Damien English (Meath West, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the changes to the USC and the tax bands. Contrary to the opinion that the higher rate of tax kicks in too late for some, we have to recognise, as Deputy Ó Cuív mentioned, that we are in a constant competition for talent and if our taxes on jobs are too high, we will lose jobs. I have listened to debates here inside out and upside since 2011 on the tax policy of the three governments since then. The recognition the approach has been right is shown in today's employment statistics, which show the guts of 800,000 jobs have been added since that year. This shows the last three governments have got tax policy on job creation and protecting jobs correct. It means in many sectors we use little carrots and sticks to encourage those with wealth to spend it here and invest it here, be it in research and development or other areas, to invest it in their business and put it back into their business. That is all with a view to job creation, not a view to making them richer, which is the picture painted here by an awful lot of people. They think that is what we are about; it is not. We are about generating an economy that can then be used to fuel the investment we need in housing, education, health and everywhere else it is called for day after day in this House.

We sat here and had many discussions in 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016 when we only had less than €1 billion to spend on housing and an ask to spend more. Now we are spending €6 or €7 billion of taxpayers' money on housing, along with other money. Nobody in opposition ever asks what happened to bring us from €1 billion to €6 billion. It is because the country has been run right with the right policies to bring in the right amount of tax. None of us likes paying tax, be it income tax, USC or any of it. Deputy Boyd Barrett is right. I would have loved to have been able to get rid of the USC, but it is not realistic. It is realistic to try to cut in at it as the Minister has done again this year by taking another percentage point off it and in general get us back down there at the same time as protecting our public finances and ensuring we are investing them properly, which is what we are trying to do here. The key to that is job creation. Debate after debate here gives the impression it is all about trying to make those who create the jobs wealthier, but it is not about that. Many of those people take extra risk and it is when they have their business at a certain size and have created a certain amount of employment that we are trying to ask them to go further, take on more risk and expand into international markets. I see policies from other parties in opposition that also encourage the same thing. They are speaking out of two sides of their mouths because if they are asking those businesses to take that risk, there has to also be some reward.

Most importantly, we have to ensure their employees are always encouraged to take on the extra work. We need the person to come in and do an extra shift at the weekend to maybe generate more ideas and to think in a quiet time of a new concept or something else in research in development. If we tax them too high, why would anybody with that expertise come in to do the extra couple of hours or the extra shift? Why would they if the government is going to put its hand in, take out 55% or 56% and put it in its pocket? The money would be well spent, but an individual will not be encouraged to put their brain to work for that extra time if too much of their money is taken away. That is why it is important the Minister is bringing the point where the higher rate of tax kicks in up. We must remember we are constantly competing for talent. There are many different incentives here. There are a lot of changes we will not even get to that are supporting SMEs, investment in SMEs, putting funds back in and rewarding that, as well as startups. It is about the right environment and we are making the changes bit by bit. I will always say that from an enterprise point of view we do not make them quick enough, but we are on the right path. Every year I see progressive changes here to the system that will create jobs. That is so important because too many people in here forget where we back in 2011 when we were scrambling to find jobs and there was misery out there. That has completely changed.

It is quoted that people are leaving the country and this, that and the other. Whenever you look at those articles and see the headline it always tells you how many thousand left the country and it is only when you go down into the article you will see how many came home. Generally, in the last couple of years, I am thankful it has been an equal number coming home. There are more coming in in total, but those coming home nearly always equal those who are leaving. Our job as legislators and as the people in charge of the public finances is to ensure people have the option to stay here and people have the option to come home. People did not have those options many times in the country’s history, but fortunately they have them now. Our job is to ensure that job is still there in three, five, 15 and 20 years. That is why all the decisions the Minister has led on in this budget, which were across the three parties, are about making sure those options and choices will still be there in five, 15 and 20 years. It is about putting resources in now to protect the public finances in future and by investing in infrastructure now for the long term.

Of course, there are always going to be challenging times when it comes to housing. I have no doubt about that. There is no doubt we missed a couple of years where unfortunately we were unable to invest in housing, but fortunately we are on the right track now and people have the choice to come back home. There are numerous schemes there to avail of, but we have to stick at it and continue with it. When we have policies that work like the help-to-buy scheme, the home equity scheme and the various schemes we know are now working, that other parties are even considering changing them in a general election is a really unstable way to go with the country. After all the years of trying to make these changes, we are getting it right. How do we know we are getting it right? We see the activity in housing coming up to the level we want to get to. Again, I hear people quoting mad figures of going to 80,000 or 90,000 homes per year. That will bring us back to where we were before. It has to be a steady, progressive increase in supply every year to a level that is sustainable, and that needs to keep going for 20 or 30 years. That is really important. It is about the numbers at work and then a progressive tax system. Please do not tell me we do not have a progressive tax system. Every one of us can pick out a category of people and say one got €50 and another €150. It is the percentages you look at to see progressivity, as the Minister will say. To see a progressive tax policy it is the percentages you look at, not an individual sample of someone who got €20 and someone who got €50. It is the percentages and they are right. They were always progressive in the last number of budgets we have been responsible for.

See this speech in context