Martin Ferris (Kerry North-West Limerick, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I welcome Deputy Broughan's Bill and commend him for bringing it forward. It is a very modest proposal to establish within the CSO a body to gather information on high pay and wealth. I am sure it will be met with ridicule by some and angry outbursts by others. The reaction tells us more about those people than it does about this sensible suggestion. Very soon, people across this State will receive bills for their water, regardless of whether they are liable or not. We tax the family home, pints of beer, septic tanks, cars we need to get to work and almost all services we use every day.

Yet, the mere suggestion of collecting information to give us a better idea of how much wealth is in the country ruffles feathers, and I wonder why.

During the years of the financial crisis caused by very wealthy people being very greedy, there has been a shift from regressive taxes to regressive flat taxes. The USC, in its initial form, was as regressive as taxes get and the water tax is a perfect example of a tax that saves the rich money by shifting the bill onto the lower paid. Although there have always been alternatives to regressive taxes, the Government is not interested in them. A wealth tax is a good idea that will work. Although some like to think Sinn Féin has abandoned the idea, we have not. It has been part of our alternative budget each year and will be a policy of ours when in government. A third rate of tax for those earning more than €100,000 per year is a sensible policy that would create a fairer, more sustainable tax system. For the avoidance of doubt, a couple of people who each earn less than €100,000, but earn €100,000 between them, would not be liable for this tax.

Many people here and abroad thrive on the fear of a progressive tax system, and the reason is obvious. They profit on a tax system in which profit and wealth are allowed to mount while the little man and woman on the street are taxed at every point of his or her day. I can see no reason the Government would object to the Bill. Statistics, information and economic data have been gathered. The question is whether we get the full picture or are happy to limp along ignoring very important data about how much wealth is in the country. There are difficulties in calculating how much the top 1% or 10% own, given that surveys that deal with such a small group can be skewed and people can ignore such surveys.

The Bill would also monitor executive pay. If anybody wonders why this is necessary, they need look no further than our banking sector. The Government paid Mercer for a shiny report on bankers' pay and the bankers agreed to cut the wage bill. However, they did not cut their salaries but the number of workers and their conditions. Recently, there has been speculation, following a suggestion by my colleague, Deputy Pearse Doherty, that an independent body be established to cost alternative budget proposals. We fully support the idea, which would remove much of the ill-informed comments that accompany progressive suggestions each year. The Government's support of the Bill would be welcome as a sign, as we move towards a more mature debate, on the sort of tax policy we want.

See this speech in context