Seán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour)

I wish to nail the lie that the universal social charge is a charge. It is in fact a tax and let us call it what it is. Financial Resolution No. 13 on which we voted on Tuesday stated:

THAT, with effect from 1 January 2011, there shall be charged, levied and paid, in accordance with the provisions of this Resolution, a tax to be known as "universal social charge" in respect of the income specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of the Table to this paragraph.

So it is a tax and that tax is a time bomb that will seriously affect low-income earners with serious medical conditions who have medical cards and are exempted from the other levies. The grouping together of the health and income levies under this universal social charge - that is universal social tax - will mean that such people will now not be exempted from these levies, will be subjected to this tax and will have their already meagre and marginal incomes reduced further by the imposition of this tax. It is completely and utterly regressive. I find myself saying the same thing this year as I did in the debate on last year's budget; any principle of taxation must be such that it is meted out fairly and in an equitable fashion. This runs contrary to the canons of taxation because it will affect those people on marginal incomes who also have serious underlying medical conditions in an adverse way by virtue of its imposition. It is completely unfair and should be opposed. I stand proud that our party will oppose the imposition of this tax because it is not what we are about in this Republic and any country with proper republican ideals would not impose such a tax in such a way as to affect those people who are on such marginal incomes.

The Union of Students of Ireland provided a very good critique of Tuesday's budget and highlighted that the budget seeks to double the distance required to qualify for the non-adjacent rate of third level grant from 24 km to 45 km for all existing and new applicants from September 2011. The net effect is that it will exclude working-class families from the potential to gain a grant. It will exclude people living in rural areas from being able to get a third level grant and will act as a disincentive for people who want to upskill and come back into the educational sphere if they happen to be living such distances away from the third level institution they want to attend, which is also ludicrous. If we are seeking to get people back to work, arbitrary bands such as this discriminate against those who will not qualify on the basis of distance.

If carers are protecting vulnerable people and allowing them to live independently within the family home but subject to help from those who are caring for them. Why has the Government created a further disincentive for anybody to take up a carer's allowance when the net impact could be to force more people into nursing homes? There is a social economy and we need to take a more lateral view by regarding care givers as people who are making an active contribution and who should get a due reward for that contribution to avoid forcing people into nursing homes because of the disincentive.

See this speech in context