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

One of the big debates as we head into the budget is around the fact we have a large surplus but we must be careful not to spend it because it may feed inflation. Although it is rarely stated upfront, most economists acknowledge that it is okay to spend more if it is covered on the other side by increased revenues. If people think that is true, it should be said. In other words, if we decide we desperately need to spend more on housing, put more into the health service and protect the less well-off from the impacts of inflation, we can spend more and it is financially acceptable, from a prudential point of view, to do so as long as it is covered on the other side by increasing revenues through, for example, raising taxes on wealth or on the super-profits being earned and which, to a significant extent, as the witnesses acknowledge, are driving inflation. Is it not important to acknowledge that fact? It is rarely acknowledged. It is always about the need to be careful about spending. Should we not say we must be careful of spending only if we do not know we will raise additional revenues to cover it but if we raise additional revenues that possibly reduce less important demand, let us say, it is not a problem? If we stopped the demand for luxury yachts, for instance, that would not be a bad thing because there would then be more money available to provide houses for people. The same would apply to demand for very expensive champagne or for swimming pools in people's houses. There are different types of demands. Should we not spell that out a little more?