Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 24 Feb 1993

Vol. 426 No. 6

Financial Resolutions, 1993. - Financial Resolution No. 8: Income Levy.

I move Financial Resolution No. 8.

(1) THAT in this Resolution "contribution year" means a year of assessment within the meaning of the Income Tax Acts.

(2) THAT the provisions of section 16 (as amended by the Finance Act, 1984 (No. 9 of 1984) of the Finance Act, 1983 (No. 15 of 1983), shall apply and have effect for the contribution year 1993-94, as they applied and had effect for the contribution year 1984-85, as if—

(a) the following paragraph were substituted for paragraph (b) (inserted by the Finance Act, 1984) of subsection (2):

(b) the Youth Employment Levy Regulations, 1982 (S.I. No. 84 of 1982), the Youth Employment Levy (Amendment) Regulations, 1983 (S.I. No. 52 of 1983), the Employment and Training Levy (Amendment) Regulations, 1988 (S.I. No. 53 of 1988), and the Employment and Training Levy (Amendment) Regulations, 1989 (S.I. No. 69 of 1989) (referred to in this subsection as the Regulations'),",

(b) the following paragraph were inserted after paragraph (i) of subsection (2):

"(ia) in section 16 of the Act, paragraphs (c) and (d) shall be deleted and the following paragraph shall be substituted for paragraph (a):

‘(a) where in a contribution year a payment is made to or for the benefit of the employed contributor in respect of reckonable earnings of that employed contributor, levy shall be payable by the employed contributor at the rate of one per cent. of the amount of the reckonable earnings to which such payment relates:

Provided that levy payable pursuant to this section shall not be payable by an employed contributor who, by virtue of section 45 of the Act of 1970, has full eligibility for services under Part IV of that Act.'",

(c) in paragraph (v) (inserted by the Finance Act, 1984) of subsection (2), "the year 1993-94" were substituted for "the year 1983-84 or the year 1984-85", and

(d) in the proviso (inserted by the Finance Act, 1984), "£173" and "£9,000" were substituted for "£96" and "£5,000", respectively, and "1993-94" were substituted for "1984-85" in both places where it occurs.

(3) IT is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1927 (No. 7 of 1927).

This resolution anticipates legislation which will be contained in the Finance Bill to impose for the year 1993 to 1994 a temporary levy of 1 per cent on all income, on a similar basis to the existing health, employment and training levies. Effect will be given to the levy by way of re-activating and modifying the legislation relating to the income levy which was enforced in the period 1983 to 1986. Accordingly, the income levy as modified will be payable at a rate of 1 per cent by all individuals over 16 years of age but with a specific income exemption in order to protect the lower paid. In the case of the self-employed exemption will apply where income for the year is not greater than £9,000. In the case of employees the levy will not be payable in any week where income is not greater than £173.

In addition all medical card holders, including those whose income is more than £9,000 per annum, will be exempt from the levy. All social welfare payments will also be exempt from the new levy and such payments will not be taken into account in determining whether an individual qualifies for an income exemption from the levy.

Unlike existing levies, and the income levy which applied in the early 1980s, employers will not be liable to pay the new levy in respect of their employees who are medical card holders. The levy will be imposed on all income as estimated on the income tax under the Income Tax Acts, subject to allowable deductions in respect of approved superannuation contributions and, in the case of self-employed individuals, capital allowances. The income levy will be collected, like the employment and training levy, the health contribution levy and PRSI, by the Revenue Commissioner under the combined PAYE-PRSI collection system, and from the self-employed and farmers under the self-assessment system. It will be paid directly by the Revenue Commissioners to the Exchequer. It is expected that the yield from the levy will be £78 million in 1993. It is a contribution from those at work to help support those who are not at work. This type of levy was introduced in 1983 and was brought in at much lower exemption limits. It started at approximately £3,000 at that time. We have been careful to ensure that those at the bottom of the income scale are exempt in so far as is possible.

I oppose this proposal. It is a crude way to raise revenue. It clearly indicates that the Government found a gap in its budgetary calculations about two weeks ago. It could not get agreement on any proposals and decided that this was the simplest and quickest way to raise the money. By raising it in this way the Government is ensuring that all eligible income is levied. My understanding is that all eligible income, from the first pound earned, will be levied. This means that the allowances which this House decided people should be entitled to, for example, mortgage and personal allowances for a spouse, will not be considered in the calculation of the amount of the levy which must be paid. It is unfair not to consider these allowances against the levy.

If the Taoiseach had to raise £78 million by a levy on income, why did he not do so from within the income tax code by altering either rates or the allowances under the income tax code? Why did he resort to this crude system? I anticipate that the Taoiseach will use the argument that a similar levy was introduced in 1983. I do not accept that argument. At that time, another coalition Government involving the Labour Party was in office. On that occasion the Labour Party could not agree to other necessary measures. Finally, a levy of this kind was agreed to. The fact that this budget contains such a levy proves that the biggest mistake the Government made was failing to reach and publish a proper agreement on budgetary parameters by the respective parties before the Government was formed. This failure will mean that there will be more last minute tax dodges to fill the gap which cannot be filled because the parties involved in the Government are unable to agree to bridge the existing gap in the public finances.

This is an unfair tax. It does not make any allowance for mortgage interest payments or dependency costs and is levied on all income. Furthermore, it is a tax on jobs. Unemployment has increased to over 300,000 since the formation of the Government. Why, then, should the Government impose a tax on work in the first budget introduced since the barrier of 300,000 unemployed was broken? This is a tax on those who create work, such as employers, who must get the money from their cash flow, and it is a tax on those who take jobs because they are penalised. It is interesting to hear the Taoiseach announce that only people at work will pay this levy. Income which is not derived from work will be exempt. The exemptions which the Taoiseach has announced will increase the level of poverty.

With regard to medical cards, a situation could develop where a person would, perhaps, be £300 or £400 better off as a result of being £1 or £2 below the relevant income limit, thereby qualifying for a medical card. Extra marginal taxation will now be imposed on people once they are ineligible for a medical card. The number of levies they will have to pay as a result of losing the medical card and the other allowances will mean that the rate of taxation on the extra £1 earned, which puts people over the medical card limit, will be in the region of at least 500 per cent. Society should encourage people to do overtime, to work harder, to improve themselves and seek promotion in their business. This would increase their income above the medical card limit. However, people will now have an incentive not to work harder.

The introduction of this levy is a symptom of the onset of paralysis in this or any Government with regard to policy making. Within a month of its formation the Government is unable to make decisions about the budget. It has to resort to cheap and unjust stratagems. I am not proud of the fact that I was a member of a Government which also introduced these levies. When this coalition Government was formed without a proper budgetary agreement I predicted that such a levy would be introduced. It is unjust, unfair and is an indication of the complete political paralysis which has already afflicted this Government. I predict that this Government will introduce more levies in future budgets.

This aspect of the budget reflects the attitude of these two parties in Government. This income levy will make it difficult for those marginalised in society to earn a living. It is the most unjust and indefensible levy introduced by a Government in recent times. We are not talking about an isolated issue. The Minister describes it as a levy of only 1 per cent. However, the tax rate has not been reduced in the PAYE sector. PRSI, health levies and youth employment levies have increased and now we have another income levy. the Minister says that this is a once-off charge. That is patently untrue. The income this year will be approximately £78 million and £130 million in a full year, thus indicating the strategy that will be adopted by this Government in maintaining and keeping this levy in place.

I cannot understand how the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste, representating their parties in Government, can justify this levy while at the same time talking about job creation. This is not consistent with what has happened here this evening. It is a shock to workers struggling to survive as a result of increases in mortgage interest rates. The Minister must be aware of the trauma experienced by workers. What reward have these people received from this Government for whom they voted? They have been betrayed. Their present income level will not be maintained and further tax increases will be levied on them.

Members are aware of the number of people who see the medical card as a type of Holy Grail and the difficulties in dealing with this issue. We are reinforcing the dependency mentality which exists and which we have tried to reverse. With one stroke of the pen the Minister has undone the good work carried out over the last few years. The significance of the 1 per cent levy is greater than its financial impact, because it will change people's thinking and attitudes.

People, if they wish to exist in this society, would be better off working outside the system rather than accepting a low income job because the State will provide them with benefits and a medical card. This would be all right if millions of people were employed. However, 217,000 taxpayers are exempt from paying tax, approximately 300,000 are unemployed and a large section of the farming community are dependent on EC subsidies. This reduces the number in employment to approximately 500,000 who have to pay the taxes and levies which this Government is trying to impose in a distorted way. The net result will be to increase the number of unemployed and decrease the numbers employed.

This is a foretaste of the attitude of the parties in Government. They will look for easy solutions to budgetary difficulties. Within six weeks of taking office, we can see how this Government will act during the next 12 months. No financial or psychological incentives are being offered to encourage people to find work and become less dependent on the State.

Four or five years ago the only country comparable to eastern Europe, in terms of State dependency was this country. Eastern Europe has changed in recent years. Where is this country going? It is going down a road paved with failure in terms of employment and State dependency.

How can the Labour Party suggest that this is an enterprising and radical budget geared towards job creation? It is insulting to people seeking employment or those struggling to maintain an adequate standard of living. These people are encouraged to depend on the State. Many people leave jobs because their salaries are not sufficient to encourage them to stay at work and be productive.

The act of betrayal perpetrated in this House is the beginning of the end of a policy which was in place for the past few years and which was beneficial. This policy has been abandoned. No plan or programme has been outlined in this budget. No incentives have been offered to people seeking employment or in employment. People will pay more tax and will not be adequately compensated for the work they have done. Both the financial and psychological impact of this budget will cause considerable damage.

This 1 per cent levy is a cowardly tax in a cowardly budget.

Hear, hear.

It is cowardly because it is not described as a tax and it fails to draw any distinction between rich and poor or differentiate between people's ability to pay tax.

The Programme for a Partnership Government is peppered with references to equity and equality. It is an extraordinary concept of equity which taxes rich and poor alike. This tax is a tax on the poor. I am not convinced by the argument advanced by the Minister for Finance that there is an income exemption in order to protect the lower paid. He defined this income exemption by describing the Government's concept of the lower paid. If one earns under £173 per week, one is considered by this Government to be in the lower income bracket. If one earns over £173 per week one is considered to be in the higher income bracket and subject to the same tax regime as somebody on £100,000 per year. The sum of £173 per week is the basic income of a low grade local authority worker and it is the income earned by workers marching outside the gates of this House.

They are those who, if they live in local authority housing, are subject to the highest rates of rent. They do not qualify for a medical card or for any benefits available from the State. They are also becoming resentful at paying increasing amounts of taxation, qualifying for no benefits and having little pay in their pockets. They are increasingly questioning whether it is worth their while, apart from their commitment and wish to be doing a productive day's work, to go out to work in the first instance. This 1 per cent tax will be the final straw for many low-paid workers who are charged higher rent on their houses, and lose their medical card benefit. In many cases, they do not qualify for student grants or any other benefits. The Government classifies them in the same category as the higher paid. This tax is regressive and it should be rejected by this House.

An Leass-Cheann Comhairle

We have five minutes remaining and it is normal to allow the Taoiseach an opportunity to reply.

It is obvious the Taoiseach cannot reply to that.

I will be brief and I will not repeat the points already ably made from this side of the House. Frankly, this income levy beggars description. Its dishonesty strikes me more than anything else. It is dishonest in two parts; first, it is an increase in taxation and the Minister for Finance and the Taoiseach should have been honest enough to call it this instead of trading it off as a levy. Second, we know — perhaps the Taoiseach will be good enough to admit this to this House — that it is not temporary.

There is a specific question I wish to ask. Will occupational pensioners be required to pay this extra levy? They are already irate at paying health levies, and youth employment levies and so on. They have given a lifetime of service and are now having these levies imposed on their pensions. I hope the Taoiseach will clarify tonight that these will not apply to pensioners who are subject to the other levies.

I am sure the Taoiseach will be anxious to reply in full to what we have to say. Like previous speakers, I want to register my total contempt for this very selective and cynical imposition on the hard-pressed taxpayers. At a time when jobs are at a premium and people are looking for inspiration from this Government, they are disastrously let down. It was suggested that there was a golden circle that had to be tackled soon, but is this the way and means that have been found to do this? It this the golden circle we were told about?

A noose around the taxpayers' necks.

Those people earning £9,000 upwards — including those who were led to believe, during the course of the recent general election, that they would have free third level education — have been struck again. It is not a pre-emptive strike but a selective, cynical and negative one, at a time when many are grossly overburdened and becoming more cynical about politics. Unfortunately this act will lend greatly to that cynicism.

As usual, Fine Gael have a hard neck trying to call this a crude and unfair tax. I would like to repeat what they said when they brought in this exemption levy in 1983 at an earnings level of £3,000. Ours is at £9,000 and excludes 509,700 of the 1.1 million workforce. A further 300,000 are also exempt.

There are 300,000 people unemployed now.

That is the reality. The levy applies from earnings of £9,000 upwards, unless part of the income comes from social welfare and if that is so, it is discounted.

(Interruptions.)

I have only three minutes remaining. I know you do not want to hear it because the truth always hurts. I do not pay much attention to what the Progressive Democrats say in relation to their tax/jobs policy because it is based on a false assumption that hundreds of thousands of jobs would be created if taxation was lowered. Jobs can be provided in this economy when the world recession——

The Taoiseach never understood tax reform.

I know the Deputy does not want to listen. More jobs will be created when more of our goods and services are bought. It is a false assumption that by lowering taxes, everyone will walk into a job.

Why did the Government put rates up by 90 per cent?

The Taoiseach has no money.

(Interruptions.)

In 1983, Fine Gael faced a similarly difficult budgetary situation. What was the Fine Gael response in 1983? They imposed a temporary 1 per cent levy on earnings of £3,000 upwards.

The Taoiseach is doing it now.

What else did they do? The Fine Gael Minister for Finance in 1983 — Deputy McDowell was a member of that party in 1983——

I resigned from it because of your tax policies.

They increased the VAT rate to 35 per cent; it is now down to 21 per cent. The top rate of tax was increased to 65 per cent it is now down to 48 per cent.

And we forced Fianna Fáil to bring it down.

(Interruptions.)

There was no widening of tax bands of any kind, but there was an increase of 6p on beer, 8p on spirits, 15 on petrol — do Deputies want me to continue? Are they embarrassed to hear any more?

What about pensioners?

(Interruptions.)

Deputies should never make a case against what they have done previously and call it by a different name. They have no credibility, as usual.

(Interruptions.)

An Leass-Cheann Comhairle

As it is now past 10.45 p.m., I am required to put the following question, in accordance with an order of the Dáil of this day: "That Financial Resolution No. 8 is hereby agreed to."

The Dáil divided: Tá, 91; Níl, 51.

  • Ahern, Dermot.
  • Ahern, Michael.
  • Ahern, Noel.
  • Andrews, David.
  • Aylward, Liam.
  • Broughan, Tommy.
  • Browne, John (Wexford).
  • Burke, Raphael P.
  • Burton, Joan.
  • Byrne, Hugh.
  • Callely, Ivor.
  • Collins, Gerard.
  • Connolly, Ger.
  • Costello, Joe.
  • Coughlan, Mary.
  • Cowen, Brian. Davern, Noel.
  • Dempsey, Noel.
  • de Valera, Síle.
  • Doherty, Seán.
  • Ellis, John.
  • Ferris, Michael.
  • Fitzgerald, Brian.
  • Fitzgerald, Eithne.
  • Fitzgerald, Liam.
  • Flood, Chris.
  • Foley, Denis.
  • Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
  • Gallagher, Pat.
  • Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
  • Haughey, Seán.
  • Higgins, Michael D.
  • Howlin, Brendan.
  • Hughes, Séamus.
  • Hyland, Liam.
  • Jacob, Joe.
  • Kavanagh, Liam.
  • Kemmy, Jim.
  • Kenneally, Brendan.
  • Kenny, Seán.
  • Killeen, Tony.
  • Kirk, Séamus.
  • Kitt, Michael P.
  • Lawlor, Liam.
  • Lenihan, Brian.
  • Leonard, Jimmy.
  • Bell, Michael.
  • Bhamjee, Moosajee.
  • Bhreathnach, Niamh.
  • Bree, Declan.
  • Briscoe, Ben.
  • Martin, Michael.
  • McCreevy, Charlie.
  • McDaid, James.
  • McDowell, Derek.
  • Moffatt, Tom.
  • Morley, P.J.
  • Moynihan, Donal.
  • Moynihan-Cronin, Breeda.
  • Mulvihill, John.
  • Nolan, M.J.
  • Noonan, Michael (Limerick West).
  • Ó Cuív, Éamon.
  • O'Dea, Willie.
  • O'Donoghue, John.
  • O'Hanlon, Rory.
  • O'Keeffe, Batt.
  • O'Keeffe, Ned.
  • O'Rourke, Mary.
  • O'Shea, Brian.
  • O'Sullivan, Gerry.
  • O'Sullivan, Toddy.
  • Pattison, Séamus.
  • Penrose, William.
  • Power, Seán.
  • Reynolds, Albert.
  • Ryan, Eoin.
  • Ryan, John.
  • Ryan, Seán.
  • Shortall, Róisín.
  • Smith, Brendan.
  • Smith, Michael.
  • Spring, Dick.
  • Stagg, Emmet.
  • Taylor, Mervyn.
  • Treacy, Noel.
  • Upton, Pat.
  • Wallace, Dan.
  • Wallace, Mary.
  • Walsh, Eamon.
  • Walsh, Joe.

Níl

  • Ahearn, Theresa.
  • Allen, Bernard.
  • Barrett, Seán.
  • Barry, Peter.
  • Boylan, Andrew.
  • Bradford, Paul.
  • Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
  • Bruton, John.
  • Bruton, Richard.
  • Burke, Liam.
  • Carey, Donal.
  • Clohessy, Peadar.
  • Connaughton, Paul.
  • Connor, John.
  • Crawford, Seymour.
  • Creed, Michael.
  • Cullen, Martin.
  • Currie, Austin.
  • Deasy, Austin.
  • Deenihan, Jimmy.
  • De Rossa, Proinsias.
  • Nealon, Ted.
  • O'Donnell, Liz.
  • O'Keeffe, Jim.
  • O'Malley, Desmond J.
  • Doyle, Avril.
  • Dukes, Alan M.
  • Durkan, Bernard J.
  • Finucane, Michael.
  • Fitzgerald, Frances.
  • Flaherty, Mary.
  • Flanagan, Charles.
  • Foxe, Tom.
  • Gilmore, Eamon.
  • Harney, Mary.
  • Higgins, Jim.
  • Hogan, Philip.
  • Kenny, Enda.
  • Keogh, Helen.
  • McDowell, Michael.
  • McGahon, Brendan.
  • McGinley, Dinny.
  • McGrath, Paul.
  • McManus, Liz.
  • Mitchell, Jim.
  • Molloy, Robert.
  • Owen, Nora.
  • Quill, Máirín.
  • Shatter, Alan.
  • Timmins, Godfrey.
  • Yates, Ivan.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Dempsey and Ferris; Níl, Deputies E. Kenny and Keogh.
Question declared carried.
Top
Share