Paschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I will respond because a number of points have been put to me. To return to the thrust of it, I am not accepting the amendment from Deputy Mairéad Farrell because I believe that much of the information that the Deputy is seeking will be available in the coming months as we publish more information regarding the allocation of tax reliefs and the different income levels at which people benefit from them.

Regarding Deputy Boyd Barrett's points, if we got rid of the USC in the way he is proposing, we would have even less money in future to meet our citizens' pension needs. It is a tax stream that plays an important role in paying for public services and helps us to pay for the commitments that we will have to future generations.

Regarding the question on whether we know the allocation of pension contributions by income level, we do. However, we expect this information will be updated by dent of the better information that we can now collect through the Revenue Commissioners. The most recent information that we have is from 2019. We want it to be more contemporary and granular.

On Deputy Boyd Barrett's point about the degree to which the current tax code might benefit those who are earning higher levels of income, given that he has ruled out standard rating, what other measures does he have in mind for dealing with the equity issue that he called out? If we were to have a level of tax relief that was below the level of income tax that higher income earners pay, how would we create the incentive for them to set aside money for their future pensions?

We have a significant debate coming up on this matter and many publications on it are still to come. This amendment is about information, most of which we will have soon.