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

I thank TASC and Social Justice Ireland for producing interesting and progressive alternatives to the austerity agenda which has been pursued for the past few years and which most of us would agree has failed appallingly.

I welcome the emphasis on jobs, investment, no further cuts and seeking revenue through taxation measures. That is the way forward. I would probably go further in some areas, but I would like to study carefully the good ideas presented today. TASC did not mention corporate tax in its presentation. Why not? The need to address corporate tax seems a glaring issue to me. Somebody said we have a transparent corporate tax system, but I believe it is about as transparent as a muddy pool. It is inexplicable that when everybody else is being screwed, corporations that make hundreds of millions or billions in profit pay tax of only 1%, 2% or less.

It seems to be, as Social Justice Ireland has rightly pointed out, that the issue is effective tax rates and not the nominal rate which is not being paid by the really big players. I would ask the witnesses from Social Justice Ireland why would they not go higher. We are proposing 12.5%. Why can they not pay 12.5% when everybody else is being screwed with taxes at the moment?

I do not think either witness mentioned the universal social charge. That is one of the most onerous of the austerity taxes that has been imposed on people and one of the most economically damaging, as it has hit the consumer power of low and middle income people very hard and the high street as a result. Our suggestion is that we significantly reduce the USC burden and impose that on those over €100,000. What do the witnesses think of that?

There is a real problem with the taxes on cigarettes, alcohol and a possible health tax. I understand the point being made about health and we all want to encourage people to live more healthy lifestyles, but what evidence do the witnesses have that imposing taxes - which they acknowledge will be regressive and will disproportionately hit the less well-off - actually change behaviour? I do not really think they do. The net effect will be to hit people quite hard. The witnesses said that €100 per year is not such a big hit. I would suggest that in a scenario where 1.3 million people are hovering on the poverty line, €100 makes quite a big difference.

Finally, can the witnesses elaborate on off balance sheet investment?