Sean Barrett (Independent) | Oireachtas source

There is a certain amount of mystification as to how reducing a tax break from ¤3 million to ¤1 million will cost the taxpayer money. As always, I was actually trying to save the Minister some money. A few minutes ago, the Minister of State praised the increase in capital gains tax, so why are we giving away ¤3 million tax free? The explanatory memorandum states that this section ensures relief from capital gains tax to apply to disposals where the consideration is ¤3 million or less. The Minister of State praised capital gains tax a few minutes but we are giving away ¤3 million. It is a general feature of the Bill and I think we will have to remedy it for future years.

What is the case for this? It cannot just be slipped in towards the end of a very long Bill. Part of the economic analysis would be that in robbing Peter to pay Paul, one would easily get Paul's support. Somebody will be ¤3 million better off. I am not sure that Paul is a deserving person. He is obviously very rich, because I do not know anybody who has walked off with ¤3 million tax free, quite a successful lobbyist - lobbyists have done damage to this country - and well got in lobbying circles. He could be a large landowner or a high net worth individual. I do not know anybody who could benefit from this.

The problem with all these tax breaks and grants is that they are capitalised in higher asset prices anyway, so one is making it more difficult for somebody who does not have ¤3 million to give away. Outside that circle, the price of the assets will go up and that precipitated asset bubbles before, as the Minister of State has said.

We are saying to the people in the smallest houses to pay their property tax but this section offers ¤3 million tax free. I did not know the Exchequer was so full of money that we were giving away ¤3 million. Who is this for? It stresses the need for the cost benefit analysis and the regulatory impact analysis. I would admire the brass neck of anybody who could emerge with ¤3 million from the Exchequer when the rest of us are being called upon to bear more burdens. Why is this ¤3 million man so deserving?