Madam, – The principle conclusion of the Supreme Court judgment on the Zoe Group (Front page, August 12th) is that the business cannot continue to operate as a going concern because there is no visible prospect for property market recovery.
This stands in stark contrast to the rhetoric being issued from Government quarters to justify Nama’s overpaying for bad loans, with the Minister claiming on several occasions that the long-term economic value of these property assets justifies paying a high premium over market value.
As for the “long” term, the only prediction economists are prepared to make is, as Keynes famously put it, that we will all be dead. Over more manageable horizons, however, there are no independent economic voices predicting a property market recovery in Ireland.
So, neither the Supreme Court, nor the market, or the country’s leading independent economists see much hope for property market recovery. Yet the Minister still persists in his desire to justify deliberate overpayment for cowboy loans, with reference to some nebulous “long term economic value”.
It would be all be quite funny, if it weren’t about to cost every single Irish taxpayer (plus their children and their grandchildren) €20,000. – Yours, etc,
Madam, – I feel I must make a pitch for the little people as this sad economic drama unfolds. They are like onlookers in a dream, with no control over what is happening. If, as suggested, the little people of Ireland must now readjust their expectations to 2001 levels, is it not time to set up a little bank for little people (LBLP)?.
People who had two good jobs and good prospects in 2003/2005 paid highly inflated prices for their homes because of the greed of developers, landowners, solicitors, auctioneers and banks.
The Government encouraged and benefited from this golden circle of greed through an unprecedented inflow of taxes. If it is now serious about bringing the people with it in a true spirit of patriotism, then it must be seen to be cherishing the citizens of the nation with some form of equality.
I propose that the prices of homes bought during this period be realistically re-valued. The excess should be written off by the LBLP and repayments adjusted to reflect “the new economic reality”. The perceived process of “bailing” out the banks needs to be balanced by a concern for those little people who are as much victims of the boom as are those being buffeted by Nama. – Yours, etc,
Madam, – Having read Stephen Collins’s piece (Opinion, August 8th), in which he quotes Gladstone to his wife the morning after a debate in the House of Commons on the Galway Packet Company: “The scene was sickening and all the Irish were there, most of them vying with each other in eagerness to plunder the public purse”, I have to agree with Mr Collins that little has changed since the mid- 1800s. Some 10 years earlier, in 1849, the Encumbered Estates Court was created to accept transfers of estates from insolvent (encumbered) landowners. Plus ça change. – Yours, etc,
Madam, – Your article on the cost of internal flights by Ministers up to the end of June 2009 confirms my worst fears (Home News, August 11th). At a time when the country is in deep crisis, with the Government having to borrow just to cover day-to-day running expenses, profligate Government Ministers, apparently without a care for anything other than their personal comfort, have been using State aircraft, including the Gulfstream IV jet which costs €7,980 per hour to run, on internal flights in this tiny State.
Given that each Government Minister has a State car with no less than two drivers, this is a disgraceful waste of taxpayers’ money.
One solution, which would actually put money into the State coffers, would be to allow expenses only at public transport economy rates. Thus a Minister wishing to go from Dublin to Cork could avail of the excellent hourly train service between Dublin and Cork.
The special economy rate at the moment is, I believe, €10 return.Should the Minister not wish to travel economy class with his fellow citizens, s/he can use the Government jet, but pay the difference out of their own pocket.
This would quickly put an end to our high-flying Government Ministers. – Yours, etc,
Madam, – This week Minister for Social and Family Affairs Mary Hanafin confirmed that children’s allowance/child benefit will be affected by budget cuts (Home News, August 12th), something Minister for Finance Brian Lenihan suggested in the last Budget.
The threat to children’s allowance in the next budget, expected towards the end of the year, is causing real concern among families who have already been severely affected by the provisions of the past two budgets.
Listening to families, I am convinced that child benefit is one of the best investments we make as a nation.
It pays for children’s clothes and shoes, medical expenses and, the high cost of “free education”. A dad told me that his family saved it to make adjustments to their home: “As the children grow so must the house”. Many mothers tell me it helps pay for therapy their children cannot get from the HSE. It is saved for childhood emergencies, and occasions such as birthdays, First Communion and Christmas. Child benefit pays for the lessons and grinds. In families where even those are luxuries, it provides warmth and light for the children by paying utility bills, maintains the family car, and even buys food. Many families need it to pay the mortgage so that there is a roof over their children’s heads.
With the children’s allowance under threat, parents have a right to know why our Government proposes to largely and permanently eliminate it for many families in exchange for one year’s free pre-school for three-year-olds.
In 2002, the Irish Government signed up to the EU “Barcelona Agreement”. Among other things, this agreement commits Ireland and all EU member-states to have, by 2010, 90 per cent of children in child care from their third birthday. The Irish Government’s lack of support for childcare, for pre-school and for early intervention over the years means that it is far from meeting its Barcelona commitment.
The clock is now ticking. Our leaders, always obedient Europeans, intend to meet their EU target regardless of impact. This accounts for the one year free pre-school for this Barcelona-targeted age group, beginning when the deadline hits in January.
Clawing back on children’s allowance has nothing to do with the good of children. It is a way of meeting an EU commitment and a pocketing the considerable change. – Yours, etc,