Michael D'Arcy (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

-----has always had higher running costs just to live there. I speak as one who lives in the country and has always supported rural housing. Everybody who buys or builds a house in the countryside knows and accepts this is the case. There is no bus system to bring children to school. If one has children one does not have the option to keep them at home when they go to university. One has to send them away, which costs more. That is the reality. It is true that houses in the countryside tend to be larger but that is because the cost per site in Dublin is much more expensive.

I welcome that this is a method of funding local authorities. Something that has gone more or less unnoticed is the plus or minus 15% for local authority members. Some local authority members come up with the very best of schemes for projects in their area but have no funding stream. If there is a good funding stream, or a good project that requires funding, local authority members can now put their hands up and vote up to a maximum of 15% increase in how a project can be funded. That is welcome. It also enhances the role of local authority members in being abler to ensure that these valuable projects, for which people find it difficult to get funding, can be funded.

I spoke to the Minister on another point, which I believe is very important for people. The measure is effectively fixed for three years following the declaration by people of house valuation for the property tax. There will be certainty now in that regard. The statistics I have been given show that some 75% of homes in the State have a valuation of between ¤150,000 and ¤200,000. Taking as a calculation the mid-point of ¤175,000 the property tax at the rate of 0.18% will cost ¤315 for approximately 70% or 75% of people who will pay the tax. These figures have been available for some time and the matter has been clearly explained. The average collection from the household charge was ¤100; if that had been trebled the average would have been ¤300. We were also given those figures.

There has been much talk about people who cannot pay. I doubt if there is anybody in this Chamber who does not know or accept there are people in very difficult financial circumstances. However, if a person cannot pay, there is a deferral structure in place, which I welcome. It is a good thing. If a person cannot pay his or her motor tax that does not mean he or she should not pay it. Whether we like it or not, and contrary to what is said by some political parties, the vast majority of people in this State pay their taxes, which is right and proper. If taxes are not paid all the structures stop and fall. The figures for household charge payment have gone over 70%. I always maintained that when that figure is reached and approaches the 80% mark it is getting close to the threshold where people will pay. I use the example of the television licence for which some 15% to 20% of people do not pay. This is not paid for in the same way as the household charge. If one has a television one pays the charge which is ¤170, by comparison with the household charge of ¤100. That price is irrespective of the area or size of the house and the amount of earnings going into that house.

I will touch on a number of other issues. The Revenue Commissioners collect taxes and do their job well. People may not like what they do but I refer again to those people who choose not to pay other taxes - without collection of taxes the structure will fall. We need taxes to run the country. Following the introduction of the household charge which started slowly and began to build, I heard many people ask, "What about those who are choosing not to pay? Why should the same people who always pay their taxes pay while those who do not effectively get away with it?" I am glad that for those who chose not to pay the household charge the amount will be rolled forward into the property tax and the charge will remain. It is the right thing to do in regard to those who have paid, a figure that is now over 70%.

There is a certain amount of hypocrisy about this tax. Fianna Fáil negotiated the position for ¤540 million in the memorandum of understanding.

What is proposed here is ¤40 million less than that. I thought the Fianna Fáil Party was going in the correct direction in that it had stated that it was going to do what was right. On this occasion, however, it has reverted to type as a result of the bounce it got in the polls. Stating that one is against the property tax is the populist thing to do. I am disappointed by Fianna Fáil reverting to type but that is what it has done.

Sinn Féin's position on this matter is completely hypocritical. In Northern Ireland, people are obliged to pay a multiple of what it is proposed people in this jurisdiction should pay. I accept that some additional services are provided out of the money paid by our neighbours in the North. I am trying to be fair about this issue. Some 16 or 17 OECD countries have property taxes. A property tax is a wealth tax. If one examines the figures provide by the Department of Finance in respect of the budget, one will discover that capital gains tax and capital gains tax bring in of the order of ¤750 million. The property tax will bring in ¤500 million. This means that a total of ¤1.25 billion will be collected in wealth taxes.