Madam, – I am growing increasingly concerned that some people, including professional commentators and some politicians, have lost the plot in relation to the role of Nama in assisting economic recovery.
In recent days there has been a chorus of calls demanding that the banks take a greater share of the risks associated with Nama. This, they argue, is to ensure that the best interests of the taxpayer are served and protected.
Do they not realise that the best interests of the taxpayer will only be served when the banks begin functioning correctly as lenders into the economy, as opposed to what is the case at present.
Part of the present problem for Irish banks is that in international markets they are considered risky due to their impaired balance sheets. This impairment makes it either too expensive or impossible to raise capital from outside sources for the purpose of lending back into the economy here.
If risk is the reason banks remain crippled then why are people advocating on the one hand to take that risk, represented by bad assets, out of the banks and put it into Nama, only then to push the risk back under a different name and call it sharing.
As a country we don’t have time to tinker around here; we need to repair the banking system immediately for the sake of the country and all of the people including tax payers and those currently unemployed. The only mechanism of any merit which has been proposed so far is Nama. Now let’s get on with its implementation.
Yours, etc,
Madam, – In a recent discussion over the impending taxes and government cuts, my eight-year-old nephew piped up and asked me would his Communion money be taxed? He was also concerned about cuts to his pocket money. However, I assured him that he needn’t worry: thanks to Nama he’ll have plenty of time to make his contribution in the years to come. Yours, etc,