as it happens... Live Commentary Thread

mollymosfet · 06-12-2012 03:40AM

Also, Laffer Curve refuted:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/04/17/1083983/-The-Laffer-Curve-Refuted

Stheno · 06-12-2012 03:43AM

mollymosfet wrote: »

Also, Laffer Curve refuted:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/04/17/1083983/-The-Laffer-Curve-Refuted

Tell me I'm getting a bonus of 100 and I'm happy.
Have me realise 52 of that 100 goes on tax and I'm not interested in making the effort to earn it.

Laffer in reality?

Cookie_Monster · 06-12-2012 03:44AM

mollymosfet wrote: »

I have heard of the Laffer curve, and generally, it's something used in right wing arguments, so at least you've made that clear. It's not something that's particularly scientific either way. What IS a fact is that there was less inequality, for example, in the US and UK back when taxes on higher earners were much higher.

Also your argument is ridiculous and I'm tired of hearing it. A minimum wage worker wouldn't be taking on a mortgage of €1000 a month. There are lower earners with mortgages they can't pay off either. All the things you describe are blatant BENEFITS to being a higher earner. They are not things they even HAVE to have if they choose not to. Whereas lower earners have to get buy on what few amenities they can afford, the odd drink down the pub, or next to nothing to spend on hobbies.

Higher earners have far more they can cut back on, and again, are less likely to be spending that money in the first place.

but why should these high earner bother working so hard just to hand over more and more and more of their income? why not just start in a lower paying job and end up with a higher net income? Or move off shore to a country that has a sensible tax code and pay a fair rate?

What needs to happen in Ireland is the LOWER 40-50% odd of earners being brought into the tax net and paying their fair share, not taxing the higher earners even more

mollymosfet · 06-12-2012 03:51AM

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

but why should these high earner bother working so hard just to hand over more and more and more of their income? why not just start in a lower paying job and end up with a higher net income? Or move off shore to a country that has a sensible tax code and pay a fair rate?

What needs to happen in Ireland is the LOWER 40-50% odd of earners being brought into the tax net and paying their fair share, not taxing the higher earners even more

I don't understand this. I made the clear point that when taxes were higher on higher earners, there was less income inequality. Why can you not deal with points like this which shed a lot of doubt on your argument?

"Sensible tax code" "fair rate" - according to right wing standards. I do not agree.

Higher earners are not necessarily harder workers, and I'm unsure where you even get that idea. What is the incentive for lower earners to work harder with social mobility rates of around 10%?

The rich pay more because they own more of the wealth. This is the issue here. Taxes should be relative to the wealth you own, because showing it as a percentage of income does not fairly represent the steep curve between lower and higher earners.

You are talking about bringing people further into the tax net who are in many cases, already struggling to make ends meet, but I get the feeling you're so far gone you'll probably use some "Welfare queen" scenario as why this somehow doesn't matter. I know people who are struggling on the breadline bringing up disabled children, people who are being forced abroad as-is, even people who have to turn off their heating to afford to live...

This is beyond politics, and going into the realm of sheer empathy failure. You cannot have a definition for "Fair" that involves people struggling and dying while others are living it up. Just because, on paper, the rich pay a higher percentage of tax, does not mean it's unfair, if the system in which they operate affords them much greater wealth in the first place. I notice you ignored the damning study showing that the top 8% of the population actually have MORE disposable income. How is that "fair"?

"Fair" for you seems to have nothing to do with moral decency.

Would it be fair to say that many right wing ideologies, such as yours, are actually just sociopathy, dishonesty and narcissism phrased as a political/economic argument? Because I am really starting to believe this.

I'm sick of this. At the end of the day, we're talking about real people, not numbers on a screen, and I don't feel like playing games with those who are fundamentally just bad people.

mollymosfet · 06-12-2012 03:56AM

Stheno wrote: »

Tell me I'm getting a bonus of 100 and I'm happy.
Have me realise 52 of that 100 goes on tax and I'm not interested in making the effort to earn it.

Laffer in reality?

That's not simply what it's about. There are clear numbers there, refuting the Laffer curve you presented.

You are also making the mistake of assuming that all higher earners actually "earn" what they get. Which is all kinds of messed up.

How do you expect me to take you seriously when you are full of this ridiculous intellectual dishonesty? Or are you so far removed from reality you believe people who earn more are always the harder workers? Have you even heard of "Social mobility", and had a look at the stats?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/mar/10/oecd-uk-worst-social-mobility#

These are real numbers. Given we tend to trail off the UK in a lot of things, you can assume our numbers aren't a ton better, and if they are, it's largely down to our more generous welfare payments helping to keep people out of poverty.

Your example however does not involve real numbers. If the 48% you're left with still leaves you with €120,000 a year+ to play around with, then frankly, you should do your ****ing job, I'm sure there are plenty of others who would be happy to be in your position, so feel free to hand it over to someone more qualified as a human being.

Even if it won't close all our debt issues, there's clearly a lot of room to take more from higher earners as they can afford to pay more. To ignore this possibility totally because of some sociopathic right wing ideology is socially irresponsible.

Cookie_Monster · 06-12-2012 04:05AM

mollymosfet wrote: »

I notice you ignored the damning study showing that the top 8% of the population actually have MORE disposable income. How is that "fair"?

because they worked to achieve it

"Fair" for you seems to have nothing to do with moral decency.

indeed it does, you seem to think only the rich should pay tax and that most people shouldn't bother to pay their way and take everything the state has to offer with no return

Would it be fair to say that many right wing ideologies, such as yours, are actually just sociopathy, dishonesty and narcissism phrased as a political/economic argument? Because I am really starting to believe this.

and I'm starting to believe you're basically a communist who just wants to forceably remove any wealth or assets that people have worked for just because you don't have them.

I'm sick of this. At the end of the day, we're talking about real people, not numbers on a screen, and I don't feel like playing games with those who are fundamentally just bad people.

real people? Wealthy people are real people too who have rights just like the rest of us, obscenely high taxes like you're proposing is nothing short of theft to support the layabouts who contribute little or nothing but are the first to whine about being vulnerable.

Pretty much everyone in Ireland is rich when compared to the likes of Liberia, on that basis should we turn around and tax anybody earning over $365 ($1 a day) at your fanatical high rate?

Even if it won't close all our debt issues, there's clearly a lot of room to take more from higher earners as they can afford to pay more.

and whats to say people earning 30k can't afford to pay more than current, or 15k, or 5k?

mollymosfet · 06-12-2012 04:14AM

because they worked to achieve it

[citation needed]

Plenty of people earning next to nothing earn plenty hard. Some people luck out, some people don't. Just because they "work hard" does not mean they earn every penny of what they have, or even 1 in 10. You are just pushing Invisible Hand nonsense here. Which is little more than superstition. I presented to you figured on social mobility. You ignored them.

indeed it does, you seem to think only the rich should pay tax and that most people shouldn't bother to pay their way and take everything the state has to offer with no return

This is just Ayn Rand nonsense and you're not going to impress anyone who isn't also a sociopath or narcissist with it.

and I'm starting to believe you're basically a communist who just wants to forceably remove any wealth or assets that people have worked for just because you don't have them.

Ridiculous strawman. I made a valid point that your standards of "Fair" are removed from reality, as you do not particularly care who is really struggling, or how well off some people do despite being taxed heavily. It may have exaggerated your position but was still rooted in it.

Whereas you're being outright absurd, or at the very least, again, using weighted terms to hide the fact that a society where we didn't "Force" people to give up some wealth would be a lot more bleak for the poor.

real people? Wealthy people are real people too who have rights just like the rest of us, obscenely high taxes like you're proposing is nothing short of theft to support the layabouts who contribute little or nothing but are the first to whine about being vulnerable.

You are out of touch to the point of being delusional, and your comments about "layabouts" are insanely offensive. Wealthy people do fine the way they are. You are clearly unable to understand the concept of "privilege" in any shape or form. I'm sure you're not far off the type who things The Gays ask for "Special rights" as well.

Look, this isn't even about politics. You are a fundamentally amoral human being and your ideology has caused more pain on the western world over the last 30 years than possibly any other.

Calling mothers with disabled children, or those out of a job due to the recession, who worked hard for years "layabouts who contribute little or nothing" shows you do not have the moral authority to use such weighted terms as "theft".

More Randian filth.

Pretty much everyone in Ireland is rich when compared to the likes of Liberia, on that basis should we turn around and tax anybody earning over $365 ($1 a day) at your fanatical high rate?

No, we should work towards everyone having a decent living standard. Which does not involve your right wing rubbish, as you'll see a lot of those third world crapholes are a lot closer to your libertarian paradise you'd like to believe.

I'm done arguing with cartoon villains.

Cookie_Monster · 06-12-2012 04:37AM

mollymosfet wrote: »

Ridiculous strawman. I made a valid point that your standards of "Fair" are removed from reality, as you do not particularly care who is really struggling, or how well off some people do despite being taxed heavily. It may have exaggerated your position but was still rooted in it.

fair would be a flat income tax rate with no exemptions of credits or property taxes based on actual asset value or consumption taxes based on usage (of which there are some). the system in place currently is anything but fair.

you seem to think that the more well off should pay huge amounts to support ths who are not despite already paying far far in excess of those same people. How is this fair? Whats your vision of fairness in all this?

Whereas you're being outright absurd, or at the very least, again, using weighted terms to hide the fact that a society where we didn't "Force" people to give up some wealth would be a lot more bleak for the poor.

some wealth is fair, most of it is not, that's clearly what you are advocating

jank · 06-12-2012 08:33AM

mollymosfet wrote: »

More Randian filth.

I'm done arguing with cartoon villains.

Well seeing as you have to resort to name calling to prove your point (what point) we can see that you are just full of empty rethoric.

TAX THE RICH MORE is just a fallacy. The figure are right there, they are by far the biggest contributors to the tax net. There should always be an incentive to work harder and to keep your own earnings in your own pocket rather than have the state dictate to you that you didnt 'deserve' your last pay rise or bonus. If it were up to the likes of you we would all be equal wearing the same coloured boiler suits, waving some red book.

OMD · 06-12-2012 08:37AM

coonecb1 wrote: »

Mind boggling.

Tell me, why did Fianna Fail not make any attempt to cut services until after the bank crash in 2008?

The answer is, the pumping of billions into the banks led to the Government going broke.

If the billions hadn't gone into the banks, those billions would easily pay for all the services.

Your lack of knowledge is amazing. No wonder people vote for Sinn Fein and the other loony left if they have such a poor insight into our problems as you.

jank · 06-12-2012 08:39AM

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

some wealth is fair, most of it is not, that's clearly what you are advocating

Fairness doesnt come into it for people like that. Person A has something that Person B wants. Instead of working to get that something they want Person C to dictate to Person A to hand over (redistrubute) that something to make Person B feel better about themselves.

Sure its more 'equal' now that everyone is the same but it always fails, in the end. Most of the time when people go on about social Justice they really mean forcably taking something from others to satisfy their self alturism.

Patsy fyre · 06-12-2012 10:14AM

Very impressed with pierce Doherty yesterday. Future leader of sinn fein me thinks.

sarumite · 06-12-2012 10:41AM

Patsy fyre wrote: »

Very impressed with pierce Doherty yesterday. Future leader of sinn fein me thinks.

He is a demagogue who has the 'I'm angry' act down to near perfection. He certainly could be the next SF leader, though they would be much better served as a party looking for somebody with a bit more substance to their rhetoric.

ghost_mutt · 06-12-2012 01:47PM

mollymosfet wrote: »

What on earth is your definition of "Left wingers"? The EU is mostly in the hands of Centre-right governments at the moment, and was around the time the recession hit.

This is, largely, a right wing budget. Not extreme right, as that would be all about cuts rather than taxes, but right nonetheless.

ireland has no proper right wing party and finding a journalist of the right is harder than spotting a hen with teeth

ghost_mutt · 06-12-2012 01:50PM

mollymosfet wrote: »

I already explained why. They can afford it. You're not providing a reason why not, other than implied right wing idealogue nonsense.

http://www.thejournal.ie/top-earners-see-8-increase-in-disposable-income-cso-399195-Mar2012/

so the primary function of well to do people is to support the less well off

Godge · 06-12-2012 02:00PM

mollymosfet wrote: »

I don't understand this. I made the clear point that when taxes were higher on higher earners, there was less income inequality. Why can you not deal with points like this which shed a lot of doubt on your argument?

"Sensible tax code" "fair rate" - according to right wing standards. I do not agree.

Higher earners are not necessarily harder workers, and I'm unsure where you even get that idea. What is the incentive for lower earners to work harder with social mobility rates of around 10%?

The rich pay more because they own more of the wealth. This is the issue here. Taxes should be relative to the wealth you own, because showing it as a percentage of income does not fairly represent the steep curve between lower and higher earners.

You are talking about bringing people further into the tax net who are in many cases, already struggling to make ends meet, but I get the feeling you're so far gone you'll probably use some "Welfare queen" scenario as why this somehow doesn't matter. I know people who are struggling on the breadline bringing up disabled children, people who are being forced abroad as-is, even people who have to turn off their heating to afford to live...

This is beyond politics, and going into the realm of sheer empathy failure. You cannot have a definition for "Fair" that involves people struggling and dying while others are living it up. Just because, on paper, the rich pay a higher percentage of tax, does not mean it's unfair, if the system in which they operate affords them much greater wealth in the first place. I notice you ignored the damning study showing that the top 8% of the population actually have MORE disposable income. How is that "fair"?

"Fair" for you seems to have nothing to do with moral decency.

Would it be fair to say that many right wing ideologies, such as yours, are actually just sociopathy, dishonesty and narcissism phrased as a political/economic argument? Because I am really starting to believe this.

I'm sick of this. At the end of the day, we're talking about real people, not numbers on a screen, and I don't feel like playing games with those who are fundamentally just bad people.

you are mixing up two things - income inequality and wealth inequality.

Income inequality is not a bad thing so long as the income is income earned from one's own efforts. Therefore those who work hardest or smartest earn the most. What is wrong with that? We need people to work harder to grow the economy to cure the debt overhang issue.

Our tax regime should not penalise this extra effort. We have one of the most progressive income tax regimes in the world and we should therefore not attempt to make it even more progressive as the marginal tax rates are such that an increase would act as a disincentive to work.

Now, wealth inequality is a different thing. Why should someone just inherit wealth and live off it without having to contribute anything to society. That is why I believe that it is in the area of capital taxes, trusts etc. that we need to make increases in tax. Increasing tax in these areas widens the tax base to protect against future recessions while also ensuring that we have proper wealth taxes.

To sum up I would be against an increase of 3% in USC on earned income over €100,000 but I would favour increased taxes on unearned income and inheritances etc. For example, our exemptions for inheritance tax are way too high and the tax rate way too low.

ghost_mutt · 06-12-2012 02:26PM

Godge wrote: »

you are mixing up two things - income inequality and wealth inequality.

Income inequality is not a bad thing so long as the income is income earned from one's own efforts. Therefore those who work hardest or smartest earn the most. What is wrong with that? We need people to work harder to grow the economy to cure the debt overhang issue.

Our tax regime should not penalise this extra effort. We have one of the most progressive income tax regimes in the world and we should therefore not attempt to make it even more progressive as the marginal tax rates are such that an increase would act as a disincentive to work.

Now, wealth inequality is a different thing. Why should someone just inherit wealth and live off it without having to contribute anything to society. That is why I believe that it is in the area of capital taxes, trusts etc. that we need to make increases in tax. Increasing tax in these areas widens the tax base to protect against future recessions while also ensuring that we have proper wealth taxes.

To sum up I would be against an increase of 3% in USC on earned income over €100,000 but I would favour increased taxes on unearned income and inheritances etc. For example, our exemptions for inheritance tax are way too high and the tax rate way too low.

what about sheltered wealth , im thinking the likes of consultants , GP,s , areas where numbers practiscing are capped so as to keep a floor under incomes

K-9 · 06-12-2012 02:38PM

mollymosfet wrote: »

Would it be fair to say that many right wing ideologies, such as yours, are actually just sociopathy, dishonesty and narcissism phrased as a political/economic argument? Because I am really starting to believe this.

I'm sick of this. At the end of the day, we're talking about real people, not numbers on a screen, and I don't feel like playing games with those who are fundamentally just bad people.

Cut out calling people who disagree with you bad people, does nothing for the discussion.

djpbarry · 06-12-2012 02:43PM

coonecb1 wrote: »

You are splitting hairs in a ridiculous way, the Government puts billions to keep the banks open, and the banks pay billions to pay back back debt.

It's not a huge leap to say the Government is paying back bank debt.

Oh but it is. It’s a huge, inaccurate leap. It all boils down to the following, very simple, inequality:

Tax revenue < Welfare + Public sector pay.

coonecb1 wrote: »

Mind boggling.

Tell me, why did Fianna Fail not make any attempt to cut services until after the bank crash in 2008?

Because their governance was based on populist nonsense?

coonecb1 wrote: »

The answer is, the pumping of billions into the banks led to the Government going broke.

No, in Ireland’s specific case, the property crash led to a drying up of government revenue. Suddenly the ridiculously high welfare payments and public service staff numbers, championed by successive governments, became completely unaffordable.

coonecb1 wrote: »

If the billions hadn't gone into the banks, those billions would easily pay for all the services.

Ignoring for a moment that it is likely that the state will receive some return on the money pumped into the banks, this capital is dwarfed by the cumulative budget deficits of the last and next few years.

djpbarry · 06-12-2012 02:43PM

mollymosfet wrote: »

Plenty of people earning next to nothing earn plenty hard.

I’m sure they do and they’ll be rewarded for it in time.

Oh and I would hardly call the Irish minimum wage “next to nothing”.

mollymosfet wrote: »

Some people luck out, some people don't.

Some people work hard to put themselves in a position to take advantage of good fortune, some people don’t.

Sierra Oscar · 06-12-2012 02:44PM

ghost_mutt wrote: »

what about sheltered wealth , im thinking the likes of consultants , GP,s , areas where numbers practiscing are capped so as to keep a floor under incomes

GP's have seen their fee's cut by up to 40% since the austerity budgets started and have seen a similar percentage of cuts when it comes to their allowances for the employment of assistant staff (keep in mind that they have to maintain and staff their own premises). They could face another 10 - 15% cut in their fees from the state based on the figures released during the budget yesterday. That is on top of a 50% reduction in private practice. It is certainly misleading to try and claim that they have not been hit by the cutbacks. I know I am somewhat playing the devils advocate here, but the public sector as a whole has not seen a reduction in income anywhere near what the private sector has had to endure.

JohnMc1 · 06-12-2012 02:54PM

ghost_mutt wrote: »

ireland has no proper right wing party and finding a journalist of the right is harder than spotting a hen with teeth

Exactly. Ireland [and Western Europe as a whole] has no actual Right Wing, Conservative group.

Its just laughable seeing mollywhatever crying about a so called right wing conspiracy to destroy the working class.

If there is a cartoon character on here its her. Not me, jank or anybody else who tried to have a discussion with her.

KyussBishop · 06-12-2012 03:00PM

Tax is not all about people paying their fair share, and in a fiat currency, if a government has control of their own currency (which we don't atm), it's actually nothing to do with that (since in that case, government spending/funding comes first and does not rely on taxes, with taxes only coming later); tax is also about wealth redistribution, and incentives.

Going beyond tax on high earners, to tax on even higher income brackets associated company executives/directors, you can immediately use tax to adjust incentives in corporations; a large part of the problem with short-term thinking in companies, which often leads to destructive policies, is how short-term profits are linked to executive pay.
This played a large part in our economic crisis, as these kind of payment incentives in banks lead to the ridiculous fueling of the property bubble, chasing short-term profits by inflating house prices, while causing a massive debt problem.

You can directly affect incentives there, through having a very high upper-end tax on income most associated with exec salaries.

There is no question that the housing bubble and our economic crisis has been massively destructive, and disincentivizing execs from such destructive short-term profit seeking that helped fuel the crisis, can help prevent this kind of unprecedented damage from happening to our economy again.

zielarz · 06-12-2012 03:04PM

I find it ridiculous that government calls the most progressive income tax system in the world the most fair. Robbing the high earners has nothing to do with fairness. Fair society treats everybody equally. Progressive tax system clearly violates this constitutional law. If you want to help the poor you need to provide them with opportunity to raise, not give them money for staying at home. This never worked and never will. People need to be incentivised to work and the best way to do it is to let them keep what they earn.

antoobrien · 06-12-2012 03:13PM

coonecb1 wrote: »

The answer is, the pumping of billions into the banks led to the Government going broke.

If the billions hadn't gone into the banks, those billions would easily pay for all the services.

I really don't know why this myth is still around.

Since 2007 we have racked up deficits totalling 95.6bn (up to 30/11/12). In 2008 we had a deficit of €12.7bn, 2009 24.6bn.

The payments to banks started in 2009, since then we have paid a total of €16.95bn from exchequer funds to IBRC &IL&P. This includes the PNs that have been paid to date.

The money for AIB & BOI has been invested using the NPRF* - money we didn't have to borrow.

As a result of the support of the banks from both sources, we have received 4.6bn in fees & sales - making the total cost to the exchequer about 12.3 bn.

This shortfall has come largely from capital spending - capital spending up to 30/11/12 was 4.85 bn (including 1.3bn to IL&P). In 2008 capital spending was 11bn.

* The state is legally not allowed to use the NPRF for supplying services and can not touch it for pensions until 2025.

door_knob · 06-12-2012 06:08PM

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

GP's have seen their fee's cut by up to 40% since the austerity budgets started and have seen a similar percentage of cuts when it comes to their allowances for the employment of assistant staff (keep in mind that they have to maintain and staff their own premises). They could face another 10 - 15% cut in their fees from the state based on the figures released during the budget yesterday. That is on top of a 50% reduction in private practice. It is certainly misleading to try and claim that they have not been hit by the cutbacks. I know I am somewhat playing the devils advocate here, but the public sector as a whole has not seen a reduction in income anywhere near what the private sector has had to endure.

thats news to me , my local GP has put up his fees for renewal of prescriptions from 15 to 20 euro in the past three years , his consultancy fees have remained the same since the rescession began ( 50 euro )

i changed to another GP in the last six months from the next town over , his fees are a fiver less per visit

i presume your refering to the money they get for treating medical card holders

i wouldnt class GP,s as private sector in the true sense of the word , anyone can set up a business as a plumber , tyre repair man , aerial repair man , their is a cap on the number of doctors who can set up a GP practice , its a sheltered sector no matter what you you look at it

Sierra Oscar · 06-12-2012 07:40PM

door_knob wrote: »

thats news to me , my local GP has put up his fees for renewal of prescriptions from 15 to 20 euro in the past three years , his consultancy fees have remained the same since the rescession began ( 50 euro )

i changed to another GP in the last six months from the next town over , his fees are a fiver less per visit

i presume your refering to the money they get for treating medical card holders

i wouldnt class GP,s as private sector in the true sense of the word , anyone can set up a business as a plumber , tyre repair man , aerial repair man , their is a cap on the number of doctors who can set up a GP practice , its a sheltered sector no matter what you you look at it

I am referring to the fees that GP's receive from the state in regards the GMS scheme. Many GP's (although far from the majority) have upped other fees to make up for the shortfall. Most have just absorbed the costs and have taken a pretty hefty pay cut. Anyways my point is that it is slightly misleading to suggest that GP's have not been impacted at all, and you will find much better examples within the public sector of groups of people who have not suffered all that much with regards a reduction of their basic salary since the austerity budgets began. It is right that GP's have had to contribute their share of the burden - but there are high earners within the public sector who have contributed little.

Also, the restrictions regarding the setting up of GP practices have been removed and that has been the case for some time now I believe.

Ireland: Government approves Legislation to eliminate Restrictions on Family Doctors wishing to treat Public Patients

Browney7 · 06-12-2012 08:38PM

antoobrien wrote: »

I really don't know why this myth is still around.

Since 2007 we have racked up deficits totalling 95.6bn (up to 30/11/12). In 2008 we had a deficit of €12.7bn, 2009 24.6bn.

The payments to banks started in 2009, since then we have paid a total of €16.95bn from exchequer funds to IBRC &IL&P. This includes the PNs that have been paid to date.

The money for AIB & BOI has been invested using the NPRF* - money we didn't have to borrow.

As a result of the support of the banks from both sources, we have received 4.6bn in fees & sales - making the total cost to the exchequer about 12.3 bn.

This shortfall has come largely from capital spending - capital spending up to 30/11/12 was 4.85 bn (including 1.3bn to IL&P). In 2008 capital spending was 11bn.

* The state is legally not allowed to use the NPRF for supplying services and can not touch it for pensions until 2025.

I agree with the essence of your argument re the effect of current spending on the deficit but that money from the NPRF is as good as gone to be fair and the state has lost the billions (maybe you know how much circa 20 billion is it?) it had stashed away to go towards providing pensions from 2025 as you say

djpbarry · 06-12-2012 08:40PM

Browney7 wrote: »

I agree with the essence of your argument re the effect of current spending on the deficit but that money from the NPRF is as good as gone...

All of it? Not one cent will be returned?

Browney7 · 06-12-2012 08:55PM

djpbarry wrote: »

All of it? Not one cent will be returned?

I dont have a crystal ball. How much did we put in to Aib and boi though from here? The market cap of Boi is approx what, 4 billion based on current share prices. Aib is probably worth less than that. Is it 15% we own in BOI? All depends on when we sell them or what the troika gives us retrospectively (which ill believe when I see it) for these I guess. What have we put into these banks because I dont know and posting off a phone.

as it happens... Live Commentary Thread

Comments