Sean Barrett (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 74:

In page 70, subsection (1), line 23, after ?section.? to insert the following:
?Any variation of a Debt Settlement Arrangement made pursuant to this section arising from an increase in the debtor?s means shall not require the arranging debtor to increase any payment made to creditors in an amount constituting more than 65 per cent of the increase in the debtor?s means.?.

The purpose of this amendment is to ensure the person will keep working as that is the Minister's intention, which we support. Our concern is that with a 52% marginal rate of tax, made up of 41% income tax, 4% PRSI and 7% universal social charge the remainder comes to only 48%, of which the bank gets 24%. When we combine all these liabilities, the person trying to pay off his insolvency situation is on a marginal tax rate of 76%. We found that in insolvency cases in Scandinavia, this rate is capped at 65%. We want to ensure the person continues to work and that he has some reward greater than a mere 24%. Even the most scarifying headlines in the newspapers do no propose we should take 76% taxes from people, but that is de facto what would happen in this case. The general economic point is that we want the person to keep working, so we should allow him at least one-third of what he earns. It is more an economic amendment than a legal one.