Paschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)

I thank the two Deputies for their contribution. To deal with the issue regarding the role of refundable tax credits, I will inform it by some examples. If you are a married couple on a gross income within our country of €30,000, the amount of income tax you will be paying on that is zero.

Therefore, a married couple on €30,000 are not paying any income tax on their income overall. This just highlights the point I am making, which is that, because our income tax code is so progressive in the first place, the level of tax somebody on a relatively low level of income within our economy pays meansthe amount of gain they will get back by making a tax credit refundable would be a relatively low share of their overall income but with a very significant cost to the Exchequer overall. This is a feature of the fact that our tax code is progressive.

To deal with the Deputy's point regarding how we could better make progress in supporting people like that, it would be through seeing wages grow within our economy overall. That is why I believe changes that have been made with regard to minimum wages within our economy in recent years have been justified because they play a role in dealing with this kind of issue. My own assessment continues to be that there would measures that help with, for example, the affordability of childcare, measures like the working family payment and measures to help with the cost of going to school. For a smaller amount of the taxpayers' money, we can have a bigger benefit for those who are on a lower income within our country than we can by the implementation of refundable tax credits. I agree with the Deputy's diagnosis of the issue. I just have a different view regarding the best way of responding to it.

I take Deputy Doherty's point. It is also the case, as he will know, that we have other credits that are available within our tax code to help those who are in hardship, whether it is a widow, someone involved in dealing with a disability or so on. There are credits available there, which I guess builds on the point the Deputy is making.

On the point he made in relation to the cost of dialysis, I do not have direct personal experience of it. He may well do, and while I know it is obviously not influencing in any way the policy point he is making, it probably just demonstrates to him the issue we have to deal with here. I remember meeting on their doorstep a number of years ago a constituent who was on dialysis. They talked to me about the costs involved and the fact they were able to get that dialysis at home. Deputy Doherty mentioned the impact it had on our hospitals. Therefore, I very much understand the general point the Deputy is making. I remember that, as I was speaking to this person, I could hear the dialysis machine in the background. It really brought home to me the personal impact for somebody who has to use health equipment like that for hours every day to have some kind of standard of living and deal with a really serious health condition. I will certainly take away the point the Deputy is making regarding the lack of support that might be available for somebody who is not working and, therefore, does not access the tax reliefs that are available with regard to health expenses. I thought there would be some kind of support in place, but I will take on board the general point the Deputy is making and examine it further. It goes back to the general point I am making, though, that for some of these very specific issues, I think - I am convinced, in fact - that they are better off dealt with through spending measures than through our tax code. Otherwise, it leads to questions about the use of taxpayers' money and about how, while the level of tax paid by those we want to give it to the most is, in their eyes, a large share of their income, it is actually a low effective rate of income tax. For many of them, making the tax credit refundable would not offer too much of a benefit.