Paul Bradford (Fine Gael)

Due to the time restriction I did not have an opportunity to speak on Second Stage, so I apologise for arriving rather late to the debate. This amendment is part of the broader debate on where we are proceeding with taxation from the point of view of fairness and equality.

The Senator who moved the amendment will have to recognise the fact that every consideration of the Irish tax and economic situation points towards the broadening of the tax base and that some type of property tax or household charge must be part of that equation. One could say the amendment is worthy. I often wonder about the role and the worth of the ESRI and its definition of the poverty index. It is quite interesting. I never thought we would be debating two pairs of strong shoes, a warm waterproof coat and eating meals of meat and so forth. If we were to apply that to every charge, levy and tax in a very strict fashion, about 95% of taxpayers in the country should not be paying tax.

I am unaware of what Senator Landy said about the demand that persons with an annual income of less than €75,000 should be exempt from this tax. I have occasionally tuned into the debates initiated by Sinn Féin on taxation and have heard the party's catch-all phrase about taxing the greedy, not the needy so I am relieved that under the new Sinn Féin agenda an annual income of €75,000 is deemed to be low. However, we must be realistic. We live in a financially bankrupt country. We are borrowing hundreds of millions of euro every week to keep our economy ticking over and, sadly, the money must come from somewhere. There is no perfect or fair taxation system because there will always be people who suffer excessively. I do not see how we can accept this amendment.

The €100 charge is not excessive. Of all the taxes and charges introduced over the past number of years the one that succeeded in bringing in more money than expected, was easy to collect and over which there was little public outcry was the tax on second houses. Many of my constituents reported to me that while they could have challenged the tax and argued that the second house was not eligible to be taxed, the fact that the amount was small and it was possible to pay it on-line meant that they did pay it. Taxation must be easy to pay and to administer. The more exemptions that are put in place, the more difficult it will be to collect.

I am not sneering at the amendment or what the ESRI deems to be the basis for deciding whether a person is poor or rich.