Mr. John-Mark McCafferty:

We have seen an 80% increase in calls since 2009 from people who are genuinely in need of assistance for food, energy and education costs and various household outgoings that all of us are struggling with to some extent. They are a clear pressure point for the people we assist. In that context, we have expressed in the submission a desire for redistribution. We have always talked about redistribution but up until five years ago the amount of tax was increasing and it was easier to dole it out. We are in a different situation now and our pre-budget submission reflects that in that we are saying that those who have the broadest shoulders and who are able to afford it should pay most towards the cost of Ireland's recovery. My understanding is the ESRI said that last year's budget was more regressive in its outcomes in terms of the tax and welfare changes and our main message all through the submission is around protecting those on the lowest incomes whether they are on social welfare or in work on low pay. In a context where €3.5 billion is being taken out through tax changes or cuts, clearly it is within the gift of Government to design the tax and welfare redistribution channels and devices to ensure to the best of its ability those who are least able to afford it are protected from whatever cuts to income supports or services are meted out to general population.

We do not have a position on a third rate of tax. We realise that the 2:1 ratio of cuts to tax increases needs to be modified. We said in the public domain last week and the document accompanying the submission tells the story of the households we are assisting and the difference our members are making. Within that our president made an important point when he said we are in a place where we cannot accept the status quo, which is a 2:1 ratio of cuts to one tax increases, and we have to look at this differently if we are going to live up to the language of protecting the most vulnerable.

With regard to the property tax, we made a submission on it earlier this year and we met the group looking into the issue. We believe in a broad tax base with which to provide the resources and incomes supports we are looking for. A flat rate is not ideal as it is more punitive on low income households. In other jurisdictions, there are clearly established systems, which reflect both the value of a house and the household's ability to pay. One of the big shortfalls in revenue over the past five years relates to property-related taxes. We cannot rely on stamp duty.