Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance) | Oireachtas source

I will respond to the Minister's points and will not drag the matter on indefinitely. These amendments, both those that were accepted and those that were not, all point to one of the key issues, the universal social charge. Let us be clear - this is one of the measures that has hurt people most and devastated their income, what they take home in pay. Therefore it is worthy of discussion.

The amendments we are discussing are linked with other amendments which have been excluded and disallowed. On the one hand, it is about relieving the burden of the universal social charge on those on low and middle incomes, while, on the other, it is about transferring that burden to those on higher incomes.

The Minister's response is to repeat his dismissive arguments about there being no pot of gold. He is correct, there is no money tree in the back garden, which he might bear in mind when it comes to the property tax. The proposition the United Left Alliance has put forward calls on the Minister to find €2.5 billion by imposing a sliding scale of higher taxes, either through the universal social charge or having a higher income tax rate for those earning in excess of €100,000. My amendments sought to remove the burden from those earning under €65,000. Alternatively, the sliding scale of increased taxation starts at €100,000 and moves up to those earning €8 million and €10 million, of which there are several hundred people. I know this because the Department of Finance gave me a breakdown table of earnings in answer to a parliamentary question. Its tables are very helpful because all one has to do is adjust the percentage of the effective tax rate for each bracket and the table clocks up the changes.

It is possible to get €2.5 billion from this group, not from the beanstalk or the money tree in the back garden. The tax tables provided by the Minister show that increasing the effective tax rate imposed on those earning €100,000, 31%, and the very highest earners on millions of euro a year, 42%, will raise revenues. While the Minister claims the existing rate is progressive, I am arguing for it to be more progressive and that the sliding scale should go from 33% up to 65% at the very top end. Would those in that bracket like such a measure? No, they would not. Would it be good for the economy? The answer is yes. It would certainly be very good if the burden was transferred from the backs of low and middle income earners who, in turn, would have more disposable income and could boost demand. When the Minister claims the economy is growing, will he, please, be fully accurate? The domestic economy is not growing and growth in the economy as a whole is marginal to say the least. In fact, the domestic economy is still going down. Shops and other businesses are still going out of business. Even if the best case scenario materialises with economic growth, the Minister's projections for unemployment show we will still have over 400,000 unemployed at the end of 2015. His claim that the imposition of the USC has nothing to do with the suffocating of demand is simply not true.

Deputy Pearse Doherty is right that we need a serious debate about this matter. I am not saying we have it all right. The Minister, however, is simply not willing to discuss in a serious way a radical shift in tax policy. EUROSTAT's figures provide detailed breakdowns of the taxation burden in all member states.