Mick Wallace (Wexford, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 9, between lines 28 and 29, to insert the following:

“(2) The sum of the difference between €135 and €140 will only be paid to those already in receipt of social assistance and/or social insurance payment.”.

I speak on behalf of Deputy Thomas Pringle who wants to introduce this amendment. His idea is to try to target the increase at those most in need of an increase. It retains the universality of the payment by not cutting it to the better off but by ensuring that the increase goes to those in receipt of a social welfare payment, it means that those in most need will get the increase. If the Government accepted the amendment, it would also mean that in the future, increases could be targeted, which is in line with the recommendations of most of the social justice groups. It would not be administratively difficult because all of those people would already be known to the Department by having a primary payment or they would be a dependant adult on their parents' payment. The only possible difficulty would be the family income support and that would simply require the person to identify who was claiming the child benefit through their PPS number.

The idea of paying every woman the children’s allowance is not such a bad one because, generally speaking, to do otherwise has huge administrative costs. I agree that the best form of taxation is direct taxation. Giving child benefit to everybody provided that those who can best afford to pay do so through direct taxation is the best model. Research was done by Michael Taft of TASC on the abolition of the universal social charge. He made the point that it was probably the most direct form of taxation we had. He said it was the best anti-avoidance tax we had and that the truly comfortable classes can drive a coach and four through income tax with all the reliefs, allowances and exemptions but with the universal social charge they could hire an army of accountants but it would not do them much good. He said the universal social charge attaches itself to gross wages with very few and mostly minor reliefs. He went on to point out that more than half a million people in this country earned less than €15,000 a year and the majority of them were not paying the universal social charge anyway and, accordingly, budget 2016 did not change anything for them. He pointed out that the biggest beneficiaries were the top 20% households and, on average, they would get nearly twice the benefit as the squeezed middle. I agree with him that it was probably a retrograde step in terms of the progressive nature of direct taxation.

In terms of Deputy Pringle’s amendment, if we are not going to increase direct taxation for those who are better off, in terms of an increase in benefit, rather than give €5 to everybody, perhaps we should examine how much the State is prepared to spend on this measure and give it all to those who most need it, who happen to be already in receipt of a social welfare payment.

See this speech in context