim but I'm inclinded to ask you to pass me whatever your smoking.

Godge wrote: »

yes it is pure speculation but it is also pure speculation to say it won't.

Maybe those apartments sold for 800,000 and now worth 300,000 will be worth 1,000,000 in three years, that would see them rise slower than the speed at which they fell.

Who knows what the future holds? That is why all the application forms for mortgages had small print that property goes up and comes down.

later12

beeftotheheels wrote: »

CBI is bust, ECB has breached its mandate prohibiting monetary financing by allowing CBI accept PNs as collateral when IBRC was in State ownership, an agreement which could only have been made on the basis that the Irish Gov would keep the ELA appropriately collateralized and ensure repayment.

I'm not quite sure that can be said to be transgressing the rules on monetary financing. After all, the CBI lent to IBRC when it was (on paper) solvent. It is now no longer solvent and the CBI merely makes a call to IBRC. If IBRC or the state repudiate, that's a default, not monetary financing.

So, ECB can take an Art 125 position which allows them ignore what the Irish Gov has done and insist we still owe the money (with interest) albeit we've massively p!$$ed them off (the lose something to gain nothing analysis),

Yes, but then what?

Btw, I'm not arguing that the PNs should not be repaid. By all means, to repudiate like so would be pigheaded in the extreme. But I'm not convinced it would necessitate leaving the EU either.