The cigarette vending machine tycoons..

[Rmul]

Above

You ignored inflation Brendan, 50k for twenty years at price inflation of 4% amounts to nearly 1.5m, leaving them near to penniless. Five years later the remaining capital would be gone, since 50k today would need nearly 110k in 2024. Maryh, the Govt makes even more by taxing the "immoral" earnings as you put it. It collects money off the tobacco firms, the pubs, the machine vendors, the advertisers, even the hospital staff that are used to cope with the fall out.

 

[daltonr]

Re: Above

It collects money off the tobacco firms, the pubs, the machine vendors, the advertisers, even the hospital staff that are used to cope with the fall out.

Don't forget the tax it tax off the low paid workers.

But give them credit, for once they are introducing a policy that gives up a bit od tax revenue in return for a longer term gain. It helps that it's the popular thing to do, but we'll give Michael Martin the benefit of the doubt that he'd do it anyway.

-Rd

 

[Sparky]

It seems to me to be immoral to make so much money selling f

How many "holier than though's" have pension funds reliant on the so called Vice Funds of Tobacco, Alcohol, Porn etc.?

 

[daltonr]

Re: It seems to me to be immoral to make so much money selli

How many "holier than though's" have....

I didn't say it was wrong for all these people/governments to make this money. I was just completing the list.

As it happens there are companies that I would not buy shares in simply because I disagree with their attitude/actions. But I have no problems with others buying all the shares they want.

I wouldn't buy Tobacco Shares because their product kills it's customers and others around them if used as directed. I wouldn't buy Ryanair because I don't like the company or it's management. I wouldn't buy a football club because the economics are just loopy.

It's not an entirely irrational position to take, I have a nagging fear that Ryanair's two fingers to everyone policy will ultimately hurt the company badly, and I'd prefer not to own shares when that happens.

But You're all free to buy any shares you like. I couldn't care less.

-Rd

 

[Patricia]

The Issue

I don't think we'll get too far if we go off on a moral tangent. The main theme from SMTM last week was how a bank regulated in our country get get away with this type of abuse of customer.

It's irrelevant I think what the customer does for a living, the point is the rip off at 14% against a fully secured position. Its a pity that the bank wasn't named -perhaps had it been the outcome would be different.

The media is often seen as heavy left, maybe something to do with plain old begrudgery, but there appears to be resonances here. If this was a PAYE couple, and not one with assets over €2m and a Merc, what's the betting that the public reaction, reflected here, would be one of outrage?

If there's any truth in that suggestion then we really have to ask ourselves if we've yet matured enough as a people to be comfortable with wealth. Personally I think that the couple would provoke more begrudery than empathy - it didn't matter that they were being screwed.

 

[daltonr]

Re: The Issue

Just be careful when demanding the naming and shaming of the bank in this case. From the very first episode of SMTM it was plainly clear that the viewer is not being told the full story.

If the facts of this case are just as it was presented then yes the bank should be ashamed of itself. But I'd take what I see on SMTM with a big pinch of salt.

-Rd

 

[Harry]

Above

C'mon Daltonr that's a not a reponse to what is a good observation, but at least your persistent. From the start of SMTM isn't it the case that you've shown you just don't like the presenter or anything to do with him?

 

[daltonr]

Re: Above

isn't it the case that you've shown you just don't like the presenter or anything to do with him?

I like Eddie Hobbs a lot. I like what he writes, I like his contributions on TV and radio, and I even liked him on the Late Late Show. It's good that there's a high profile voice for the consumer, and he clearly believes in what he's saying, it's not a flag of convenience.

I'd probably prefer to see him do a Watchdog style program because I think it would suit him better, and it'd be a more interesting show. You could see he was enjoying criticising the bank in the most recent SMTM, without actually naming them.

I have from the start said that the viewer is not getting the whole picture on SMTM. The loans that Eddie arranges for the participants are not available to the viewer, figures never seem to quite add up. And that's fine, people shouldn't have to bare all to the public, but we should remember that we are only hearing part of one side of the story in each episode.

I'm not trying to excuse the interest rate charged to the tobacco vendors either, I'm just saying there may be reasons why the show couldn't or shouldn't name and shame the bank.

Also I don't know if Eddie had much editorial input into the show. He doesn't have a problem telling it like it is in other media outlets, but this being an independant production, they may be playing it safe. Remember the show isn't made by RTE.

-Rd

 

[Ear to the ground]

RTE

Daltonr is right. Hobbs should have named and shamed the bank, but the reason SMTM didn't is probably to do with RTE who are well known in media circles to be risk shy. This is a light entertainment slot, but Daltonr is right to say that we badly need a hard hitting consumer programme. SMTM clearly isn't it.

 

[Brendan Burgess]

Rmul said:

You ignored inflation Brendan, 50k for twenty years at price inflation of 4% amounts to nearly 1.5m,

Actually, I didn't ignore it. What about investment income?

€2m at 4% for 20 years amounts to €4.4m.

If you take a 2% real return on €2m, that's €40k, so in real terms, they are running down their expenditure at only €10k a year.

Brendan