Dr. Tom McDonnell:

It depends on the cost and the period of time in question. First, one would set up the benchmarking commission, which would include academics, the likes of Mr. Nugent and others, to do the empirical work. It would not take multiple years to do that. Let us say the system you end up with is based on the working-age payment, which would be tapered on the basis of income. Income is key because it is a question of sufficiency. There would be an additional cost for certain groups, such as those experiencing disability. This would entail more than a binary decision on whether one was disabled or not. Lone parents, renters and others would be accounted for. There would be a whole process. The impact of additional adults in a household would also be considered. The rate might not be 200% if there are two adults. All of these things would have to be figured out. That is what I mean when I say we need to proceed on the basis of evidence. At the moment, we are kind of making it up, which is not really good enough.

It is not just about the income side because it is also about universal basic services. If there are subsidised universal basic services that are effectively de-commodified or close to it, such as close-to-free public transport and genuinely free education and universal healthcare for everyone, income supports do not have to be as significant. A better way to have addressed the cost-of-living crisis would have been to have aimed for permanent reductions in the out-of-pocket expenses associated with using public services. The Government could immediately do this because it is receiving the income. It could have hit directly, reducing the cost of living. The European Central Bank would be happy because the arrangement would be deflationary, reducing costs in the economy. That approach would have been better than, say, cutting taxes for higher earners. It would entail a multi-year process, not something one would do in one year.