Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Government Will Oppose SF Bill To Limit Moneylenders Interest Rates

2

Comments

  • #32
    Chucky the tree
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,320 ✭✭✭✭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


  • #33
    Mont
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 482 ✭✭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.


  • #34
    MarkHitide
    Closed Accounts Posts: 233 ✭✭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.


  • #35
    Biggins
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 34,567 ✭✭✭✭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!


  • #36
    Guy:Incognito
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 38,227 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    Biggins
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 34,567 ✭✭✭✭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!


  • #38
    Chucky the tree
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,320 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #39
    Biggins
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 34,567 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #40
    Guy:Incognito
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 38,227 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #41
    Chucky the tree
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,320 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    Biggins
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 34,567 ✭✭✭✭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. :)


  • #43
    BNI
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20 ✭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


  • #44
    Hijpo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,471 ✭✭✭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.


  • #45
    Biggins
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 34,567 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #46
    Guy:Incognito
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 38,227 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • #47
    Pompey Magnus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,406 ✭✭✭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.


  • #48
    Chucky the tree
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,320 ✭✭✭✭Chucky the tree


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


    :confused:


  • #49
    Biggins
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 34,567 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #50
    BNI
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20 ✭BNI


    Chucky the tree wrote: »
    :confused:

    police cant abuse people but money lenders can???


  • #51
    Chucky the tree
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,320 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    MarkHitide
    Closed Accounts Posts: 233 ✭✭MarkHitide


    Chucky the tree wrote: »
    Oh Jesus. Are you really that stupid that you need the difference to be explained to you?

    Someone using the expression 'lol argument' shouldn't throw stones-


  • #53
    Guy:Incognito
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 38,227 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    Biggins wrote: »
    I'm not against any lending to small businesses - .

    Neither am I , but I'm against forcing the banks to lend to small businesses that they have turned down as a bad risk.


  • #54
    Chucky the tree
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,320 ✭✭✭✭Chucky the tree


    MarkHitide wrote: »
    Someone using the expression 'lol argument' shouldn't throw stones-


    In this case I really can.


  • #55
    BNI
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20 ✭BNI


    Chucky the tree wrote: »
    Oh Jesus. Are you really that stupid that you need the difference to be explained to you?


    I saw the proposal made to the government live on the RTE live page last week. The bone of contention SF had was that there was a money lender called Ronald Weisz who served time in America years ago, then came to Ireland and set up money lending.

    He was then banned from the courts in Ireland from doing so but continued and has done so for over a decade. He has forcibly removed people from their family homes in repossession acts while living in a country pile in the midlands.

    Am I that stupid that I need to see the difference in someone's two arguments, one whereby the wronged should be entitled to justice and the other whereby if your wronged its purely a matter of opinion?

    Or am I that stupid that I don't spend my spare time on the internet gambling?

    https://www.google.ie/search?q=%22chucky+the+tree%22+&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a


  • #56
    Guy:Incognito
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 38,227 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    BNI wrote: »
    I saw the proposal made to the government live on the RTE live page last week. The bone of contention SF had was that there was a money lender called Ronald Weisz who served time in America years ago, then came to Ireland and set up money lending.

    He was then banned from the courts in Ireland from doing so but continued and has done so for over a decade. He has forcibly removed people from their family homes in repossession acts while living in a country pile in the midlands.

    Am I that stupid that I need to see the difference in someone's two arguments, one whereby the wronged should be entitled to justice and the other whereby if your wronged its purely a matter of opinion?

    Or am I that stupid that I don't spend my spare time on the internet gambling?

    https://www.google.ie/search?q=%22chucky+the+tree%22+&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

    The issue being discussed is not the character of moneylenders or their actions in reclaimign money they are owed. Thats a seperate issue altogther.


  • #57
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,798 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    If you support a fully free market then you also believe that all bondholders in all banks which went bust should have been allowed to pay for their own mistakes and wind up homeless and on the dole too, and that Anglo should have simply collapsed with no interference whatsoever.

    I believe in both of these proposals but I highly suspect most of the right wing "If you're poor, tough" idiots would scream blue murder if that was applied to the political elite.


  • #58
    BNI
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20 ✭BNI


    Guy:Incognito wrote: »
    The issue being discussed is not the character of moneylenders or their actions in reclaimign money they are owed. Thats a seperate issue altogther.
    It was all brought up in the dail


  • #59
    Fenian Army
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,483 ✭✭✭Fenian Army


    I was lobbying for the cap to be at 20% in the bill, I think 40 is far too generous.

    I'm not surprised that they wont support it tbh, shower of scumbags.

    How labour can look at themselves in the mirror is beyond me. How any labour TD can vote against this bill in order to protect parasites who prey on desperate working class families and charge them extortionate rates is beyond me.

    Its long been said that labour died with James Connolly and as time goes on its being proven true

    I didnt expect any better from the blueshirts


  • #60
    Chucky the tree
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,320 ✭✭✭✭Chucky the tree


    BNI wrote: »
    I saw the proposal made to the government live on the RTE live page last week. The bone of contention SF had was that there was a money lender called Ronald Weisz who served time in America years ago, then came to Ireland and set up money lending.

    He was then banned from the courts in Ireland from doing so but continued and has done so for over a decade. He has forcibly removed people from their family homes in repossession acts while living in a country pile in the midlands.

    Am I that stupid that I need to see the difference in someone's two arguments, one whereby the wronged should be entitled to justice and the other whereby if your wronged its purely a matter of opinion?

    Or am I that stupid that I don't spend my spare time on the internet gambling?

    https://www.google.ie/search?q=%22chucky+the+tree%22+&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a


    Right, so it seems you are. There is a huge difference between what a private business do compared to a member of the Gardai. Baffling how you can't even see a difference.

    lol, no it seems instead of gambling you stalk people. Far more intelligent way to spend your time. :pac:


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    Biggins
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 34,567 ✭✭✭✭Biggins


    Guy:Incognito wrote: »
    Neither am I , but I'm against forcing the banks to lend to small businesses that they have turned down as a bad risk.

    No argument there.


Advertisement
Advertisement