Michael D Higgins (Galway West, Labour)

It is probably appropriate in the discussion on this group of proposals to say something about wealth and I am encouraged to do so by the Tánaiste. The first thing that strikes one when one looks at the yield across the ten measures is the relatively low figure they produce when aggregated. In assessing the budget one should contrast each one of these low figures with the high yield figures arising from the cuts and the implications on the other side of the budget speech.

I ask the Tánaiste to respond to one or two points I will make. Will she explain the reason there is such antipathy to the study of wealth in the Department of Finance and other Departments? I tabled a question to the Minister for Finance recently asking how many studies had been carried out in the past ten years on the transfer pattern and accretion of wealth. The answer, when one deconstructs it, was that hardly any studies had been done on wealth. The reason I asked the question is that most of the commentary in the financial press in the run in to the budget concentrated on the balance between, on the one hand, what would be its impact on income and what needed to be done by way of raising tax and, on the other, what cuts in expenditure should be made, with considerable emphasis on the high proportion of expenditure on the social welfare budget. There was, however, almost a deadly silence about wealth and what took place during what is described as the Celtic tiger. The former Taoiseach, Deputy Bertie Ahern, travels the world talking about how he built the Celtic tiger.

It is very interesting to note what has happened to the wealth accumulated during the Celtic tiger. I throw in, as a casual comment, a statement of the obvious, namely, that property values have fallen. Nevertheless, property values increased dramatically as a result of the disgraceful decisions taken by the former Minister for Finance, Mr. Charlie McCreevy, when he was a Member of the House. For example, I saw a figure on what happened when capital gains tax was reduced. A great deal of the money went into property straight away. In 1981, for example, housing related property was valued at €39 billion whereas this figure had increased to €553 billion in 2006. Perhaps that is irrelevant to many people. What was happening in between with that money?

I will, on another occasion, go into the implications of claiming to have a successful economy. Today ours is referred to by the Minister for Finance, Deputy Lenihan as one of the best in the world in the final paragraph of his speech. In fact, there was high growth rate and exports had flattened out. Why was the Government doing that? It was because it was revaluing the property base of the economy. This was preceded by a whole series of transactions from which people made an enormous amount of money. I understand one of the reports of the Revenue Commissioners suggests the cost from 1999 to 2006 of urban renewal was some €1.423 billion. Where is there a single line in this budget that suggests there is any clawback by way by of capital regained from the people who benefited from that?

In 2003 three of the top 400 earners had reduced their effective tax to zero and 48 others had kept their tax liability under 5%. Has the Government gone after any of these people? Building car parks, spas and so forth were the top choices of such people who referred to "effective tax" and were advised by people on tax avoidance. A total of 86% of the people who benefited from that policy earned more than €200,000. I fire these figures in to show it is not a case of "we" lived beyond our means and suddenly have to reduce our income, as the Minister for Finance said, to 2007, 2005 or 2003 levels.

Some people did awfully well. I would be less than I honest if I did not say the Tánaiste's party knew many of them very well. She knew the people who benefited from urban renewal.

See this speech in context