# AIB Staff to receive 3% pay increase?



## MANTO (15 Oct 2009)

Hi All,

A friend of mine told me AIB staff are to get a 3% Pay Increase this year (she said its from a reliable source),

Has anybody else heard this?

Thanks
M


----------



## Mpsox (15 Oct 2009)

My understanding is that it is a performance related rise with rises ranging from 0-5.5% depending on an individuals performance and is based on a recommendation from the LRC some time back and which was put on hold for 6 months


----------



## MANTO (15 Oct 2009)

Thank you Mpsox,

It adds to the controversy within my workplace. We have a list of 111 Companies who have paid the first Phase or Both of the Transitional Agreement Towards 2016.

Our company (i do not wish to say) make millions in profit every year and have increased their profit margin ove the past 5 years and still increasing but will not pay the wage deal.

I know others will think - what? you are looking for a wage increase - but if 111 companies have paid, why not ours (a profitable company).

We are currently waiting on the court ruling at this stage (ps the company had no valid agruement as why to not pay when it went to court so it looks like the ruling may be favourable).

Nice to see the Banking Sector can still get their increases (not that i deny any hard working individual but no doubt there will be many that get the increase that probably shouldnt)


----------



## Locke (15 Oct 2009)

> (no doubt there will be many that get the increase that probably shouldnt)


 
Not really a constructive point in fairness. That could be said about every business/workplace in the country.

Including your own.


----------



## bigbadostric (15 Oct 2009)

They didn't cause the mess, they are more than entitled to a wage increase if AIB sees fit. That's the benefit with working in the private sector.


----------



## Sarn (15 Oct 2009)

Playing Devil's advocate, but couldn't the same be said of public sector workers (and I know that "they didn't cause this"  is a popular phrase in that area). Not that I'm advocating an increase in public sector wages. With AIB requiring several billion and possibly requiring more money to bail them out, this would put them in the same boat as the public sector and the government deficit.


----------



## POBO (15 Oct 2009)

Hi all, first time poster so go easy on me. Sorry if my post is not really relevant but I feel very strongly on this area & don't know where else to vent my frustration. 

I'm a bank official (pls don't judge me on that alone, I'm actally a ''very nice' bank official   ), though I do not work in AIB. If AIB staff are being treated the way the staff in my bank are being treated, then they deserve far more than 3%. Unpaid overtime on a daily basis (branch staff only - staff in departments get paid for all their overtime, go figure??!!). Staff cutbacks leading to increased individual workloads for already overworked staff. *Extreme* *Extreme* sales pressure, even now during a recession, so much so that I have been reduced to tears on an regular basis recently. The manager trying to excuse the banks behaviour by telling us that we are lucky to have our jobs, even though we did nothing to put our jobs on the line!! On top of that, i have never had so much verbal abuse from the public. I know someone who was spat at recently. I wish people would direct their anger towards the banks at senior management & not ordinary bank staff who actually work very hard for their customers. Sorry for the rant, feeling very emotional today after another terrible day at work. I myself missed a 9% increase due to me this year & I am on an indefinite pay freeze - 3% would be an insult if I was offered it by the bank. As soon as we are back on our feet again, I will be looking for a new job outside the bank!! In  9 years working for this bank, I have never been treated so badly.


----------



## Teknon (15 Oct 2009)

POBO said:


> Unpaid overtime on a daily basis (branch staff only - staff in departments get paid for all their overtime, go figure??!!). Staff cutbacks leading to increased individual workloads for already overworked staff.



No overtime ever paid in my department!! No leave allowed at quarter ends, christmas, have to work bank holidays.  My income will be down about 30% for 2009 and we are just expected to work harder than ever and take crap from headline grabbing joe public.  Boils my blood to hear public sector workers moan about the pension levy (you get it back!) and the possibility of a 10% paycut, try surviving on 30% less!

Hopefully the IBOA will step in and all Bank staff will get a 3% increase, it would certainly help!


----------



## ontour (15 Oct 2009)

bigbadostric said:


> They didn't cause the mess



so bank staff did the proper due diligence before lending?  They asked about credit union or other personal loans?  The asked where the deposit was coming from?  They advised their customers to be cautious and helped them understand the risk of rising interest rates?

I always laugh at how unions are so quick to proclaim that profits and growth are a function of the work of their members but losses and problems are always a result of the actions of senior management... or just 'someone else'.



bigbadostric said:


> they are more than entitled to a wage increase if AIB sees fit. That's the benefit with working in the private sector.



AIB is now more of a semi-state company than a private company influenced greatly by the government.  AIB can not survive without state support.  I am not sure how the staff are 'more than entitled' to a payrise but it is definitely not down to AIB seeing fit.  It should be down to what the market dictates to retain specific talent and whether the company can afford to pay more.

The problem here is not that individuals in AIB do not deserve pay rises for their individual performance, the problem is the culture of entitlement it propogates to other organisations.  Why would Irish Nationwide staff or Anglo staff not also get a pay rise?  If I was a public servant seeing pay rises in the banking sector, I would be getting ready to strike if I felt the government was cutting my pay but pouring money in to the banks who are paying it out to staff in raises.


----------



## Chris (16 Oct 2009)

ontour said:


> I always laugh at how unions are so quick to proclaim that profits and growth are a function of the work of their members but losses and problems are always a result of the actions of senior management... or just 'someone else'.



You could not have put this any better. I would go one step further and point out that Joe Public will boast and congratulate himself during boom times when his pay and assets' values are rising. As soon as there is a bust he is very quick to focus the blame on someone/anyone else. I see this all the time with friends and colleagues; people just don't like to accept responsibility for their own decisions and actions when they don't go right.


----------



## Bronte (16 Oct 2009)

POBO said:


> . . As soon as we are back on our feet again, I will be looking for a new job outside the bank!! In 9 years working for this bank, I have never been treated so badly.


 
Welcome POBO and your views are important.  You will see from my previous posts I 'm not a bank fan but the recent crisis is not a reason for the public to be rude to bank staff.  I presume because you are in the front line that the anger is vented at you.  In relation to your job I've noticed in recent years that it has become just a glorified sales job.  Could you eloborate on the how your are pressurised into selling?


----------



## lff12 (16 Oct 2009)

In all honesty, a large proportion of AIB staff had little or nothing to do with toxic strategies or poor management policies so I wouldn't think they should be tarred with the same brush.


----------



## Deas (16 Oct 2009)

POBO & Teknon, while I understand your frustration, you need to understand the optics of any pay increase should same be applied in Banking this year. Your Bank has been recapitalised in the billions of euros and the excessive lending carried out by the Bank (and others) needs the Nama solution.  This money cannot go on staff pay increases!

You may be working harder now; so be it. I can assure the grass is not greener on the other side. Talk to some of your colleagues in the debt collection areas. I would question the continued sales focus - the Bank should be retaining capital!

Teknon, in your comments, you are being disingenuous. I assume your 'reduction' is bonus. As bonuses are discretionary if the Bank does not perform, how can you be paid? I know of no Bank that has reduced pay. There may be a pay freeze, so don't dress this up as a reduction either as you are only encouraging the behaviour you wish to avoid. Quarter ends etc. depending on the nature of the work require staff on ther ground to manage them. What do you expect. Be careful what you wish for as the dole queue is not a nice place to be.


----------



## pinkie123 (16 Oct 2009)

I think this thread is a disgrace - extremely petty. I know an employee of AIB that works 60+ hours a week, and this 3% amounted to about €60 extra a month. Hardly even worth having! To think you are begrudging that is unfathomable.


----------



## nlgbbbblth (17 Oct 2009)

A trade union leader *should not* have to write a letter to a national newspaper pleading for members of the public to differentiate between high level bankers and ordinary officials.

The fact that he did speaks volumes for the intelligence of some of those sheep out there.


----------



## garythegreat (17 Oct 2009)

pinkie123 said:


> I think this thread is a disgrace - extremely petty. I know an employee of AIB that works 60+ hours a week, and this 3% amounted to about €60 extra a month. Hardly even worth having! To think you are begrudging that is unfathomable.




I work 50hours+ a week and work extremly hard, i will begrudge him that 60euro if its coming from my pocket in the extra taxes that im sure im going to have to pay after the next budget to save his employer. 

€60 pm would make a massive difference to me, its certainly "worth having".


----------



## Rois (17 Oct 2009)

Why are AIB staff getting a 3% pay rise? 
What have they done to deserve this and on what basis is it justified?


----------



## RIAD_BSC (17 Oct 2009)

it has nothing to do with whether or not the pay rise is justified - it is all to do with whether the bank can afford it or not. Lots of people in struggling companies could justify pay rises for their staff, but they just can't afford to pay them.

AIB is on state-funded life support. While taxpayers are propping the bank up, it should be using all of its money to rebuild its capital base, not giving staff pay rises.

When it no longer relies on taxpayers for financial assistance, then it can pay its staff whatever the hell it likes. Until then, pay rises are totally out of order.


----------



## Deas (19 Oct 2009)

pinkie123 said:


> I think this thread is a disgrace - extremely petty. I know an employee of AIB that works 60+ hours a week, and this 3% amounted to about €60 extra a month. Hardly even worth having! To think you are begrudging that is unfathomable.


 
Pinkie - you are missing the point.  There are approx 18k employees.  When the 3% is applied to all in light of the recapitalisation it is a major own goal by the Bank.  This is not about your friend or how hard he/she works.


----------



## Sunny (19 Oct 2009)

Have I missed something. Were AIB not ordered by the Labour Relations Commission to pay the award. Blame so called social partnership for it. AIB wanted a paycut across the board. The award only applies to people below management level as well.


----------



## BertieBowel (19 Oct 2009)

*Re: AIB Staff to receive 3% pay increase?* 
Have I missed something. Were AIB not ordered by the Labour Relations Commission to pay the award. Blame so called social partnership for it. The award only applies to people below management level as well. 

Sunny - this is spot on and some posters have missed the point completely. AIB went to the Labour Court to argue not paying this increase. BOI had a similar case a few months back with their Life division. This increase is being forced on them.


----------



## ontour (19 Oct 2009)

The negotiations that resulted in the agreement for the 3% pay increase were triggered by AIB not paying the last installment of the national wage agreement.  My understanding, which is open to correction, is that the 3% was a recommendation from the Labour Relations Commission.  There is nothing that forces AIB to pay this now although it would not lead to a basis for trust in future negotiations.


----------



## Deas (19 Oct 2009)

Bank of Ireland have not paid it.


----------



## Shawady (19 Oct 2009)

Do not know all the facts in this case so can someone clarify that it is the Labour court that is 'forcing' AIB to pay the increase. I thought labour court recommendations are not leaglly binding?
What basis are they making the judgement on? Is it the case the pay increase was aggreed some time ago when we had inflation in the economy? Where is the logic in giving a 3% increase when we have defaltion at 6%?


----------



## liaconn (19 Oct 2009)

pinkie123 said:


> I think this thread is a disgrace - extremely petty. I know an employee of AIB that works 60+ hours a week, and this 3% amounted to about €60 extra a month. Hardly even worth having! To think you are begrudging that is unfathomable.


 
We have all taken pay cuts in order to bail out the banks. It is wrong that some of that money is being used to increase the pay of bank clerks. I know they didn't cause the problem but neither did the people paying the income levy.


----------



## Kine (19 Oct 2009)

I love all the anger against the "ZOMG we own the bank so we will not pay increases, bonuses etc....". Most banks in the UK and the US received some form of bailout or another. From what I'm hearing, pay conditions are beginning to bounce back in some of the british banks, as if they don't the banks not paying will lose all their quality employees. Just look at GS, their bonus pool is at the same level as their 2007 pool.


----------



## Sunny (19 Oct 2009)

Deas said:


> Bank of Ireland have not paid it.


 
Yes they did. They paid it last year


----------



## csirl (19 Oct 2009)

Government should tell the bank to cut all staff salaries by at least 30% until such time as they are back on their feet. Remember that the LRC decision, like any pay decision, is still dependant on AIB having the ability to pay. If the Government mandates that bailout money should not go on pay, then they cant pay. Any employees who arent prepared to take a 30% cut should be made redundant with only statutory redundancy paid.

This is a disgrace. The rest of us will be hit with huge tax increases in December to pay for it. Shame on AIB and shame on their staff.


----------



## Shawady (19 Oct 2009)

Deas said:


> Bank of Ireland have not paid it.


 
I read something earlier in the year about Anglo paying low and middle earning staff 5% pay increase in Feb. Was surprised at the time that it did not provoke too much of a reaction.


----------



## Deas (19 Oct 2009)

Sunny said:


> Yes they did. They paid it last year


 
Not the payment that was subject to LC proceedings.


----------



## Sunny (19 Oct 2009)

Deas said:


> Not the payment that was subject to LC proceedings.


 
As far as I know BOI were not subject to any LC proceedings. They didn't try and get out of paying the award like AIB. They paid it around the same time as the ESB. I am open to correction though.


----------



## Deiseblue (19 Oct 2009)

Sunny said:


> As far as I know BOI were not subject to any LC proceedings. They didn't try and get out of paying the award like AIB. They paid it around the same time as the ESB. I am open to correction though.


 You are quite correct Sunny.
Bank of Ireland paid the 3.5% due under the first tranche of the National Wage Agreement towards 2016 and as such the Labour Court were never involved.


----------



## liaconn (19 Oct 2009)

Kine said:


> I love all the anger against the "ZOMG we own the bank so we will not pay increases, bonuses etc....". Most banks in the UK and the US received some form of bailout or another. From what I'm hearing, pay conditions are beginning to bounce back in some of the british banks, as if they don't the banks not paying will lose all their quality employees. Just look at GS, their bonus pool is at the same level as their 2007 pool.


 
We are objecting to the fact that we had to take pay cuts to bail out the banks and their staff are now getting pay increases.


----------



## Statler (19 Oct 2009)

liaconn said:


> We are objecting to the fact that we had to take pay cuts to bail out the banks and their staff are now getting pay increases.



We had to take pay cuts (and will have to take more pay cuts in the future) to sort out the mess that is the public finances. The budget deficit would be there even if the banks had not engaged in reckless lending.


----------



## liaconn (19 Oct 2009)

And a large part of the mess was caused by the banks. I'm not saying junior staff should be penalised, I just think a pay rise at the moment is highly inappropriate for anyone.


----------



## TarfHead (19 Oct 2009)

liaconn said:


> We are objecting to the fact that we had to take pay cuts to bail out the banks and their staff are now getting pay increases.


 
With respect .. I doubt anyone has had their pay cut to fund the bank bailout.

I assume you mean the reduction in net salary in respect of the new & increased levies ? I thought they were introduced to bridge the gap between Government income and expenditure, not specifically to bail out the banks.

And, if I heard him correctly, Conor McCarthy asserted on The Frontline a few weeks ago that that gap was not due to the bank bailout.

So, levies are not funding the banks ?


----------



## liaconn (19 Oct 2009)

One way or the other, the taxpayers have had to bail out the banks. When the HSE staff looked for a pay rise recently there was huge disapproval (and rightly so) on these boards about people 'not living in the real world'.  Yet, when bank staff look for a pay rise it's suddenly okay.


----------



## TarfHead (19 Oct 2009)

liaconn said:


> One way or the other, the taxpayers have had to bail out the banks.


 
I agree, but I am not clear how NAMA will will burn a hole in the public pocket, annually. McCarthy wasn't allowed to complete his point on The Frontline because Pat Kenny was happy to let audience roar at him.



liaconn said:


> .. Yet, when bank staff look for a pay rise it's suddenly okay.


 
Only okay according to the Labour Court and the IBOA. And, if it's paid, those lucky enough to benefit from it.


----------



## Mpsox (19 Oct 2009)

pinkie123 said:


> I think this thread is a disgrace - extremely petty. I know an employee of AIB that works 60+ hours a week, and this 3% amounted to about €60 extra a month. Hardly even worth having! To think you are begrudging that is unfathomable.


 
based on that figure, then the rises would cost AIB somewhere in the reason of €13m. Were AIB not to pay them, then it is reasonable to assume that this is €13m that the Irish govt would not have to use to fund AIB, and that it would be €13m less in cuts that would not be required in the December budget.


----------



## Statler (19 Oct 2009)

liaconn said:


> And a large part of the mess was caused by the banks. I'm not saying junior staff should be penalised, I just think a pay rise at the moment is highly inappropriate for anyone.



What part of the difference between current expenditure and current tax receipts is attributable to the banks? 

The bail out was a very costly once-off hit (and I agree that the fact that the taxpayer had to pick up the tab makes the concept of pay increases at the banks unpalatable), but the income levy and pension levy etc. were introduced to deal with the gap between day to day income and expenditure.


----------



## Sunny (19 Oct 2009)

liaconn said:


> One way or the other, the taxpayers have had to bail out the banks. When the HSE staff looked for a pay rise recently there was huge disapproval (and rightly so) on these boards about people 'not living in the real world'. Yet, when bank staff look for a pay rise it's suddenly okay.


 
I don't think anyone is saying its ok. It looks bad. The point is that the bank tried not paying it and actually looked for a pay cut but the LC told them to pay it. Also it only only benefits around 30% of AIB staff. They can ignore the LC but that risks bringing the entire industrial relations system in this Country to its knees. 

As I said before, blame social partnership for this sort of crap.


----------



## Sunny (19 Oct 2009)

Mpsox said:


> based on that figure, then the rises would cost AIB somewhere in the reason of €13m. Were AIB not to pay them, then it is reasonable to assume that this is €13m that the Irish govt would not have to use to fund AIB, and that it would be €13m less in cuts that would not be required in the December budget.


 
No it wouldn't because the cuts in December has nothing to do with the banks. There is still a deficit of €20-€22 billion.


----------



## Chris (19 Oct 2009)

Sunny said:


> No it wouldn't because the cuts in December has nothing to do with the banks. There is still a deficit of €20-€22 billion.



Not really true in the bigger picture. If the government hadn't pumped €10 billion into Anglo, AIB and BoI it would now need to borrow €10 billion less, This would mean paying less interest in the future, which would mean paying less taxes in the future to service the loans.
Just because the extra taxes are not going immediately/directly into the banks doesn't mean that our taxes will not be paying for the bailout. No matter which way it is put, the taxpayer is and will be paying for the bailout.


----------



## nlgbbbblth (19 Oct 2009)

The LRC approved the 3% increase. Independent assessment. If you start to overrule their decisions then it's a dangerous precedent to set. 
It's what they were entitled to in 2008 but the bank refused to pay it.

The staff getting it are "below manager level" which means they're not that well paid and are taking the brunt of public abuse (and believe me, there's lots of ill-informed people giving counter staff a hard time) for the reckless policies of senior management in the bank.


----------



## dewdrop (20 Oct 2009)

Why are people not critisising the Labour Court for confirming this award rather than blaming AIB in error.?


----------



## Mpsox (20 Oct 2009)

Sunny said:


> No it wouldn't because the cuts in December has nothing to do with the banks. There is still a deficit of €20-€22 billion.


 
So basically you are saying that the Govt can borrow money to pump into the banks and it has no impact on the budget deficit. Rubbish !!!


----------



## Shawady (20 Oct 2009)

When did the Labour Court make this decision?

I don't believe that if AIB refused to pay it , it would cause havoc with the whole industrial relations issue given the unprecidented situation the banks are in. I think it would be quite appropriate for AIB to refuse to pay it on moral grounds that they are getting a huge amount of taxpayers money to help their business. If the staff strike for it , they will get no support.
Why does anyone need a pay increase when we have deflation? Isn't that the arguement that is being put forward to cut socail welfare?


----------



## Statler (20 Oct 2009)

Mpsox said:


> So basically you are saying that the Govt can borrow money to pump into the banks and it has no impact on the budget deficit. Rubbish !!!



Help me out here, roughly how much of the 20-22bn deficit is attributable to the banks?


----------



## TarfHead (20 Oct 2009)

It might be more accurate to say that the 20 to 22bn gap (between revenue and expenditure) exists before to costs of NAMA have to be paid.

Blaming NAMA for the need to raise revenue and cut expenditure is the wrong target.


----------



## Statler (20 Oct 2009)

Spot on. 

It just bugs me to see the bank bailout being dragged into the debate on the current budget deficit, it clouds the issue and takes the focus off what needs to be done and why. People are rightly angry at what went on at the banks, but expenditure would need to be cut and taxes would need to be increased regardless.


----------



## Chris (20 Oct 2009)

Statler said:


> Spot on.
> 
> It just bugs me to see the bank bailout being dragged into the debate on the current budget deficit, it clouds the issue and takes the focus off what needs to be done and why. People are rightly angry at what went on at the banks, but expenditure would need to be cut and taxes would need to be increased regardless.



But this is blatantly ignoring the fact that if €10 billion hadn't been pumped into the banks we would be able to divert that €10 billion to plug the budget deficit. Bottom line is that every penny that is borrowed or taxed will come out of the the tax payers pocket, whether in the last budget, the next budget or the next ten budgets.
While expenditure cuts, tax and borrowing increases would still be needed, the extent of these would not be as high as they have to be now.


----------



## TarfHead (20 Oct 2009)

Chris said:


> But this is blatantly ignoring the fact that if €10 billion hadn't been pumped into the banks we would be able to divert that €10 billion to plug the budget deficit.


 
We're already borrowing to cover the deficit - 20bn, or 400m per week.



Chris said:


> Bottom line is that every penny that is borrowed or taxed will come out of the the tax payers pocket.


 
Agreed.

I haven't seen the figure for the cost of NAMA, in how it increases Government annual expenditure, i.e. interest on sum borrowed to fund NAMA. But that is, not yet, nothing to do with the 20bn that has to be closed down, starting with the December budget.
"_This cow is small, that cow is far away_"


----------



## Statler (20 Oct 2009)

Chris said:


> But this is blatantly ignoring the fact that if €10 billion hadn't been pumped into the banks we would be able to divert that €10 billion to plug the budget deficit. Bottom line is that every penny that is borrowed or taxed will come out of the the tax payers pocket, whether in the last budget, the next budget or the next ten budgets.
> While expenditure cuts, tax and borrowing increases would still be needed, the extent of these would not be as high as they have to be now.



I go back to my previous question, what would the budget deficit be this year if there was no bailout for the banks? Are you saying that the deficit this year would be 10 billion if there had been no recapitalisation of the banks?


----------



## TarfHead (20 Oct 2009)

Statler said:


> I go back to my previous question, what would the budget deficit be this year if there was no bailout for the banks? Are you saying that the deficit this year would be 10 billion if there had been no recapitalisation of the banks?


 
I'm assuming that the 20bn does not include the amount borrowed to fund NAMA as that amount would not be fully repaid in one year.


----------



## S.L.F (20 Oct 2009)

Teknon said:


> Boils my blood to hear public sector workers moan about the pension levy (you get it back!)


 
This is incorrect, they do not get it back.

It does not go into the pension fund, it is just a tax on working for the PS.


----------



## Shawady (20 Oct 2009)

Statler said:


> Spot on.
> 
> It just bugs me to see the bank bailout being dragged into the debate on the current budget deficit, it clouds the issue and takes the focus off what needs to be done and why. People are rightly angry at what went on at the banks, but expenditure would need to be cut and taxes would need to be increased regardless.


 
Statler, I aggree that spending cuts and new taxes would be required regardless of the bank bailout but my own opinion is that if the government did not have to take money out of the national pension fund (7-10 billion I think) to give to the banks it could have used some of this money as a sort of stimulus package. 
There are many people from the construction industry out of work and the government could have put together a plan to build or improve schools, hospitals or roads and been able to negoiate a competetive price.
I'm not suggesting this would solve all our problems but it could have given the government a bit more breathing space until things improve. As it is , it has no money to do something like this.

I think the pay increase is a seperate issue but I don't think it is justified that bank employees are getting an increase when the government is preaching that wages must come down in order for us to become competetive again.


----------



## Statler (20 Oct 2009)

Tarfhead,

No the 20bn does not include the NAMA amounts.
In relation to interest on NAMA debt, the business plan has some figures, make of them what you will:
[broken link removed]


----------



## Statler (20 Oct 2009)

Shawady,

Agree that building schools, hospitals, roads etc. would have been abundantly more beneficial than giving money to the banks if we did not have to, but my own personal opinion is that a stimulus package of this nature in that sort of amount would have provided limited breathing space. We would still be looking at a 20 billion deficit and we would still have to make hard, nasty choices. The bank bailout certainly did not help, but it is not the core problem.

Fully agree on the pay issue.


----------



## Chris (20 Oct 2009)

TarfHead said:


> We're already borrowing to cover the deficit - 20bn, or 400m per week.
> [/i]"



But you could "borrow" from the pension fund at no cost.



Statler said:


> I go back to my previous question, what would the budget deficit be this year if there was no bailout for the banks? Are you saying that the deficit this year would be 10 billion if there had been no recapitalisation of the banks?



The deficit would still be €20 billion, but the total debt would be lower. The budget deficit on it's own does not paint the whole picture. The important thing is the total national debt which is higher because of the bank bailout and the budget deficit. Now you are going to hear arguments that the bank bailout has added "assets" to the governments balance sheet, but it still has to borrow €10 billion more than if it had diverted this money in order to not have to borrow less.
And because of the higher debt the taxpayer will have to cough up more now and in the future.


----------



## TarfHead (20 Oct 2009)

Chris said:


> But you could "borrow" from the pension fund at no cost.


 
I suspect that you could not borrow from the Pension Fund to fund a current expenditure deficit. The recapitalisation of the banks will, I assume, have to be repaid.

Maybe not Anglo, though  ?


----------



## Statler (20 Oct 2009)

Chris said:


> The deficit would still be €20 billion



Thank you. The point I have been trying to make is that the banks and the budget deficit are different issues. Mixing them together reduces the likelihood that either will be dealt with effectively.


----------



## Chris (21 Oct 2009)

Statler said:


> Thank you. The point I have been trying to make is that the banks and the budget deficit are different issues. Mixing them together reduces the likelihood that either will be dealt with effectively.



I understand your point, but by separating the two it makes this year's bank bailout look like it is not costing the taxpayer in the future.


----------

