Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 9, between lines 11 and 12, to insert the following:

“4.The Minister shall, within 6 months of the passing of this Act, bring a report on the additional revenue that could be raised by introducing new tax bands for earnings over €100,000 as follows:(a) earnings between €100,000 and €140,000 - 50 per cent,

(b) earnings between €140,000 and €180,000 - 55 per cent,

(c) earnings between €180,000 and €250,000 - 60 per cent,

(d) earnings over €250,000 - 65 per cent.”.

I will be more brief this time because I have made most of the points. In response to the Minister's last point, the inequality in the distribution of income leads directly to the inequality in the distribution of wealth that Piketty has identified. In fact, all the studies of the two show as much. Once a person has higher income or surplus income over and above what he or she needs to pay the mortgage, survive and pay day-to-day costs, he or she can then begin to develop capital. The person can start to make money out of money. That is the problem with the system. Once a person reaches over a certain threshold of income, the surplus available can start to self-expand. One can invest in property, shares and all manner of things that allow one to start to make money for doing nothing.

We imagine that is fair and legitimate. However, the problem is that when one person makes money, it does not come out of thin air. The person is taking it from someone else. If a person invests in property and is making money out of money because he or she has invested in property, who is losing out? It is the person who is paying the rent he or she cannot afford. That is how one thing leads to another. The inequality in the distribution of income leads to the inequality in the distribution of wealth.

Unless that is addressed, we will continue to see the gap grow, and it is growing. The Minister says our social transfers somewhat ameliorate the inequality. It is true that the Irish social welfare system somewhat ameliorates the inequality of income and wealth distribution but it only slows the growth in the gap. It is not stopping the growth in the gap. It somewhat slows the gap compared with jurisdictions that have no social welfare system. Everywhere in the western world the gap is growing. It is growing all the time at an exponential and obscene rate.

We need policies of radical redistribution using the tax system. I do not accept the Minister's suggestion that somehow this is an unsustainable narrowing of the tax base. The problem is that low and middle-income people are not only hit with the ordinary tax bands and the universal social charge, they are also hit disproportionately by myriad indirect taxes. People are now paying taxes for things that they used to get because they paid tax. Consequently, they are paying twice. We used to get our bins paid for because we paid our tax. Now, we pay €5, €10, €15, €20 or €25 per month. That is a new tax. The Minister can call it a charge if he wishes, but in reality for low and middle-income people that is a new tax. When a motorist has to pay God knows how much in parking charges every day to get to work, something he did not have to pay for previously, it is a tax. Public transport costs are rising constantly and public transport is seen as something that has to be commercially feasible and profitable rather than something that we need to make the economy and society function. In reality, the increases in public transport costs are hidden taxes. Moreover, they disproportionately hit the less well-off. We can go through the list of public service obligation taxes and so on, all of which disproportionately hit people on low and middle incomes.

Of course we must look at the whole package in the whole. Anyway, these amendments propose to make a radical move in the direction of redistributing income. Anything less will simply see the continual increase in the gap between the haves and the have-nots that has reached obscene and unacceptable levels.

See this speech in context