Brian Hayes (Dublin South West, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I am more than happy to respond on this because the Deputy's comments need a response. One of the worst decisions taken in our country over the past 50 years was the decision taken in the 1970s to buy an election by abolishing domestic rates. We need to have a broadly based taxation system and to move away from a reliance on a narrow focus on taxes as a means of collecting taxes.

I predict that despite all of the speechifying and the promises that will be made between now and 2016, the property tax will remain after 2016. It will remain because having gone through the crash and the hardship of the past five or six years, the public in its maturity will see through those parties that now propose its abolition. It is entirely right and proper that we tax wealth. One of the principal forms of wealth is the asset in which they live. Notwithstanding that and the difficulties people face, I believe this property tax, in terms of its application and the tax itself, is fair and proportionate. If people are in very difficult circumstances, they do not have to pay immediately. The payment is deferred. Next year, approximately €550 million will be raised via this tax. Does anyone seriously suggest that in the future this tax should be laid aside or ignored? The circumstances are that we must broaden the tax base. This is one of the most jobs friendly taxes in that it does not propose an additional tax on work.

When we have a grown-up mature debate on this, people will see through the arguments being made by the parties opposite. People will realise that, as is case in jurisdictions not a million miles from here, a property based tax will remain and that it is important to have that tax as part of a broadening of the tax base. Despite all the shouting, roaring and screaming about this, the fact its application has been so broad and the compliance rate so high despite the difficulties that have emerged from time to time, demonstrates the recognition by people that we had to take this route. In circumstances where so many people are unemployed, we do not want to tax work further. We want to ensure incentives are built into the economy for people to take up work. Despite all the politicking on this, the property tax is here to stay. I suspect that it will remain after the next election. In regard to the dual abode allowance, I understand that people with two properties pay property tax on both, or if they have three properties, they pay tax on the three, irrespective of the allowance. This tax is not part of the Bill to which Deputy Doherty referred.

I would argue strongly that the decisions taken by the Government, in terms of further reductions in pay, a reduction of 50% in the cost of ministerial transport, the abolition of termination payments affecting every Minister, demonstrate the intent of the Government in terms of having a fair adjustment. Four years ago, the Taoiseach's pay could have been €310,000 but now it is down to approximately €165,000. I have no difficulty with showing my payslip to Deputy Doherty after this meeting so he can see the "enormous" sums of money I manage to draw down as a Minister of State. It is breathtaking, to say the least. To pretend to people that those at the top have not seen a great adjustment in terms of a reduction in net income is a lie, and everyone knows that. This argument is further extenuated by the European authorities in their assessment.

We know, from all of the assessments done by the European Commission and the OECD that the way the adjustment has been done has been most progressive, in that those who have more pay more. We also know, by way of the 39 countries tested under the OECD, that we have the third most progressive tax regime. The evidence is there from international bodies who have no axe to grind in this regard. They have made it clear that our adjustments have been fair, proportionate and progressive, in terms of those who have most having to pay most, as it should be. To suggest that the terms and conditions of those in ministerial office have not changed dramatically and that changes have not been borne by them is not true. People know that.