Alex White (Labour)

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 6, between lines 26 and 27, to insert the following subsection:

"(3) No deduction shall be made under this section in respect of a person whose remuneration is below €18,000 per year.".

The amendment speaks for itself in seeking to exclude from the remit of the levy persons whose remuneration is less than €18,000 per annum. This issue also arose the last time we were dealing with an income levy, and this is in fact an income levy. It arose in the autumn in respect of the previous levy. The Minister and the Government agreed to vary and amend the terms of the levy to exclude persons earning below a particular salary from being captured by it, even though that was not included in the original measure. The same argument applies in this case.

The Minister of State became a little frustrated earlier in respect that Members are raising questions, problems and anomalies and he said the Government must raise the revenue. I do not know the history of taxation as a means of raising revenue and ensuring equity in an economy in detail but it is long. Over and over again, the Minister of State and the Government are running into roadblocks with this measure. They will not be prevented from passing the measure but the roadblocks relate to logic and consistency. The most recent issue raised by Senator O'Reilly is only one such example. Earlier the Minister of State gave a general account of the categories of persons captured by the levy and the overall rubric was persons who were members of a public service pension scheme. When Senator O'Reilly raised the issue relating to local authority members, the Minister of State had to clarify that other categories of persons were affected. It transpires a local authority member must pay the levy because he or she is paid a gratuity. The relationship, therefore, between this levy and the question of pensions is fading to such an extent that it has virtually disappeared because it is no more than tenuous.

Why cannot we face up to the fact that this is essentially at root, as the Minister of State acknowledged, a revenue generating measure? Can we not recognise that we do not have to reinvent the wheel in respect of raising revenue across the community because we have a taxation system? I accept the urgent need to raise revenue. I will not beat around the bush because I recognise this is as plain as a pikestaff. We can argue about how we arrived at this point but, manifestly, there is a need to raise revenue. The taxation system is the tried and tested means over generations in different economies of raising revenue. It not only allows the State to raise the revenue needed, it also allows the State to do so in a progressive and fair manner. The Government has become entangled in various levies. Questions were raised about the lower paid and the Government must go back to the drawing board to take them out. However, it has now introduced a pension levy, which is a tax that dare not speak its name. Why does the Government not push all the nonsense off the table and say it wants to discuss raising revenue in a fair and progressive manner? We have a taxation system with which to do that.

Clearly, taxes need to be, and should be, increased in this circumstance fairly and equitably across the board. I have repeatedly stated a proper mix of taxes is needed relating to property, income and so on. I do not accept that is purely a technical question for the Commission on Taxation. I admire many of its members but that is fundamentally a political question. There is no bigger political question to be dealt with than taxation and public expenditure. First, what public services do we want? Second, how are they paid for? Third, how will the taxation system, which has evolved over many years under Governments of various colours and persuasions, be used?

The amendment addresses people who earn less than €18,000 annually and, clearly, they should be excluded from the measure. Deputy Bruton pointed out in the Lower House that on the basis of the Government's statistics, only 20,000 workers earn less than this amount. Why can they not be taken out of the picture? The Minister of State will refer to banding and the technical aspects of the system when he replies. However, this points up the absurdity of the Government parties allowing themselves to be entangled in levies. What will be the next levy? The Minister does not need to reinvent the wheel because a taxation system is in place.