Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

There are three amendments in this group and all deal with the issue of the USC. I have made the point before that the leader of Fine Gael, the Tánaiste and former Taoiseach, Deputy Varadkar, made commitments around the USC on numerous occasions that he has broken. He used to parade around the streets of Dublin with big posters saying he was going to be the leader that abolished the USC. He then made a speech at his party Ard-Fheis saying he was going to merge it with PRSI. The Minister for Finance told us recently that neither of those things are on the cards. At the time, we called the Tánaiste's announcements populist because a tax that brings in over €5 billion cannot be abolished, as he proposed, without replacing it with another source of income.

The previous speakers, Deputies Shortall and Boyd Barrett, are correct on this in terms of narrowing the tax base and all of the challenges that are there. That is what that would have done at the time.

I can understand why people want to hear the likes of the pronouncements made by Fine Gael in that election campaign, namely that it would get rid of over €5 billion in tax. The reality, thankfully, is that people understand that we need to fix our health system and build social, affordable and cost rental housing. People in the State are more outraged about the fact that 11,000 people are in emergency accommodation than the fact they are paying the levels of tax they are. Time and again, in terms of polling data, we see that people want investment in public services.

Regarding the amendments in this group, I want to focus in particular on amendment No. 70 from the Social Democrats. It is not in line with what we would have argued, but I believe its spirit is the same, namely the principle that those on a higher income should shoulder a solidarity tax. Deputy Shortall referred to the €100,000 mark. She asked why people at that income level, including Deputies, Ministers and Ministers of State, would have their tax liability reduced by €800 as a result of the budget, despite the fact that people on higher incomes have the ability to shoulder an additional burden. We need to make sure such a policy addresses some of the issues I discussed.

Phasing out tax credits is a sensible solution. Once people reach an income of €100,000, the idea is that they should start to lose their tax credits. It was a policy introduced by the Labour Party in Britain many years ago. Even the former sister party of the Minister, the Tories, continue that policy to this day. Those on individual incomes above €140,000 have the ability to shoulder a 3% solidarity tax. I welcome that the amendment is being brought forward. I would welcome a report on the matter to be brought forward, as requested, within a period of three months of the passing of the Bill.

The amendment is not completely in line with what we in Sinn Féin have put forward for many years. However, the principle of the amendment is one with which I agree. It would begin a conversation about how and who we tax and the fairness of the system in the State. We have a progressive income tax system, but that does not mean we cannot make it more progressive. A measure like this would add to that debate.

See this speech in context