I won’t drag you through 15 years of public finance dataI struggle to find any clear evidence, so could you please share your source?
are you a taxpayer or receiving payments from the State?I'm not a shareholder so I've no skin in the AIB game.
I won’t drag you through 15 years of public finance data
Think of it this way: in a given year there is either an Exchequer deficit or a surplus and in a given year there is always national debt maturing. If there is a zero deficit/surplus, the debt is reissued. If there is a surplus - say for example a sale of bank shares - the surplus is used to repay maturing debt and no new debt is issued.
In reality there are more moving parts but they are the principles.
Are you sure about that, I struggle to find any clear evidence, so could you please share your source?
I'm not buying that...
You made a very clear statement above, but aren't backing it up with any evidence.
Year on year, when the Government sold "X" number of Bank shares and netted "Y" income, you should then be able to refer to a minimum reduction in the national debt, of the same amount ( as "Y"). If you can't, then you must accept that the Government elected to use the funds for other purposes - while leaving the population to carry a higher level of national debt, then it would otherwise have to shoulder. That has long term implications for the nation.
What the Government later elected to do with the sale proceeds of the bank shares, is a different issue - perhaps it was invested in green energy, perhaps it was used to fund a payrise for the civil service etc.
You can work it all out yourself here.I'm not buying that...
Had a less severe discount been imposed on the Banks that sold those loan portfolios, they would not have needed the same level of Government ball out, and the State might now be enjoying an even greater potential return on its remaining shareholding.
Yes.From the States perspective doesn't this - more or less - even itself out?
Agreed, NAMA was the surgery. While it left some scar tissue it ultimately lead to a faster recovery for the banks.Yes.
The issue was also around whether the bailed-out banks had the ability and willingness to manage the large debtors. The logic was that Nama would treat the large debtors harshly and consistently in order to maximise the recovery value.
This was the rationale for Nama that many people both in 2009 and afterwards couldn’t grasp.
Most of our debt was run up paying wages and welfare at rates we couldn’t afford. As everything really just gets lumped into the same pot in effect we are still using income from once off and unsustainable income sources to pay those wages and that welfare.I'm not buying that...
You made a very clear statement above, but aren't backing it up with any evidence.
Year on year, when the Government sold "X" number of Bank shares and netted "Y" income, you should then be able to refer to a minimum reduction in the national debt, of the same amount ( as "Y"). If you can't, then you must accept that the Government elected to use the funds for other purposes - while leaving the population to carry a higher level of national debt, then it would otherwise have to shoulder. That has long term implications for the nation.
What the Government later elected to do with the sale proceeds of the bank shares, is a different issue - perhaps it was invested in green energy, perhaps it was used to fund a payrise for the civil service etc.
Yup, but that's a problem, imhoMost of our debt was run up paying wages and welfare at rates we couldn’t afford. As everything really just gets lumped into the same pot in effect we are still using income from once off and unsustainable income sources to pay those wages and that welfare.
What we do with shares in AIB or any other assets we have is irrelevant in that context.
No but they will. And it will be well worth the read. And probably a public inquiry or two as well....Bit off topic, but I don't think it warrants its own thread: has anyone written a book focussed on the work of NAMA that's worth a read?
It's THE problem, imho.Yup, but that's a problem, imho
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?