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

I thank the representatives of the Irish Fiscal Advisory Council for their attendance. I always find our engagements interesting. The council's reports contain weeks of reading. The information is always interesting. I want to follow up on the questions asked by Deputy Humphreys by asking about alternatives that could be considered. I apologise for not being here for the entire meeting as I wanted to be. I was in and out of the Dáil. When we propose alternatives to property taxes or cuts in public expenditure, for example by suggesting that the rate of tax imposed on those on higher incomes or corporation tax should be increased, we are usually rubbished as living in cloud-cuckoo land and told we are engaging in fantasy economics. The debate does not go much further than that. Frankly, that does the debate a disservice.

What would the witnesses say in response to the proposition that we need to look at alternative scenarios, particularly given that pretty mainstream people - even bondholders quite recently - are now saying that austerity has reached its limits and is potentially becoming counter-productive as it is applied across Europe? One of the big trading houses - I think it is called Pimco - recently said that the effect of austerity on growth is worrying. This is one of the entities that is dictating our future. The same people who panicked because we were not imposing enough austerity are potentially going to panic because we have imposed too much austerity and it could cripple growth.

Is the council looking at alternative scenarios as part of its monitoring of our macroeconomic strategy? What would it say? Our view, following on from what Professor Barrett said, is that all taxes are taxes on income. What would the witnesses say to that? We do not think there is a dichotomy between fairness and economic efficiency. We would say that if something is fair, by definition, it will be more efficient. What would the witnesses say in response to that proposition? We are dealing with human beings rather than with abstract categories. If one is fairer, one will motivate people to do more and to generate more economic activity and growth. If one is unfair, one will demoralise and depress people and, in the process, depress the economy which they comprise. In light of that analysis, should we not explore whether we should use redistributive taxes such as corporation tax and higher income taxes to take back some of the money that is locked up at the top of the economy and put it back into investment, growth and employment measures?