Who's not paying their fair share?

I agree with you that the US and UK are in far worse shape. But the difference is that their monetary policies are focusing on inflating away their debts, which is basically a dishonest way of defaulting.
While the ECB is also on an infaltionary path, their actions so far have been no where near as inflationary as the US and UK. So from that point of view I believe that the IMF will not be called into the UK and the US before Ireland.
There would also be not much point for the IMF to go into the US and UK as they could not cover even a fraction of their debt levels.
 
The reality is that the IMF will be in the UK before they are in Ireland, so dont worry about them coming here until they turn up there.
Click to expand...
I'm not worried about them coming in. I want them to!
Unfortunately, they have to be invited.
 

Great analogy. It would have been almost perfect if the credit card belonged to someone else's wife, and you were being forced against your will to assume the debt!
 
Anglo has a high percentage of loans in relation to UK properties. Cant provide a link, but I remember reading somewhere that the % was much higher than those for other banks. And that a lot of the bonder holders (even a majority?) are UK based.

Someone mentioned an interesting theory to me recently - that maybe the refusal to pull the plug on Anglo is for political rather than financial reasons.

Firesale of Anglo loans, properties etc. would hit the UK very hard. Property market in London is fragile right now, may not take much to set off a chain of events. This coupled with bond holder losses, would have a material effect on their economy. And, as we've seen from IMF data, UK is in a more fragile state than Ireland.

The political reason is Northern Ireland, which is totally dependant on State subsidies from UK taxpayer. UK gets into further trouble, particularly if that trouble is perceived to be due to Ireland, then the appetite and ability to subsidise NI goes. Particularly with conservatives in power. Net result is cuts to NI budget, consequential mass unemployment up there which will result in social disorder thus risking a return of sectarianism and the break down of the Good Friday agreement.

This theory may be a bit far fetched, but who knows. There's no other explaination for the Governments lack of action.
 
Very interesting theory csirl.

At this stage, I am convinced it's not for financial reasons that the plug has not been pulled on Anglo. No one is that stupid or incompetent that they would keep pumping billions into it, so it must be something else.

I had always thought it was for good old corruption reasons.
 
csirl said:
Someone mentioned an interesting theory to me recently - that maybe the refusal to pull the plug on Anglo is for political rather than financial reasons.
Click to expand...

I think that side of the theory is pretty much spot on. While the wool was pulled over people's eyes as to the extent just how much it will cost to save Anglo by the bank, i think there was a political willingness to believe those figures and reports due to exposure in the UK.

However, i think extending that to NI is the far-fetched side of the theory. I don't believe that card was played, I do think there would have been pressure put on, but not with NI in mind.
 

I doubt it was done to protect the UK property market.
However I am of the belief it was not done to protect the depositors and bond holders, but rather to protect the borrowers (Sean Quinn & others).
 
Purple said:
Was Anglo really that big a player in the UK property market?
Click to expand...

I think so. Remember reading something about it recently, but can't find the article online. A lot loaned to Irish people investing in UK projects.

Anglo has only 1 office in Ireland. It has 5 in the UK.
 
Another group exposed on RTE's Consumer show this evening as not doing their fair share - the pharmacists.

Yet another massively profitable group fighting to retain their massive incomes and margins.

The Govt negoiated with the manufacturers to reduce costs, fair enough.

The Govt decided to reduce the wholesale margin from 17.64% to 10%. Up to half of this margin was being shared with pharmacists.

Then they cut the margin on DPS drugs from 50% to 20%, but also increaed the dispensing fee.

At long last says I, price drops, great, not as many complaints about the prices in Irl vs UK, Spain, etc.

Now it turns out that they still use the 50% mark-up.

A good while ago a poster here mentioned that a Dublin pharmacist was drawing 40,000 per month in profit. Unreal.
 
[broken link removed]

John McHale (NUIG):
The social partners, while battered from their recent experiences, could also play a role in preparing their constituencies for the pain they will face in the context of a fair overall fiscal adjustment. Each group will always feel they should bear less and others more, but hopefully the best (or better) will not be allowed to become the enemy of the good. Shared understanding of national challenges is one of the things social partnership is supposed to be about.
 

Sorry to state the blindingly obvious here, but the extra tax your paying has nothing to do with Anglo or the Banking crisis. The banks are currently being funded with promissory notes, which they are using for collateral for borrowing. When we start honouring those notes, then you'll be paying for the banking crisis.

The extra tax you are currently paying concerns reducing our €20bn current account deficit to €16bn, of which about €2bn is tax increases.

That €2bn is spread out across the income tax base, ranging from people who earn > €100k pa who are paying an extra 12% and people who earn less than €15k pa who are paying nothing extra.

If you are paying a lot more than €22 per week in extra tax, you're clearly in a higher income bracket.

Welcome to the world of progressive taxation.
 
Protocol said:
Now it turns out that they still use the 50% mark-up.
Click to expand...

If pharmacists and their businesses are "price gouging" and taking the public for a ride, and profit opportunity is so high, then why is there not an ever increasing stream of more pharmacies?
Basic economics dictates that if demand increases while supply stays the same, then prices rise. In the case of pharmacies, the state controls its numbers directly through restricting licences and applying a huge cost to the actual licence. Pharmacists are also limited to what suppliers they use, i.e. they cannot go to a cheaper Spanish supplier.
You want to blame someone for high pharmacy prices? Blame government interference.
 

THere are 5 pharmacists in the small town where I live. 2 opened in the last 3 years and 2 others had major refurbishment. Lots of other retail businesses have closed in the town including fashion,pubs etc... so there must be plenty of profit still to be made.
 
Last edited:
What do you mean suggesting that the government is actually doing something, thats slander.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register