Mick Wallace (Wexford, Independent)

This Bill is similar in nature to the budget in that it lacks fairness. The Minister said this evening that those who are in a vulnerable position in society will be protected under its provisions. I attended a meeting in Wexford last night at which this measure was discussed and where I met many people who are not confident this will be the case. The Minister was also keen to emphasise the implications of a refusal to pay. People in this country are already frightened enough; there is no need to frighten them any further. It will look strange if judges are penalising ordinary people who cannot afford this charge when there is no record of any banker being fined. I recall being in court one day and seeing a woman who had stolen a pair of shoes from a large store, for which she was sentenced to three months in jail. However, if one manages to steal millions, it is called big business.

The household charge is a form of indirect taxation. Such taxes are unfair because they take no account of a person's capacity to pay. Unfortunately, this State has one of the lowest levels of direct taxation in Europe but one of the highest levels of indirect taxation. A recent report by TASC showed that the increase in the VAT rate to 21% absorbed 16% of the income of the less well-off, while the corresponding figure for those who are better off was 6%. Yet the budget increased the higher rate of VAT by two percentage points to 23%, thus increasing the disproportionate burden on those who are least well off.

The Taoiseach told us in his address to the nation that the Government would give people certainty by imposing no increases in income taxes. If one is making €600 per week and an increase in income tax leaves one with €540 or €550, there is a certainty in that. It might not be fair, but it is certain. When indirect taxation, such as VAT increases, there is more uncertainty because one cannot measure one's costs. The household charge is another unfair measure. In 2008, this country collected more money in indirect taxation than in direct taxation. It was screaming out to any fair-minded person that introducing a tax band of 55% for those earning over €100,000 would have brought in €750 million. This is almost equal to the figure of the social welfare cuts. I do not think those earning over €100,000 would be screaming if they had to pay a bit more tax on what they earn above €100,000. However, our Government has chosen to do things differently.

The ability to pay is a significant aspect of this household charge. The unemployment rate is 14.5% and the rate of long-term unemployment is 56%. People have to deal with household and credit card debt. There is no protection for pensioners and their fuel allowance has been cut. I am flabbergasted at the Government. I do not normally quote what has been said by the Government. One year ago, the Fine Gael Party recognised the need to raise more revenue from property "if we are to minimise the more economically damaging tax increases on jobs, enterprise and consumption". It further stated: "The Fianna Fáil-led Government proposal to introduce a steadily rising annual recurring residential property tax on people's homes is unfair for three reasons. The initial flat rate charge means that houses in standard neighbourhoods worth a fraction of some mansions would pay the same rate of tax. It would be difficult for asset-rich but income-poor households to pay, particularly the elderly and the unemployed. It would be deeply unfair in the case of a young generation that paid exorbitant amounts of stamp duty and VAT on the purchase of over-valued houses, many of whom now find themselves in negative equity." I ask if this is the same party.

See this speech in context