Mr. Lenihan tells us that should NAMA make a shortfall, we will be able to levy the banks. This despite the removal of the levy from the NAMA bill (i.e. there is no current legislation enabling a levy, as far as I can see). We may end up in the position that “nobody could have forseen a levy so it is unfair on the bank shareholders to impose one now”.
In the UK, Mr. Osborne has no such foibles and has moved to introduce a bailout tax on the banks. The IMF, that well known bastion of anti-capitalist liberal lefty woofters, however, wants an even stiffer tax: guardian.co.uk/business/2010 … s-levy-6bn
Which brings us back to the head of the snake… if we are already going to be imposing a tax or levy on financial activities, what room is there for a NAMA specific one? Are we pissing away future bailout funds by not being rigorous enough with the banks currently? Will we again be swimming naked when the next crash, eh, crashes?
225"(4) The aggregate tax by way of a surcharge to be imposed on
participating institutions on their respective profits (within the meaning
of section 4 of the Taxes Consolidation Act, 1997) if any—
(a) shall not exceed the amount of the underlying loss, if any,
incurred by NAMA (including NAMA group entities),
(b) shall be apportioned to each participating institution on
the basis of the book value of the bank assets acquired
from each participating institution concerned as a proportion
of the total book value of the bank assets
acquired from all of the participating institutions,
and the surcharge so apportioned shall be imposed on each institution
accordingly and paid by each of them over such period and at
such times as provided for by the subsequent Act giving effect to this
section and to which subsection (3) relates."
The lunacy of the levy is that 50%+ (depending on the definition of “book value of bank assets acquired”) will be applied to Anglo, INBS and EBS - financial institutions which would not exist without our massive injection of capital. Anglo makes up by far the biggest slice (€36bn out of €81bn in Anglo and c€17bn out of €41bn in NAMA - plus €11-12bn of derivatives in Anglo, c. nil in NAMA(Tribune says some were paid for)) .
Ah, thank you. I feel somewhat reassured, though I still believe it will be superceded by the IMF levy. I must have missed the particular backbone that put it back in. What happened to the “contingent liability making the banks unsaleable” argument?