Sean Barrett (Independent) | Oireachtas source

On some of the Piketty stuff, about which Professor McHale was telling members and which was raised by Deputy Boyd Barrett, one problem with it is tax avoidance, tax lawyers and tax accountants, whereby so much of fiscal policy is exempt if one happens to have enough tax lawyers and tax accountants in one's stable. The council is proposing macro measures, from which very rich individuals and corporations are exempt, and it all falls on Deputy Spring's constituents, who want to know why. While I acknowledge the OECD is examining this, it also is a complete waste of money in terms of sheltered sector activities. This is rent seeking par excellenceinvolving tax lawyers and accountants. Again, I do not know how they are held to be some kind of heroes creating economic development. I believe last Sunday's edition of The Sunday Business Postreported on €480 million of tax breaks to make films. Deputy Spring's constituents may have had many better uses for it, involving much more basic items in their budget. A long time ago, Kenneth Carter in Canada proposed having a tax system in which a dollar is a dollar is a dollar and in which one does not have all these exemptions, allowances or rent-seeking lobbying in which one does not pay anything if one qualifies. As the witnesses are aware, tax avoidance is a major industry and it distorts seriously the operation of fiscal policy in the way to which Piketty and others have drawn attention.
On the Irish Water issue, part of it was creative accountancy in that were this quango to be created, one could borrow money that would not appear in the national accounts. It was a factor and I tried to amend the Bill in the Senate loads of times. Members did not know what was the price or what would be the exemption and the generous free allowance remains unknown. The best comment in this regard came from Ben Dunne, who stated that if he had a business in which 40% of the stock disappeared, he would not blame the customers. That simply is what the water legislation was and it was entirely engineer-driven. A much lower percentage of households in the United Kingdom have meters. We took €600 million out of the pension fund for metering, for which I believe the comparable figure in the United Kingdom is 40%. However, ordinary economics in those kinds of resource allocations still does not have any impact, which is rather worrying. Putting in the meters became the goal, rather than the 40% waste, loss or whatever it is.
On housing, I have a brief observation on somewhere close to Professor McHale's area. In Tuam recently, apartments were sold at €20,000.

We know the bubble, if it appears in Galway, will be at Taylor's Hill. It would not be a bad thing to spend €20,000 and being able to commute to Salthill every day. One would not be working for a bank or building society by paying inflated prices. Are we keeping empty houses on ghost estates up and down the country because they look better at asset prices in bank accounts rather than letting the price fall and using low house prices as a way of developing the economy or encouraging people to commute from high-price house zones to low-price zones? People commute in all other countries, and half an hour would be regarded as mild for a commuting time in New York, for example. Have we created this position by keeping houses off the market to make bank balance sheets look better?