Politicians: "Supermarkets should not charge customers for their shopping for 6 months"

[Brendan Burgess]

Fair play to the politicians for standing up to the supermarkets.

Pearse Doherty today called on the supermarkets not to charge any of their customers for their shopping for six months. In particular, he called on the government to direct the state owned supermarkets not to charge customers. Charging them for their groceries was like imposing a Covid penalty on them.

David Hall of the Irish Supermarket Customers Organisation agreed saying that it was ridiculous that supermarkets would charge customers during this time.

The Taoiseach Micheal Martin said he was very concerned to hear that the supermarkets were charging customers and he had asked the responsible minister to meet with the owners of the supermarkets to let them know of the government's dissatisfaction with it.

The Labour Party has introduced a motion in the Dáil to demand that the government take action on the matter. The European Commission has made it clear that there is no obligation on supermarkets to charge their customers. It was a decision for each individual supermarket whether to charge customers for their purchases or not.

Brendan

 

[Wm Kee]

Is it April 1st again today?

 

[RedOnion]

I'm not entirely sure if they're arguing that your groceries should be completely free, or if the supermarket just shouldn't make a profit on them? I think the specific term used by one Deputy was that the supermarkets shouldn't 'fleece' customers.
It'll be interesting to see if this features on LiveLine tomorrow. The outrage!

 

[Brendan Burgess]

Hi Red

I found their language confusing.

One said "profiteering" which suggested that they should be just selling stuff at cost price.

However, others said that they should not charge at all so that would be giving away the stuff.

I personally have long campaigned against supermarkets charging the highest prices in Europe, but I don't think that they should give away stuff for free.

Brendan

 

[RedOnion]

I found their language confusing

I'm getting confused myself...

Could it be just politicians being populist, and they don't really know what they are saying?

I wonder if they've thought about the people who went ahead and paid for their groceries every week, because they didn't realise that they could get them for free if they didn't?

 

[odyssey06]

I was starting to get my hopes up... then I woke up.

Is "supermarkets" code for something else?

 

[Brendan Burgess]

Is it April 1st again today?

Hi Wm

I don't think so. When it was proposed in the Dáil yesterday to prohibit supermarkets from charging customers, not one TD spoke against the proposal.

And on the RTE news report last night, the only person to explain what they were doing was Brian Hayes, the spokesman for the Irish Supermarkets Federation.

 

[IsleOfMan]

Is "supermarkets" code for something else?

Substitute the word Banks/Pubs/cigarette makers...

 

[DublinHead54]

On the news they mentioned "this is costing some customers thousands of euros in extra interest".

Surely that is only for a very small number?

 

[Purple]

What I find really annoying is that supermarkets are seeking to make a profit on the backs of working people who find themselves in a position where they need to eat. During boom times some people eat far too much and get fat and unhealthy. This is clearly the fault of the supermarkets as they should never have sold them all that food in the first place. The State is also at fault for not regulating supermarkets properly as the only other alternative is for peopel to take personal responsibility for their own actions. That, or course, is a ridiculous notion.

 

[Allpartied]

Hasn't the government given everyone who couldn't work, their entire grocery bill, plus a whole lot more, in Covid payments.
They are, effectively, subsidising the grocery industry, as well as a host of other necessary services.
So, while the supermarkets are still charging for their goods, much of the payment is coming from the state.

Maybe just give all mortgage payers a subsidy for three months to pay the interest on their mortgages.

Would that keep Brian Hayes happy?

 

[Purple]

Hasn't the government given everyone who couldn't work, their entire grocery bill, plus a whole lot more, in Covid payments.
They are, effectively, subsidising the grocery industry, as well as a host of other necessary services.
So, while the supermarkets are still charging for their goods, much of the payment is coming from the state.

Maybe just give all mortgage payers a subsidy for three months to pay the interest on their mortgages.

Would that keep Brian Hayes happy?

I think the point is that Banks, as opposed to any other business, are expected to provide their goods or services for free. If it's okay to ask banks to provide stuff for free then why not supermarkets, garages who service cars, tyre shops, petrol stations and all those other necessary services?

 

[Sophrosyne]

The Tánaiste explained today that there was an additional cost to the supermarkets in providing payment breaks, which he felt shouldn’t be born by taxpayers or other supermarket shoppers but by those receiving payment breaks.

However, supermarkets should only recover actual costs. They will be watched closely to ensure there are no charges beyond this.

 

[michaelm]

It is reasonable to ask the banks to allow Covid payment breaks at cost. They won't loose out, they'll get all the interest they would have had Covid not arrived. Also, the bank are being indirectly supported through the Covid welfare payment and the wages subsidy scheme.

 

[Allpartied]

I think the point is that Banks, as opposed to any other business, are expected to provide their goods or services for free. If it's okay to ask banks to provide stuff for free then why not supermarkets, garages who service cars, tyre shops, petrol stations and all those other necessary services?

This is an exceptional situation. People have been ordered to stop working and have been denied their right to earn a wage, by decree.
If they tried to work they would be arrested and, likely, imprisoned.
The mortgage is not like any other product, unless you purchase 30 years worth of groceries, and pay back the bill every month. The interest accrued over this time period will be on the entire sum, instead of a diminishing sum and, as such, represents an increase in costs for people who were forcibly removed from the labour market.
It will still be paid, it's just that the banks will be asked to forgo profiteering from this enforced period of unemployment.

I don't think that is unreasonable.

 

[Purple]

This is an exceptional situation. People have been ordered to stop working and have been denied their right to earn a wage, by decree.

Every order which is back by a law is a decree.

If they tried to work they would be arrested and, likely, imprisoned.

Imprisoned? will ye go way out'a that.

The mortgage is not like any other product, unless you purchase 30 years worth of groceries, and pay back the bill every month. The interest accrued over this time period will be on the entire sum, instead of a diminishing sum and, as such, represents an increase in costs for people who were forcibly removed from the labour market.

That's incorrect; the interest only accrues over the full term of the mortgage if the borrower chooses not to pay it back sooner. For most people the interest will actually amount to no more than a few hundred euro. The mortgage holder can just pay a little extra over the next few months or years and the extra cost will be gone.

It will still be paid, it's just that the banks will be asked to forgo profiteering from this enforced period of unemployment.

I don't think that is unreasonable.

The good news is that the banks will not be increasing the interest or charges they impose on any mortgage "holiday" and will not be breaking any laws so they will not be profiteering.
Are the supermarkets profiteering by continuing to charge what they have always charged to people who are buying food now, those same people who have been forced out of work under pain of execution or transportation to Van Demon Land or rendition to Gitmo or whatever fanciful idea you have of what the State will do to people they find working?

 

[Allpartied]

Every order which is back by a law is a decree.

Imprisoned? will ye go way out'a that.

That's incorrect; the interest only accrues over the full term of the mortgage if the borrower chooses not to pay it back sooner. For most people the interest will actually amount to no more than a few hundred euro. The mortgage holder can just pay a little extra over the next few months or years and the extra cost will be gone.

The good news is that the banks will not be increasing the interest or charges they impose on any mortgage "holiday" and will not be breaking any laws so they will not be profiteering.
Are the supermarkets profiteering by continuing to charge what they have always charged to people who are buying food now, those same people who have been forced out of work under pain of execution or transportation to Van Demon Land or rendition to Gitmo or whatever fanciful idea you have of what the State will do to people they find working?

6 months imprisonment was the punishment for breaking the emergency laws.
If a hairdresser had continued to work through the lockdown, they would have been liable to imprisonment.

Full list of new garda lockdown powers including fines and 6 months in prison

Gardai have the power to issue fines and potentially detain people who are refusing to self-isolate

www.irishmirror.ie

The amount might be small, if spread over thirty years, but for many it will cost them several thousand euros.

Through no fault of their own, they are being penalised. Banks could easily offer a no-cost interest period, based on their own borrowing costs, ( surely below 1%) to all their customers as a sign of good will ( " we're all in it together"). It might make public opinion a little more favorable when they come begging for the next bailout.

 

[Purple]

6 months imprisonment was the punishment for breaking the emergency laws.
If a hairdresser had continued to work through the lockdown, they would have been liable to imprisonment.

Full list of new garda lockdown powers including fines and 6 months in prison

Gardai have the power to issue fines and potentially detain people who are refusing to self-isolate

www.irishmirror.ie

And how likely was it that anyone would have gone to prison, do you think?

The amount might be small, if spread over thirty years, but for many it will cost them several thousand euros.

No, the amount would be big if it was spread over 30 years as the interest would accrue during that whole period. The amount would be small if they paid it back over a few months of years.

Through no fault of their own, they are being penalised. Banks could easily offer a no-cost interest period, based on their own borrowing costs, ( surely below 1%) to all their customers as a sign of good will ( " we're all in it together").

So you think the banks should be penalised, through no fault of their own? Or do you think there's no cost associated with them not charging interest for 3-6 months?

It might make public opinion a little more favorable when they come begging for the next bailout.

The banks weren't bailed out; bond holders and depositors were bailed out. We borrowed €40 billion to put the money back into everyone's savings accounts. I didn't have any savings, if you did then say "thank you" to every child in the country as they bailed you out.

 

[Allpartied]

The banks weren't bailed out; bond holders and depositors were bailed out. We borrowed €40 billion to put the money back into everyone's savings accounts. I didn't have any savings, if you did then say "thank you" to every child in the country as they bailed you out.

The banks were bailed out. The directors, the senior managers, the big shots with millionaire pensions, they got their money. The business they ran was insolvent, but they still got paid, every penny, including 100's of senior managers on 100k pa pensions.

I didn't agree with the blanket bailout for depositors and think that those with savings above the Deposit guarantee should have taken a hair cut.
It seems the Irish govt is happy to use taxpayers money to bailout the richest members of society, but baulks at providing those who are forcibly unemployed with even minimum assistance.

 

[Purple]

The banks were bailed out. The directors, the senior managers, the big shots with millionaire pensions, they got their money. The business they ran was insolvent, but they still got paid, every penny, including 100's of senior managers on 100k pa pensions.

"The directors, the senior managers, the big shots with millionaire pensions, they got their money. The business they ran was insolvent"; You could be talking about State employees in those positions too (every Garda, every senior civil servant and lots of other State employees have "millionaire pensions"). Do you think that every well paid bank employee and every well paid state employee should have lost their job and their pension? Do you think there should be some sort of collective responsibility?
The vast majority of the money was to used to bail out depositors and bond holders (private pension funds). Sorry if that doesn't fit with your narrative.

I didn't agree with the blanket bailout for depositors and think that those with savings above the Deposit guarantee should have taken a hair cut.
It seems the Irish govt is happy to use taxpayers money to bailout the richest members of society, but baulks at providing those who are forcibly unemployed with even minimum assistance.

The bulk of the money used to put money back into private citizens bank accounts went to people with balances below the deposit guarantee ceiling. The whole thing accounted for €60 billion of the €200 billion we borrowed. The rest was to pay wages and welfare and pensions. If you don't want to see the richest members of society being funded by borrowed money then you should be looking for cuts to pensions since the retired are the richest cohort in the country. Good luck with that though!

Back on topic; most people with mortgages are middle to higher income households. If they are in that cohort and they have kids then they are already net recipients from the State since the top 5% pay most of the tax in this country, making a nonsense of the claim by populist morons that somehow the country is run to suit "the rich". Do you really think that people on welfare and their children should be subsidising the acquisition of capital assets by middle income earners? That's what you are suggesting as, obviously, banks don't function in a vacuum and we own the biggest one.