All companies can carry forward losses. What is the specific tax break for Banks?
Sinn Féin's tax proposals?
- Thread starter Techhead
- Start date
- Status
I think that the SF 'logic' here is that because "we" bailed out the banks they shouldn't be allowed to avail of the same facility as other commercial entities are. Utter tripe, but highly populist.
Agree. The so called “bank bailout” was mostly a “depositor bailout”. Had the Government not “intervened” then depositors (the so called “ordinary people”) would have been on the streets marching for a bank bailout. But that fact does not fit with the SF narrative of nasty bankers being bailed out.
'The Banks', as in the owners of the banks, as in the shareholders, were not bailed out at all.
We borrowed billions to give the middle classed, middle aged and elderly the money back that they lost when the banks collapsed. We called it 'recapitalising the banks'.
It sounds better than 'robbing your children and grandchildren of their future so you can maintain your lifestyle you bunch of greedy, foolish, selfish, whingers'.
Nicklesilver
Registered User
- Messages
- 57
The shareholders were not bailed out and lost everything. The foreign bondholders were bailed out. Many so called middle class people lost a great deal of their lifetime savings.
Yes, if they had those savings in Bank shares. If they owned shares then they were ‘The Banks’ and they were not bailed out. If they owned a broad range of shares or property then they have been more than bailed out through quantitative easing in the last decade or so as that the reason their pension fund, property and share portfolio have increased at rates far exceeding inflation or wage growth.
That’s also the reason there’s a housing affordability crisis and future generations of average people won’t own their own homes.
More than anything it’s the lack of gratitude and sense of entitlement from older people that gets me.
This older person - about to get a Contributory State Pension that he doesn't really need and having just received an "age" tax credit that he also doesn't really need - is in full agreement with you!
I'll redress things slightly by sharing my 'windfall' with my adult kids, but I shouldn't really have that option.
Last edited:
Nicklesilver
Registered User
- Messages
- 57
A big IF. They didn’t, most only had bank shares, they thought they were a one way bet, blue blue chip. They were not sophisticated investors. They were not bailed out. They were hard working self reliant people who paid taxes all there lives. An easy target for those re writing history.
You are confusing two things here. The 'bank guarantee' (i.e. CIFS) of 2008 guaranteed both retail AND corporate deposits of six Irish banks. The amount guaranteed was about EUR 440 billion, of which about 17 billion was retail deposits. Note it was a guarante, NOT a transfer of funds to the banking system, nor to deposit holders' accounts. The guarantee cost the state nothing, and the banks paid a fee for participation in the guarantee.
The bank 'bail-out' of Dec 2008 concerned the recapitalization of three Irish banks, essentially a 'bail-out' of the bondholders. Equity owners were wiped out. Deposit holders were already covered by the deposit guarantee scheme. It is just incorrect to state that Ireland borrowed billions to bail out retail depositors. We borrowed billions to bail-out foreigners who held Irish bank debt.
Why do you know they were hard working and self reliant? Were there no welfare scrounges and tax dodgers in the 70’s and 80’s? Was nobody on welfare? Was nobody a net recipient from the exchequer? Was nobody in subsidised social housing?
If they kept their life’s savings in bank stocks then describing them as simple is more than generous.
Last edited:
It illustrates that contrary to what some have claimed here it's not irrational for developers to lobby for Option 2 while the challenge for society is to move them to Option 3.
Both myself and my wife are in receipt of defined benefit pensions under the Bank of Ireland pension scheme , I also receive the non contributory state pension and my wife is to receive same shortly - the true Rolls Royce of pensions !
I know how lucky we are and are extremely thankful but no more than the children’s allowance I believe strongly that the State Pension should be means tested .
I too have attempted to redress the balance by enriching Paddy Power but my bets on football games have been spectacularly successful to the extent that I now have a third source of income - won’t last of course !
It's estimated that only 15 to 20% of the adult population in Ireland own shares.
Good point. I knew a couple of low level bank staff who were using those options to save up for a house deposit. They lost it all, but sure they were bankers so who cares
Given that AIB used €1.1 billion of the Money it received from the National Pension Reserve Fund to bail out it's own pension fund and BOI have more or less done the same thing your pension represents a transfer of wealth from the poor to the middle classes. Not good for your socialist credentials.
It's not window dressing.
No. The two events were totally diffferent. The guarantee schemes (CITS and its sucessor CIELG) were essentially state-backed insurance schemes. The banks paid premia to participate in the scheme. The re-capitalization (62.8 billion) represented a transfer of funds frm the taxpayer to the banks' bondholders. The bank guarantee (440 billion) did not represent an increase in Ireland's national debt. It was never paid out. The recapitalization did; Ireland' sovereign debt yields increased to 7%; effectively making it impossible for the country to borrow internationally; so the country was bailed out (85 billion) by the EU/IMF in 2010.
The Banks were insolvent or, at best, had no liquidity. Without recapitalising them there would have been a collapse and deposits would have been lost. You can call it what you like but the €62.8 billion was borrowed from future tax payers to avoid a banking collapse which would have resulted in depositors of all types losing their money. How that's represented on a balance sheet is all very interesting but a distraction from the core issue. It is worth noting that we've got most of that money back. What we haven't got back and won't get back it the money we borrowed from future generations to maintain our lifestyles when we couldn't pay for them and that was far more expensive than the recapitalisation of the banks.
- Status