Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I totally disagree with the contribution of the previous speaker. I disagreed with it all of last summer during the debate in the Committee on Budgetary Oversight. I remind Members that we had a wealth tax. It did not do too much for us. In fact, it had the opposite effect than has been suggested. It is an ideological thing that if somebody improves themselves and they accumulate wealth, the immediate response from some quarters is that they should be attacked straight away for it, penalised for it and put out of existence. That is an interesting theory. When that tax was introduced in this country, people got scared and left the country. A series of businesses closed down, for varying other reasons as well, and hundreds of thousands of people had to emigrate because we were no longer able to supply them with employment or ensure we had a vibrant economy. I do not believe the wealth tax was the sole problem but we have a much bigger population now and much bigger responsibilities. If anything goes wrong and we scare the people we expect to invest in the country, whether they be indigenous or overseas prospectors, we would be making a huge mistake. It will affect everybody. Much reference has been made to ordinary people. Unfortunately, the ordinary people who are so referred to are the people who will suffer most. That has been the case in the past.

On Oxfam, I watched its progress over the past number of years in the company of a certain Mo Ibrahim, who campaigned against the corporation profit tax in this country very vigorously all over the world and had the temerity to come to a committee meeting in the Oireachtas and have a go at this country for being a tax haven, as he said. He did not tell anybody he was in favour of aid for investment. In other words, he was big enough to offer aid to developing countries all over the world as long as he got investment returns for it. Effectively, what he was preaching was, for nothing at all, he was going to be able to have a good, happy and flourishing business as a result of offering aid. The aid was conditional on him having access to the investment he wanted. I am totally opposed to that. We should be opposed to that.

If we want to go down the road of diminishing the national pile to the extent that there is a little bit left for everybody, that is a grand old-fashioned theory but it does not work. It does not work in the business world. It did not work before. Do not forget the Soviet Union collapsed after 50 years. It just disappeared because there was no confidence in it. The money that was supposed to come from within the system was not generated within the system and, as a result, it collapsed. I am not saying this country is going to that extent but I would go very easy on this theory that all you have to do is hold out your hand and penalise those who make the effort of creating wealth. As a result, obviously, they have a high standard of living, but they also provide a lot of employment for thousands of people.

A few years ago, the Department of Finance produced a document, which the Deputy has mentioned in the past, showing that 80% or 90% of the wealth is in the hands of 10% of the population. It went on to say, however, that something like 75% of tax is paid by 10% of the population. That is the other side of the argument. Things are not quite how they look. On the creation of a wealth tax, the enticer is that it will not affect the family home up to a certain amount. It might not affect it yet but, in fact, it will affect it.