Sean Barrett (Independent) | Oireachtas source

These taxes of €160 and €260 apply on the very first euro of income and amount to a poll tax. This measure has been transferred from Thatcherite England and has been embraced by parties I knew as the Labour Party of Noel Browne and the Fine Gael Party of the just society. Why are these parties addicted to this poll tax? When water was financed through income tax, it was a progressive form of taxation - as income increased so too did tax rates. This is how things worked historically and it will continue, to an extent, because the measures in this Bill will work in conjunction with income tax. When society got together, income tax was made progressive so that a sixfold increase in income for a family of four would see a fourteenfold increase in income tax. Progressive taxation means the redistribution of wealth from those with incomes well above the average to those less fortunate. It is appalling that the same water tax will apply to all people, regardless of income.

The anti-water charge protesters in Maynooth were poor people who were on their uppers. They do not have the money that the Government seeks and they resent the fact that the established political parties have deserted people with low incomes and are imposing these taxes at the behest of the water industry. These protesters pose the same threat to the Fine Gael and Labour parties as bankers to the last Government. This Bill is about water engineers and not ordinary people, and that is why hundreds of thousands of people have protested. A similar situation arose around the referendum on the abolition of the Seanad when 68% of people in working class areas of Dublin voted to retain this House. People are disillusioned with the Government parties because they have deserted them.

Irish public life has always had broad-based political parties that seek to help the badly-off. There is much support in working class areas for Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and the Labour Party but these parties are deserting the people. The Minister should look out the window at the next march because he will see people who do not have the money to pay these charges. Progressive taxation is enshrined at the heart of social policy in this country but this is an extremely bad piece of social policy. This measure is worse than the USC, which Jack O'Connor is trying to reform, because at least one can earn €12,012 before the USC is imposed. After one earns €12,012, the tax is imposed on every cent. It is very regressive to deal with people on low incomes as this section does.

Section 3(12) is also strange as it states that "a child allowance provided under the approved water charges plan applies to a person who is not an adult". Have there ever been babies or children in the houses of those who framed this Bill? Do they know that infants require washing just as much as adults?

When children play football outside, they need to wash themselves afterwards. Why does this ageist discrimination exist? It proves to me that the people who framed this part of the Bill are out of touch with families. The ESRI has been pointing out for several years that budgetary policy is increasingly regressive. Those who protested against water charges were not rich people who left the Mercedes at home while they walked into town. They were badly off and they have been shunted towards the Independents and Sinn Féin. I prefer a more broadly based political system, but hitting those who have hardly any income betrays everything we should be celebrating in a couple of years' time. Why is the Minister targeting people who do not have €260 to spare at the end of the charging period? This is extremely bad social policy and extremely bad economics. This is the chance for those Independent Senators who claim to cherish people while they are down on their luck to throw out this regressive section. That is why I oppose the section.