You have this completely backwards. It was actually the banks who benefitted from the depositors who left their deposits there; the banks would have collapsed otherwise.
You're now proposing that the depositors be punished for preventing the banks collapsing.
Brendan, that wasn't the point I was making. To reiterate; you yourself convinced depositors that their deposits were safe and they should not withdraw. You are now proposing that these people you convinced should be penalised. Do you feel no moral responsibility or shame over this?
I'm no...
Since it was nothing to do with either savers or savings that brought the banks down, savers changing their behaviour will do absolutely nothing to avoid any future crisis. It was a problem with propert loans and regulation.
Brendan, you also never responded to my point.
http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showthread.php?p=1103687#post1103687
You yourself went on RTE News to specifically reassure depositors and dissuade them withdrawing their money. You are now saying they were foolish to listen to this reassurance 2...
Amazingly, we had to rely on foreign channels; RTE showed a small part, then cut the feed when Vincent Brown started asking questions. An absolute disgrace.
I presume there are three situations:
(1) People who have deposits in the banks now _and_ in 2008: they pay
(2) People who had deposits in the banks in 2008 but no longer (perhaps bought house) - they also pay
(3 )People who didn't have deposits in the banks in 2008 but do now - they do not...
#
So Brendan, which economists do you actually recommend and which one(s) would you like to see endorse your idea?
Better ideas? An increase in corporation tax by a few percent. A narrowing of the tax bands. There you go. Neither of these will create an insane run on the banks.
+1.
Brendan, have you run this idea by any economists? Brian Lucey for one things it's a "stupid" idea. Are there any who support it?
Also, it's perfectly reasonable to criticise an idea without having to put forward any alternative. If someone suggested banning books in order to protect...
Here's my alternative: my alternative is not to retroactively levy people's deposits and therefore completely ruin the remaining credibility of Irish banking. Brendan, what do you think would happen to a government which simulteneously argued that (a) a deposit levy could be applied...
On top of that, they have lost 17% of their deposits since June:
[broken link removed]
If that doesn't count as capital flight, I don't know what does. I don't think we can entirely blame Brendan's thread on levying deposits.
Well, the IMF are now here. I wonder if anyone, Brendan or otherwise, thinks that more attention should have been paid to Morgan Kelly's articles down the years.
You mean, why is everyone else except Fianna Fail calling it a bailout? A bailout can be used in the context of a loan:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bailout
A lot of this depends on how big the two mortgages are, and if you could afford it if that rent you admit you "hope" for isn't forthcoming or is less than the current rate. The best thing here is to research and be completely objective about it.