Government Will Oppose SF Bill To Limit Moneylenders Interest Rates

Am Chile

Seen no one has posted about this yet Il do the honours of doing so.

THE
GOVERNMENT has said it will oppose draft legislation tabled by Sinn Féin which
proposed to place a limit on the interest rates that moneylenders are allowed to
charge – saying it would threaten the viability of the sector.


Legislation
proposed by the party’s finance spokesman Pearse Doherty had sought to introduce
a new limit of 40 per cent APR on any funds lent by a moneylender licensed under
Irish law.


Introducing
the Bill, Doherty said that over 300,000 people were now in receipt of loans
from Ireland’s 42 licensed moneylenders, which were not subject to any legal
ceiling on the rates they could charge.


This
meant that some Irish lenders charged up to 210 per cent APR, he said – a rate
which would mean a €500 loan would cost €186 if repaid within six months, or
€375 if repaid over a year.


29
licensed Irish lenders, he added, charged APR of over 100 per cent – while 14
charged rates of over 150 per cent.


Gerry
Adams added that borrowing was “not for drink, not for luxuries, not for
pleasure”, but instead to meet everyday bills, he said – arguing that
a significant number of households now reliant on the services
of moneylenders.


Adams
said Sinn Féin’s proposed limit of 40 per cent was fairer to customers, while
also allowing licensed lenders to operate “on a sound commercial basis” and to
remain viable themselves.

http://www.thejournal.ie/moneylenders-interest-rates-40-per-cent-sinn-fein-brian-hayes-524261-Jul2012/

Once again we get to see the real colours of FG/Lab looking out for others instead of looking out for ordinary working people.

Biggins

What did the report say?
23 Countries in Europe have adopted rules for lower limits on interest that can be charged - and our country's TD's won't even entertain the idea at a massive 40%... Madness!

Someone in Dublin looking after the money boys again?

Varied

In before the "sinn fein Ira Terrorists!!!111" derpy bull****.

mikemac1

If I were a journalist I'd be looking at donations from these sharks to Fine Gael, I'd bet they've supported them and now this is payback

Am Chile

Biggins wrote: »

What did the report say?
23 Countries in Europe have adopted rules for lower limits on interest that can be charged - and our country's TD's won't even entertain the idea at a massive 40%... Madness!

Someone in Dublin looking after the money boys again?

At the bottom of the report it mentions-

13 of the EU’s 27 member states have legal caps on the interest which can be
charged by licensed lenders – with Spain having a cap of 10 per cent APR, while Belgium’s upper limit
stands at 19.5 per cent and
France’s at 21.6 per cent.

Sleepy

I could understand this if the argument against the legislation is fear of enacting it pushing more of the vulnerable people that use these lenders into using illegal moneylenders...

Biggins

Am Chile wrote: »

At the bottom of the report it mentions-

Exactly.

It seriously begs the question (again), just what the hell is the Continuity FF party and Labour doing?
Are they just as corrupt to the money boys as the previous?

I greatly suspect so.

Am Chile

Sleepy wrote: »

I could understand this if the argument against the legislation is fear of enacting it pushing more of the vulnerable people that use these lenders into using illegal moneylenders...

I think its just an excuse used by FG/lab there's caps on monylenders in other eu states they charge lower Interest then moneylenders here and they haven't being put out of business.

stimpson

saying it would threaten the viability of the sector.

Surely that's a good thing.

Where To

If people are stupid enough to borrow money at extortionate APRs then companies' should be allowed to lend at those rates.

People really need to start taking responsibility for their own actions in this country.:mad:

mikemac1

Where To wrote: »

If people are stupid enough to borrow money at extortionate APRs then companies' should be allowed to lend at those rates.

I'd take out stupid and insert desperate

Seems a bit less harsh

People don't go there out of choice, they have no other option

juan.kerr

Is that 300,000 figure real? Excluding banks, credit unions?

LostBoy101

Whatever SF tell you to do, do the opposite.

Where To

mikemac1 wrote: »

I'd take out stupid and insert desperate

Seems a bit less harsh

People don't go there out of choice, they have no other option

Yes, they have another option.
They have the option to use some common sense and stay they **** away from moneylenders.

If they can't do that fuk em I say, be they stupid or desperate.

For Forks Sake

TheJournal in pushing SF agenda shocker

Nodin

Where To wrote: »

Yes, they have another option.
They have the option to use some common sense and stay they **** away from moneylenders.

If they can't do that fuk em I say, be they stupid or desperate.

Excellent. And if a child has to be sent down a coal mine, fuck them, its their own fault for bein poor.

Chuck Stone

Where To wrote: »

People really need to start taking responsibility for their own actions in this country.:mad:

If only that could be applied to the fuckers who sunk this country into a generation of debts they don't deserve.

These fuckers should be destitute but instead the politicians and civil servants who were supposed to be gate-keeping get cast-iron pensions and the banksters walk away from the ashes of their failed speculating as millionaires as we plebs pick up the bill.

BNI

I think what is happening here is that the dicks in power are so fickle and narrow minded that they are opposed to anything proposed by the opposition.

If the opposition proposed that TD salaries be raised that would be the only time they would agree.

If the opposition proposed reinstating the night bus for the homeless for nights like tonight when its p*ss*ing rain and there are non nationals with no english destitute they would of course, object.

emco

LostBoy101 wrote: »

Whatever SF tell you to do, do the opposite.

Maybe you should try judge the bill on its merits. Surely trying to prevent vulnerable people being exploited is a good thing?

Biggins

BNI wrote: »

I think what is happening here is that the dicks in power are so fickle and narrow minded that they are opposed to anything proposed by the opposition.

If the opposition proposed that TD salaries be raised that would be the only time they would agree.

If the opposition proposed reinstating the night bus for the homeless for nights like tonight when its p*ss*ing rain and there are non nationals with no english destitute they would of course, object.

FG and labour will reject any idea SF will come up with - and thats the truth.
They know the majority of the public still see FF as toxic.
They know that SF is the only one's really barking at their heals.

...So for fear alone of SF getting any credit for a good idea - they are knocking down every word out of their mouth
...Not that Enda's mouth is much better!

The taoiseach recycles the same insults time after time when attacking his rivals in the Dail

Enda Kenny has dismissed Fianna Fail as the party that ruined the economy on more than 30 occasions since coming to power in early 2011, and dealt with questions from Sinn Fein leader Gerry Adams with at least 18 references to the IRA and the Northern Bank robbery in 2004.

It started in March 2011 on Kenny’s first outing at leaders’ questions in the Dail. He replied to a question about corporation tax from Micheál Martin, the Fianna Fail leader, by saying: “It is grossly unfair to expect the Irish taxpayer to have to pay fully for the cause of reckless banking which culminated in an agreement by the government of which Deputy Martin was a member.”

The next week the taoiseach started as he meant to go on with Adams. In response to a question on the economy from the new Sinn Fein TD from Louth, Kenny replied: “A previous taoiseach said that Deputy Adams and his party were in possession of knowledge about the Northern Bank raid some years ago . . . perhaps now he is a member of this house he will deal with those serious amounts of money.”

Kenny has made reference to the record of the Fianna Fail/Green party coalition on average more than twice a month since, when he takes leaders’ questions on Tuesdays and Wednesdays.

Responding to a question by Martin on the coalition’s jobs initiative in April 2011, Kenny said: “He read out a list of issues that are important for the government, which is one month in office. He did not mention that the government of which he was a member lost 250,000 jobs during its term of office.”

The following month the taoiseach responded to a question by the Fianna Fail leader by asking the Dail to “think of the circumstances in which he [Martin] left the country”. A few weeks later he said: “The reason we are having this discussion this morning, and many other discussions for the last number of years, is because in the first instance of the lousy legacy left by the inability of Deputy Martin’s colleagues when in government.”

Last month Kenny queried the Fianna Fail leader’s memory, saying: “It was the philosophy of the government of which he was a member to state that this was the cheapest bailout in history. Remember that? Does the deputy remember the fact that people did not even realise that the IMF had arrived on our shores?”

References to the IRA are regularly fired at the Sinn Fein benches. In November 2011, in response to a question on public spending, Kenny said: “I have gotten to know Deputy Adams a little better since he was elected to the Dail. I get suspicious, however, when I get health warnings from him.”

Last February, following a controversy over Aengus Ó Snodaigh’s extensive use of printer cartridges, the taoiseach told the Dail that “Deputy Ó Snodaigh and Deputy Adams might go to the Northern Bank and get a loan for the old toner cartridges”. He then quipped that “unfortunately, it seems as if some Sinn Fein members cannot get away from cartridges, with unfortunate results”.

Last month when Mary Lou McDonald was deputising for Adams at leaders’ questions, Kenny told her: “[Your] party leader is absent, but on one occasion he said I was trying to pull the wool over people’s eyes. I reminded him that, down here, we call that the balaclava effect.”

In a heated exchange with Adams last month, Kenny said: “While we differ here on all of these political issues, there is one thing that I have in common with him . . . in the context of extreme revisionism neither he nor I were members of the IRA or the IRA army council.”

With the Dail set for its summer break this week, the taoiseach’s references to the Northern Bank robbery show no signs of abating. He said last Tuesday: “Deputy Adams could tell me about the Northern Bank or something else.”

Last weeks paper: http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/ireland/article1081696.ece

Am Chile

Where To wrote: »

If people are stupid enough to borrow money at extortionate APRs then companies' should be allowed to lend at those rates.

People really need to start taking responsibility for their own actions in this country.:mad:

All depends why the money is being borrowed at what its being spent on- if someone borrowed money off moneylenders to buy a 50 Inch smart TV Id call it Irresponsible of the person going to borrow money for that reason knowing of the Interest that would be charged- however we are in difficult times with some people having lost their jobs having their salary/social welfare reduced being hit with tax after tax-I understand why some people might need to borrow money from moneylenders to help pay off the mortgage or need to borrow money for kids clothes/kids school books etc- if some of the Rumors turn out to be true regarding whats being planned in the next budget Il understand if some people are put in a situation needing to borrow from moneylenders.

Guy:Incognito

mikemac1 wrote: »

I'd take out stupid and insert desperate

Seems a bit less harsh

People don't go there out of choice, they have no other option

If their only option is a money lender then they cant afford to borrow money.

There has to be a large risk these people wont pay the money back, otherwise the normal credit institutions would deal with them. Why bother lending to them with such high risk unless you are getting a high return

Nodin wrote: »

Excellent. And if a child has to be sent down a coal mine, fuck them, its their own fault for bein poor.

How many Irish kids are currently working down mines?

Biggins wrote: »

FG and labour will reject any idea SF will come up with - and thats the truth.
]

How many treaties etc has SF supported? Has everything every government has supported been against their policies?

Biggins

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

...How many treaties etc has SF supported? Has everything every government has supported been against their policies?

Very true - one can argue that one side is as bad as the other.

In the meanwhile though, the public is losing out while this pissing contest is going on.

...And thats a disgrace!

Chucky the tree

I'm rarely a fan of a Government limiting peoples choices. If a person wants to lend money at those rates those rates they should be free to do so.

Am Chile

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

If their only option is a money lender then they cant afford to borrow money.

There has to be a large risk these people wont pay the money back, otherwise the normal credit institutions would deal with them. Why bother lending to them with such high risk unless you are getting a high return



How many Irish kids are currently working down mines?



How many treaties etc has SF supported? Has everything every government has supported been against their policies?

Sinn Fein not supporting any eu treaties and a bill to regulate Interest rates by moneylenders are two completely different issues-I think another poster said it best on this thread anything proposed by the opposition is quickly knocked down- last week on Vincent Brown the episode about rent allowance being cut' Richard Boyd Barrett asked a labour representive why they can't put caps on rent charged by landlords like in other eu countries-his proposal was quickly knocked down which wasn't a surprise.

Biggins

Chucky the tree wrote: »

I'm rarely a fan of a Government limiting peoples choices. If a person wants to lend money at those rates those rates they should be free to do so.

The same government that going to massively raise cig' prices if they get the chance (here), as well as (unworkable) age check on the internet for sites that even have an advertisement about drink, is going to stop you from buying drink at cheaper prices, is going to stop sports being sponsored by cig and drink companies (how many local and national clubs/contests will that effect?), besides trying to stop supermarkets from also selling drink, introduce a 9pm watershed ...and more!

Mont

Govt = Publicans = Builders = Bankers = Farmers = same old story

Chucky the tree

Biggins wrote: »

The same government that going to massively raise cig' prices if they get the chance (here), as well as (unworkable) age check on the internet for sites that even have an advertisement about drink, is going to stop you from buying drink at cheaper prices, is going to stop sports being sponsored by cig and drink companies (how many local and national clubs/contests will that effect?), besides trying to stop supermarkets from also selling drink, introduce a 9pm watershed ...and more!

Cigarettes and Alcohol both have a huge knock on cost for the state. Mary loaning money at 100% APR has little to no knock on effect.

Mont

Chucky the tree wrote: »

I'm rarely a fan of a Government limiting peoples choices. If a person wants to lend money at those rates those rates they should be free to do so.

Ya and banks should just start increasing their interest rates to 500% for everyone with mortgages, so wha? Its a free market??

Mont

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Cigarettes and Alcohol both have a huge knock on cost for the state. Mary loaning money at 100% APR has little to no knock on effect.

Please tell me the tax take on cigs and the corresponding cost re smoking?

Biggins

Chucky the tree wrote: »

...Mary loaning money at 100% APR has little to no knock on effect.

Besides children going hungry and home bills (including heating at winter) not being paid while poor ma and da are exploited further by thugs who are coming around collecting, with their never ending, raise up the interest rackets?

Chucky the tree

Mont wrote: »

Ya and banks should just start increasing their interest rates to 500% for everyone with mortgages, so wha? Its a free market??

If banks want to do that then they should be allowed.

Biggins wrote: »

Besides children going hungry and home bills (including heating at winter) not being paid while poor ma and da are exploited further by thugs who are coming around collecting, with their never ending, raise up the interest rackets?

Poor Ma and Da shouldn't have lent money at ridiculous rates.

Mont wrote: »

Please tell me the tax take on cigs and the corresponding cost re smoking?

Not sure tbh, will check it up now

Mont

Chucky the tree wrote: »

If banks want to do that then they should be allowed.

Chaos ensues. We should bring a 50% Vat on all foods to collect tax more equitably? Lets vulnerabise the vulnerable.

MarkHitide

Don't fcuk with the market (or 'Don't fcuk with the market, man!' if you're Labour) is the first rule of the modern Irish minister.

Biggins

Chucky the tree wrote: »

If banks want to do that then they should be allowed.

You do realise that its because the rules were loosened already previously that then allowed the banks to run riot previously - which further lead to the decline of the Irish economy?

...And some are saying we should still let them have a lose hand still?

Sorry - but I see that as madness!

Guy:Incognito

Am Chile wrote: »

Sinn Fein not supporting any eu treaties and a bill to regulate Interest rates by moneylenders are two completely different issues-.

As are the issue of moneylenders and the point I was making.

Am Chile wrote: »

Richard Boyd Barrett asked a labour representive why they can't put caps on rent charged by landlords like in other eu countries-his proposal was quickly knocked down which wasn't a surprise.

Why should there be a cap? If I own something and want to sell or rent it at any price I choose, that should be my choice just like its the comsumers choice not to take me up on my offer. A shop can put a price of €100 on marsbars if they want. They'll most likely be left with all their stock but thats their choice to make.

Biggins

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Poor Ma and Da shouldn't have lent money at ridiculous rates.

The rates start small with the sharks sometimes to draw people towards them, then once they have you, miss a payment or some other excuse - WALLOP!!! - they got you!
Up go the rates!

Chucky the tree

Mont wrote: »

Chaos ensues. We should bring a 50% Vat on all foods to collect tax more equitably? Lets vulnerabise the vulnerable.

I don't want that, but if you do maybe email your local TD to campaign for it.

Biggins wrote: »

You do realise that its because the rules were loosened already previously that then allowed the banks to run riot previously - which further lead to the decline of the Irish economy?

...And some are saying we should still let them have a lose hand still?

Sorry - but I see that as madness!

I have to say this just an lol argument. If the Irish banks charged 150% APR then we wouldn't be in such a mess. It's because of low interest rates that everything went crazy.

Biggins

Chucky the tree wrote: »

...I have to say this just an lol argument. If the Irish banks charged 150% APR then we wouldn't be in such a mess. It's because of low interest rates that everything went crazy.

The points is that (which you have missed!) not bring in in further restrictions and just letting them have a loose hand to do whatever the hell they want, has never worked out good for the Irish public - and remember that the next time we have to put more of your money into another hole that might be called a bailout.

Guy:Incognito

Biggins wrote: »

You do realise that its because the rules were loosened already previously that then allowed the banks to run riot previously - which further lead to the decline of the Irish economy?
!

The banks lent loads of money to peopel that couldnt afford to borrow it. Now the proposal is to lower the interest rates for the sector of lenders that pretty much lend to anyone that wants money. Theres no way that will increase the amount of people borrowing money they cant afford to borrow.

Chucky the tree

Biggins wrote: »

The points is that (which you have missed!) not bring in in further restrictions and just letting them have a loose hand to do whatever the hell they want, has never worked out good for the Irish public - and remember that the next time we have to put more of your money into another hole that might be called a bailout.

We only bailed out the banks because the Government interferred and decided to do it. If they kept out of private business we wouldn't have bailed them out.

Biggins

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

The banks lent loads of money to peopel that couldnt afford to borrow it. Now the proposal is to lower the interest rates for the sector of lenders that pretty much lend to anyone that wants money. Theres no way that will increase the amount of people borrowing money they cant afford to borrow.

See post 39 for my main point.

BNI

Chucky the tree wrote: »

If banks want to do that then they should be allowed.

social justice is alive and well ....
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=79653307&postcount=60

Hijpo

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Mont wrote: »

Chaos ensues. We should bring a 50% Vat on all foods to collect tax more equitably? Lets vulnerabise the vulnerable.

I don't want that, but if you do maybe email your local TD to campaign for it.

Biggins wrote: »

You do realise that its because the rules were loosened already previously that then allowed the banks to run riot previously - which further lead to the decline of the Irish economy?

...And some are saying we should still let them have a lose hand still?

Sorry - but I see that as madness!

I have to say this just an lol argument. If the Irish banks charged 150% APR then we wouldn't be in such a mess. It's because of low interest rates that everything went crazy.

i think the banks handing out non garaunteed interest only loans had more to do with it.

Biggins

Chucky the tree wrote: »

We only bailed out the banks because the Government interferred and decided to do it. If they kept out of private business we wouldn't have bailed them out.

Very true - and Bertie relaxed banking rules and look where it got us!
Now some are saying that some of those rules should stay loosened?
I personally think thats madness.

The banks/money lenders should go back to being tighter controlled.

Guy:Incognito

Biggins wrote: »

See post 39 for my main point.

But the latest talk is all about making the banks lend to small businesses. They are interfereing on both sides.

If the banks dont think hundreds of struggling small businesses are a worthwhile risk to lend to, I dont see how the government forcing them to or giving them money to do it is a good idea. What happens when the still go to the wall and the banks are another couple o fbillion in the hole for money they didnt want to lend out in the first place?

Pompey Magnus

This Government is doing sterling work in ensuring the Labour party will be absolutely hammered by the electorate come the next G.E. now that their true colours are being shown.

Chucky the tree

BNI wrote: »

social justice is alive and well ....
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=79653307&postcount=60

Biggins

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

But the latest talk is all about making the banks lend to small businesses. They are interfereing on both sides.

If the banks dont think hundreds of struggling small businesses are a worthwhile risk to lend to, I dont see how the government forcing them to or giving them money to do it is a good idea. What happens when the still go to the wall and the banks are another couple o fbillion in the hole for money they didnt want to lend out in the first place?

I'm not against any lending to small businesses - far from it but there is also the aspect that if banks also have free rein to up their rates to silly levels (having got them in first at a lower level maybe?), small businesses will go under very quickly as well.

BNI

Chucky the tree wrote: »

police cant abuse people but money lenders can???

Chucky the tree

BNI wrote: »

police cant abuse people but money lenders can???

Oh Jesus. Are you really that stupid that you need the difference to be explained to you?