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

Unlike some of my colleagues, I think the USC should be abolished or reduced for low and middle-income earners. However, I do not agree with moving to abolish or reduce it for people on higher incomes and I would like to hear what possible justification there could be for it. The justification for reducing it for low and middle-income people is the fact that we have chronically high levels of low pay and what I believe is a 30% increase in the number of people on family income supplement. People at the lower end have been hammered so I agree with giving them relief. However, I do not agree with reducing the income tax burden via USC or any other means on those earning in excess of about €70,000. Could the Minister respond to that and tell us what possible justification exists for reducing it for those on higher incomes, given the rate of income inequality?

In respect of revenue raising from other sources, as a general point, there is a general recognition that we need funds for capital investment. There is an investment crisis in vital infrastructure, be it housing, health or education. There is insufficient investment. The question is where we get the money from. I put it to the Minister that the answer to that question lies in the corporate sector and wealth and that this is the area in which we need to tighten up. Have we not failed disastrously in this area and been brutally exposed by the EU ruling on Apple, the scandal relating to section 110 and the scandal referred to by Deputy Doherty regarding the qualifying investor funds - another scandal that needs to be looked into?

We need information on all of these aspects. How many funds are there? How many of these qualifying investor funds are there? We need to know. How much income has been foregone as a result of the failure to impose a withholding tax on these qualifying investor funds? How much tax has been foregone because of the failure to apply the normal corporation tax rate to these section 110 companies? We need every bit of information that Revenue has on the corporate tax heading. We are getting the information two or three years behind so we are flying blind in discussing these matters. We need this information.

I am sure Revenue is aware of the comments I made about the deductions and allowances over the past few weeks but if it is not, I will repeat them. There was a shocking increase in the level of allowances permitted for the corporate sector post-2007. It jumped by €13 billion in two years. That is a tax loophole. My guess is that it relates to Google, Facebook or Apple. This is a huge jump in allowances. I cannot believe that this could happen without it being detected.

It took the European Union and some of us contrarians in here questioning these headings to force a serious examination of this. We are talking about billions upon billions of euro in profits that were being siphoned out of the tax system by the multinationals, with nothing being said. Was there any discussion about these matters? Critically, we need to know whether the double Irish is still operating. Despite the Minister having made public comments to the effect that the double Irish is gone, it is not and all the big offenders are still capable of availing themselves of it. We need to know whether they are still doing so.

Can we have all the figures that the Minister has and not be two or three years behind in respect of corporate tax? We need a forensic examination of all the deductions and allowances that are being given to the corporate sector and that allow it to write down the amount of profit that is actually being taxed. That is where the scandal lies at the back of the Apple story.

Are we now going to calculate the tax liability of all the firms in question from here on according to the decision of the European Union, or are we going to continue to calculate as we have been calculating previously? I acknowledge that the Minister is appealing the decision but there is now a ruling. We will see what the outcome of the appeal is. As those present know, I believe it is absolutely bonkers that the Minister is appealing the decision. How will he calculate the tax of the corporations this year, next year and the year after?